BuggBlog

Some fundamentals of faggotry

2013-01-05T16:23:55-05:00

Fair warning, there's a lot of foul and offensive language ahead.

So Gawker is up with a qualified defense of Azealia Banks's Friday night faggot-fest smackdown on Perez Hilton on Twitter (admirably rounded up in almost realtime by the ever intrepid Chris Geidner). Short recap: Banks called Hilton a faggot; asked "does your butthole whistle? Like is your butthole so stretched and raggedy the air whistles when you move?"; announced that "A faggot is not a homosexual male. A faggot is any male who acts like a female. There's a BIG difference."; and capped it all off by noting that she should have just said Hilton "acts like a cunt."

Pretty offensive stuff, although not the nastiest stuff ever seen on Twitter. Lots of people (including myself) were appalled and said so, etc. Others assume that because Banks is openly bisexual she gets a pass on using "faggot" as a slur and being all around nasty about effeminate men. Rick Juzwiak at Gawker takes that latter point of view:

As a troll, Azealia's primary function is to speak recklessly, which is why she does things likebristle when Angel Haze mocks her skin tone (to be fair, "charcoal skinned bitch" was the lowest of the low blows in their exchange), but has no problem mocking the size of Angel's breasts. It's why an ally to gay men and a member of their larger community can use the word "faggot" as an insult. It's why her definition of the word "cunt" has elasticity. She communicates from the gut and her grab for attention leaves a sting.

Yeah, not really, at least as it comes to "faggot." First off, everyone's focusing on her use of "faggot" but not on the really vile "does your butthole whistle?" which, like "faggot," is the kind of slur gay men hear a lot. How about this: If I decided to go after a famous lesbian on Twitter, call her a "dyke" and ask "does your gaping pussy queef every time you move?" I would be hounded to the ends of the Twitter and no one at Gawker would be putting up defenses on my behalf that because I'm a gay, foul-mouthed, egomaniac publicity whore it's all okay. And that would be the exactly right thing to happen.

For a species built around language, we really suck at words. It takes a lot of talent to use offensive language in public in a way that's not offensive. If you're wondering if you should try, you probably shouldn't, given that the odds are against you being the next Louis C.K. or Lisa Lampanelli. But if you're going to scream "faggot" in a crowded public sphere be ready to take the consequences.

To me, at least, it's pretty obvious which words I can use with certain people, in certain situations, in private. I'm more than happy to say "faggot" among friends -- "Oh my god you are such a fag!" -- but I don't use it with straight people. I don't use it in public often (except, you know, right now) and I have a really strong negative reaction when I hear anyone who's not a faggot say "faggot."

I have maybe a few lesbian friends that I would jokingly call a "dyke," but I don't recall ever doing so. Being gay doesn't mean I can toss that or any other slur around in public. Same goes for "tranny."

My husband is Vietnamese, which means he and I will both sometimes make racial jokes to each other that I wouldn't put on Twitter. Being married to an Asian doesn't give me permission to call any Asian I'm pissed at a "chink" (and I've never called my husband a "chink" either). My cousin-in-law sometimes comes home and says, "Herro!" and I say, "Chingy chingy chong" (an in-joke we have about my ongoing inability to learn Vietnamese). But if I walked into an Asian night at a gay bar and broke out with the "chingy-chong" or hit on guys with "wanna be my geisha" I would richly deserve a punch in the face.

And so on. Different unspoken, but not incomprehensible, rules for what language we can use. I know there's all kinds of white people out there who feel it is the greatest injustice ever that they can't say "nigger" even though all those black people on TV and in movies and on the radio say it all the time. There are more and more people convinced that because they have a friend or a neighbor or a co-worker or a favorite movie star who's [gay/black/trans/latino/whatever] they get to use the chummy, offensive language we use amongst ourselves.

You don't. You want to be an asshole? Fine. Stop whining when people note it. And everyone else stop making excuses for them when they do it.

Just to be clear, this is how 2013 is going to go

2012-12-02T19:23:16-05:00

I just posted this on Facebook, and will do so again more than once this coming week, but I thought I should also share it here:

So, I just had someone ask me about a "rumor" that Metro Weekly hasn't published in three weeks. Aside from the fact that it's demonstrably false -- we took off Thanksgiving in print only, which we communicated multiple times through the magazine and web site -- I know that there are about eight to ten people who have been spreading these kinds of rumors over the past two years or so. My favorite was sitting by for 24 months while as certain someone claimed, "Metro Weekly is going out of business in three months."

I know who you are. I've been inclined to ignore you because that's what I generally do with people like you. But if this goes one step further, then I'm done ignoring you. And I know this message will reach every one of you. Learn to play nice and enjoy the holidays. Or not. Your choice.

iTunes now and forever, god help us all

2012-11-30T20:46:25-05:00

Given Apple’s skeumorphism fetish of late, making onscreen calendars into leather-trimmed nonsense and a game-center home screen taken from a Las Vegas backwater casino and so on, I suppose we should all just be glad that the new iTunes 11 isn’t built around a visual metaphor of a 1970s high-end turntable. Count your blessings, etc.

But all the other problems with the new iTunes aside -- and even some of the pleasant things -- I simply do not understand why, in 2012, when I’ve purchased a book on iTunes for use in iBooks I can’t read the damn thing on my computer. I buy an e-book on Kindle and its almost guaranteed I can read it on my Kitchen-Aid stand mixer if that’s the nearest appliance in a pinch. I try to read an iBooks e-book and I’m immediately told to go find another device, sucker.

This is why I don’t buy iBooks anymore, even if I can’t buy Kindle books directly from my iPad Kindle reader. I’d jump through flaming e-hoops to purchase the Kindle version of a book rather than the Apple version, since Amazon (for all its faults) will at least let me read the book on more than on or two damn devices.

I still loooooove Apple hardware and OS X, but the software increasingly makes me wonder why I stick around for this. Just try and use Pages or Numbers in an actual professional capacity. It's even worse than trying to play movies on a program perplexingly still named "tunes."

Dear naked older gentleman in the gym locker room

2012-11-27T17:27:55-05:00

Look, I get that you have no problem being naked while you go about your obsessively intricate pre- and post-workout routine. Whereas most of us consider nudity to be a transitional state between clothed and unclothed, for you it is obviously something a bit more, a relaxing part of your day when you can let everything swing free and that you look forward the way I do to grabbing a beer and firing up the Xbox.

But please, for the love of all that’s holy, stop doing your convoluted naked stretching routines and workouts in the steam room. When you’re in a room about the size of a hatbox filled with a) three other people and b) hot, vaporized water through which we all can still see, it is impossible for you to grab your toes and show your ass like a cat in heat without getting your junk all up in someone else’s business. This tiny little room is not the appropriate place for you to plop down on your back with your head three inches from my thigh and start doing Village People hip thrusts at the tiled ceiling.

Hell, the place could be the size of a Versailles ballroom and it still wouldn’t be the appropriate place.

Please, enjoy your god-given nakedness, but remember that there is a time and a place -- neither of which is in the confines of a steamy room where some of us with serious personal-space issues are trying to relax for a few minutes in peace.

Also, if it’s not too much trouble, would you mind not standing completely starkers with your foot up on the sink counter clipping your toenails? Thanks much.

Don't play pocket pool when you're pretending to be a journalist

2012-06-18T23:23:00-04:00

I've been a little busy, so pardon me for being late but: This is absolutely the stupidest fucking thing I have ever fucking seen. Why do these people have fucking jobs? Why do these people have fucking investors? Why am I saying "fucking" so fucking much? Because this shit is ridiculous, regardless where it lands on the fucking political spectrum. Here's a bit from Daily Caller's "interview" with its own reporter who claims to have been "questioning" the president while standing in the Rose Garden sans notbook or recorder and playing pocket pool in his khakis (Image from Getty, via The Atlanic):

“I shouldn’t be the story. The important thing is the president’s policy today, which could have a significant impact on American workers. I asked a question about that. Admittedly, it was in the middle of his speech. I thought he was ending his speech — his statement — but then I asked a question at the end and he turned his back on the reporters and walked away,” Munro said.

I posted on Facebook about this earlier, based on the photo of Munro doing his "half-drunk frat boy at press conference" routine:

Generally speaking, if one of my reporters asked a question -- on camera, before the world -- with both hands in pockets, which is pretty much universal speak for "I'm not even bothering to write or record you," I'd fucking fire them, not make excuses. But then I'm not running a propaganda factory like Tucker Carlson is at the Daily Caller. It really amazes me how many prominent LGBT people in DC have told me how much they like Carlson. I'm all for having friends who are Republicans, but not so much into having friends who are idiots.

Seriously, Neil Munro is a fake journlist who should have been run out of town on a fucking rail. Instead, he's got a secure job at a web site owned by trust-fund baby Tucker Carlson, who's willing to say or do anything in order to get attention, to the point that he makes Jonah fucking Goldberg look like a rational, reasonable and talented political commentator. It is in-fucking-comprehensible to me that any editor, publisher, owner, etc. -- again, outside of trust-fund babies who have no shame, only a deep and abiding sense of entitlement -- would keep someone like this on staff.

You'd think the right-wing conservative media would be embarrassed to adopt the ACT UP and Code Pink tactics they spent the entire Bush adminstration deriding. But then consistency, integrity and journalism aren't exactly things we should expect from the right-wing conservative media.

Seriously, why on fucking earth does Neil Munro still have a job anywhere other than World Net Daily?

When "inclusive" language actually excludes transgender issues

2012-04-03T09:58:35-04:00

Just caught this story of anti-gay abuse by a drill sergeant over at Instinct, and it raised some red flags regarding the ongoing problems of using "gay" and "LGBT" interchangeably. First, the story: an Army drill sergeant engaged in a campaign of harassment against an unnamed gay soldier, including rock throwing, physical choking and firing of blanks at close range. After some straight fellow soldiers "came out" and received the same treatment, the drill sergeant was investigated, he was removed from duty and all kinds of shitstorm are apparently headed his way.

In all, good story about how the overall military culture is changing and adapting in the wake of repeal of DADT. Here's the wrap-up graf at Instinct:

Lt. Dan Choi brought this story to our attention, and we have to say, we’re impressed by the steps the US Military is taking to make it an LGBT friendly environment. It’s great to see they’re making an effort to weed out the bad apples. And how about those straight allies in uniform? Well done, Sirs.

So, here's the problem. The military isn't taking steps to make it an LGBT friendly environment -- it's taking steps to make the armed services a gay and lesbian friendly environment. There is a significant difference there. As much of an accomplishment repealing DADT was for gay soldiers, it did nothing to change the situation of transgender servicemembers. Trans people in the military still live under threat of expulsion and harassment, with no recourse.

This is what happens when people reflexively use "LGBT" as a synonym for "gay." (I'm not picking on Instinct, it's just that this is a particularly telling example.) The move from "gay and lesbian" to "LGBT" is something that sprung from noble motives of inclusion and, in general, it's been a successful and good change. But language matters and "LGBT" simply isn't the right term to use in every context. In the case of post-DADT military issues, it's incredibly important to make that distinction because, again, transgenderservicemembers are still explicitly barred from service.

Saying that the military is making itself "LGBT friendly" obscures that fact, encourages complacency, and, in a somewhat ironic way, uses an "inclusive" term in a way that excludes the people actually represented by that "T".

Did you start a fight and get your ass kicked? Bang bang bang! Problem solved.

2012-03-27T12:08:19-04:00

Jacob Sullum takes on the Trayvon Martin case again, this time in light of (not-that-new) accountings of George Zimmerman's claims of how the shooting took place. Unsurprisingly, Sullum comes to a conclusion that drives me nuts:

In other words, something similar to the scenario outlined by Julian Sanchez, in which both Martin and Zimmerman reasonably feared for their lives, may actually have happened. If so, Zimmerman would still be responsible for needlessly setting these events into motion. But if his account of how the fight unfolded is true, his use of force could be justified under Florida law—not because of the right to "stand your ground" established in 2005 but because of the right to use deadly force when you reasonably believe you are "in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm" and have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape."

This has been said in different ways in different places, but certainly bears repeating when people keep searching for ways to blame an unarmed teenager for going and getting himself shot. You don't have the right -- or, at least shouldn't have the right -- to chase down a person on a dark street, start a confrontation, get your ass kicked and then shoot that person dead.

Look, I don't argue with the fact that the Consitution offers gun rights (even if I believe the second amendment should be no more absolute than the first amendment, which has plenty of limitations). But I do argue that people who carry guns and engage in reckless or bad behavior that directly leads to the injury or death of others should punished severely. When you shoot someone in the early evening on a self-delusional vigilate expedition, your expectation shouldn't be that you'll make it home in time to watch the evening news.

Anyway, Zimmerman can make his case. The problem here is that the Sanford police fucked this up beyond all belief. More people than Zimmerman need to be held accountable.

(The Sanchez piece Sullum mentions, though, is definitely worth reading.)

Edited to fix a couple of typos.

One fish, two fish, dead fish, live fish

2012-03-27T09:09:17-04:00

The boring fact is that I do most of my shopping at the local Giant, in part because of the convenience, in part because my Giant card ends up saving me a lot of money on gas. But, since I'm in Falls Church, I have a lot of Asian grocery stores I spend a fair amount of time in as well: Grand Mart, H Mart and Great Wall. That's partly becuase I cook a lot of Vietnamese (and some Chinese) dishes, partly because that's pretty much all my husband cooks these days. Either way, when it comes to Asian foods, it doesn't get much more authentic than those stores.

So news that two managers at the Great Wall had been arrested on felony charges for selling live fish at the fish counter came as a rotten surprise. Short version: a "concerned" citizen (where to even start?) files a complaint and the state of Virginia launches a big sting operation aimed at proving what everyone already knew: you can buy live fish, eels, turtles and a number of other things at the fish counter. The charges are under the state's wildlife protection laws; the store points out that the fish are farm-raised.

For Americans, particularly white Americans, who've become accustomed to their food being dead for days before coming anywhere near a supermarket, the live fare at the Great Wall fish counter can be disconcerting. Hell, even my first time there made me feel like I was Anthony Bourdain in a backstreet Shanghai market. But the "weirdness" of food is a matter of perspective. My experience with my immigrant in-laws is that they can be as incredulous about the weird shit you eat as you are about theirs.

So, barring any revelations that Great Wall is serving up fresh komodo dragon, I say leave our Asian grocery stores alone.

I just want to play on my Pan pipes, I just want to drink me some wine

2012-03-22T16:20:52-04:00

Todd Franson really knocked it out of the park for our Metro Weekly Spring Arts Preview, both the cover:

And the web header:

Post title illustrated after the jump.

Watch Closely

2012-03-22T09:22:48-04:00

So there was that craziness out in Arizona with the state legislator who thinks it would be a terrific idea to force women to watch and actual abortion before being allowed to have their own (totally legal) abortion. As I write in my column this week, that makes so much sense:

I'll leave aside the logical feedback loop of an anti-abortion politician wanting to require one abortion to stop another. Two other thoughts come to mind, however. First, a ''make them watch'' approach is something that could be attractive to both extremes of the political spectrum. I'm sure PETA and some other animal rights groups would love the opportunity to force people to watch what happens on the slaughterhouse floor before heading to McDonald's.

Second, it's pointless. Despite years of watching Joan Rivers, people still get plastic surgery and Botox.

Full column, and the rest of today's issue of Metro Weekly, is up now.

Strong the ghost of David Broder is

2012-03-22T00:56:04-04:00

How does this paragraph from Howard Kurtz make any sense?

Did Romney actually change a position? Nope. All that happened was that his spokesman misspoke. But in today’s sound-bite culture, the story can echo for days—this at a time when many journalists were finally willing to admit that Romney had the race all but wrapped up. And it plays to the negative narrative about Romney because he has changed his stance on such issues as abortion and is still laboring to explain how his Massachusetts health plan differs from Obamacare.

So, Romney never changed a position? Except for his positions on abortion and mandated health care? He's just a victim of the sound-bite culture that Kurtz, et al., have worked so tirelessly to create? Perhaps, unlike other manufactured "gaffes," the Etch-a-Sketch mega-gaffe is sticking because it actually plays to the facts of the Romney narrative?

It's like some sort of Jedi mind-trick to convince us all that on this particular issue, every side is equal.

National political journalism like this gives me the hives.

Reason's libertarian take on the Trayvon Martin killing is a chilling diminution of a terrible crime

2012-03-21T14:48:15-04:00

One of the reasons that I still consider myself somewhat libertarian-leaning is that libertarians offer a spot-on critique of the use and abuse of government power, especially as it plays out in the ongoing militarization of police forces in conjunction with the ever-growing (and ever deadlier) “War on Drugs.” When SWAT teams get the wrong address and gun down grandmothers; when military-geared police officers raid a local mayor’s home and shoot the family dogs because of a a package mailed by drug dealers in an elaborate scheme that had nothing to do with the family living there -- that’s when libertarians are there to raise the alarm about government overreach, even despite pretty high levels of public support for the strong-arm tactics of state and local police forces.

But when a private citizen uses and abuses deadly force and kills a innocent teenager, the anger apparently goes poof. Jacob Sullum at Reason -- a reliable source of information on the deadly antics of SWAT teams -- tries to remake the killing of Trayvon Martin into a lesson on the importance of self-defense with guns. How do you do that? By trying to downgrade what happened the night George Zimmerman shot 17-year-old Martin dead. Specifically, you can start a paragraph with this sentence:

Judging from the evidence so far—in particular, Zimmerman's police call and the cellphone conversation that Martin had with his girlfriend right before the shooting—Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had not been so eager to play cops and robbers.

And end it with this one:

And even if Zimmerman could easily have gotten away, it does not seem likely that he "shot [Martin] in cold blood," as an attorney for the boy's family asserted. The shooting may have been unjustified, but it seems to have happened in the heat of the moment.

It really should have to go without saying, but: In the heat of a moment created entirely by Zimmerman. There has been no doubt cast on the fact that Zimmerman pursued a kid he deemed "suspicious" when he was expressly told not to. Saying that the shooting of a 17-year-old "may have been unjustified" is a chilling bit of diminution to try to turn this into an argument for broader self-defense and gun rights. When a SWAT team with itchy trigger fingers shoots innocent people dead, it's a violation of libertarian principles that (rightfully) demands high dudgeon. When a self-appointed "neighborhood watch" guy with an itchy trigger finger does it, its really an example of why we all need more guns.

Really, if libertarians like those at Reason and Radley Balko believe that the fetishization of military grade weapons and tanks are corrosive influences on police departments, why are those same types of things not corrosive influences on individuals. God knows, from available information, Zimmerman seemed to be under that same kind of self-delusion as a vigilante force for good.

I'd like the local police not to accidentally shoot people dead in their gung-ho, Hollywood action fantasies of good guys versus bad guys. Unlike some libertarians, I'd like to expect the same out of my neighbors.

(A lot of people are writing about Trayvon Martin right now, which is good, since this case needs all the attention it can get. I think the best, most moving stuff I've seen is coming from Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic, as well as this piece from Jonathan Capehart at the Washington Post.)

Edited to add: Of course, right after I post this, Julian Sanchez posts this, which to be fair is a good libertarian take from the other direction than Sullum's.

The Tale of Two Closets

2011-07-05T12:54:36-04:00

Michael Triplett raises some good questions about my Metro Weekly op-ed comparing Jose Antonio Vargas’s life in the “undocumented immigrant” closet to life in the gay closet, and specifically my argument that the telling of lies necessitated by either closet don’t necessarily imply some sort of serial mendacity once someone comes out of the closet. I said, “By [Slate’s Jack] Shafer’s logic, formerly closeted gay journalists are no more than confessed liars who can’t be trusted.”

At NLGJA’s Re:Act blog, Triplett counters:

It’s a fascinating argument, although I’m not sure it completely holds up. Admittedly, it’s the lawyer in me (who has written about immigration issues in the workplace) that bristles at the suggestion that being “in the closet” about your immigration status is comparable to being “in the closet” about your sexual orientation. Lying about who you are dating doesn’t put your employer in jeopardy for violating a host of federal laws. Lying about who your gender identity doesn’t represent a fraud that can result in your being permanently removed from the country.

What I was really focusing on in my argument is the case of undocumented immigrants such as Vargas, who were brought or sent to the U.S. when young and have as adults become, in every way but legal, Americans. The choices they have to make — lie and stay in their home nation or “come out” and risk be deported to an essentially foreign nation — are morally comparable to the closet LGBT people face. And while the closet certainly exacts a psychological price on all of us who experience it, it’s beyond the pale for Shafer and others to claim that the closet has converted those who come out into pathological liars. (And, just a legalistic nitpick: While it may not result in deportation, lying about your gender identity could certainly have some “fraud” implications depending on which U.S. state you happen to be in.)

This is why the characterization of Shafer’s anti-Vargas argument as “Let them pick fruit,” has some truth. It’s okay for undocumented workers to skirt the system to farm midwestern fields or nurse upper-class infants, but to lie to the Washington Post? Well, that just a step too far.

Pardon, but bullshit. It would be easy to make a sarcastic call for an investigation of the child rearing, lawn care and home improvement labor employed by the management of our major media outlets, but it would miss the point. There simply is no one in the D.C. metro area — or any other metropolitan area — whose daily life isn’t touched in some way by an undocumented worker.

Of course, I’m really focusing on immigrants who come here as children — those the DREAM Act would provide a legal path to citizenship — because that’s Vargas’s story, and it’s the story of other people in my life I care about. Those are also the stories where the two closets, undocumented and gay, most closely correlate.

I admit my argument breaks down if you’re looking at, say, undocumented immigrants who came here as adults — that’s a choice made by adults, and choice is what takes it out of the realm of the closet. (There is a counter to that counter: Gay and lesbian adults staying in the country illegally because they can’t get citizenship through marriage in the same way that heterosexual couples can — although that’s getting a little deep in the weeds for this particular argument.)

But the core truth, and the one I was trying to get at, is that all of us as LGBT people start out in a closet not of our choice or design. Undocumented immigrants who are brought or sent here as kids are put into a closet not of their choice. It’s the lack of choice that’s key and why Shafer’s argument is so wrong-headed and dismissive.

The big tease: 2010 Coverboy of the Year trailer

2010-12-13T12:24:22-05:00

If it's December, it means one thing -- the Metro Weekly Coverboy of the Year contest. It's one of those things that makes my job so, so difficult. Here's the teaser trailer for this year's finalists -- one of these three men will be our tenth annual coverboy of the year. Tune in Thursday, Dec. 16 at Metro Weekly to find out who won.

GOProud's flexible approach to political games

2010-12-01T13:08:32-05:00

From GOProud's Sept. 20, 2010 press release "GOProud to Harry Reid - Stop Using Gay Soldiers as Political Pawns" this statement from the group's executive director Jimmy LaSalvia, in response to Reid's inclusion of the DREAM Act in the NDAA:

“Harry Reid should stop using gay soldiers as political pawns in a cynical attempt to win votes for his re-election and keep his liberal special interests happy. The votes are there to pass Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal; unfortunately, Senator Reid is shoe-horning controversial amendments dealing with amnesty for illegals and abortion into the Defense Authorization bill – a move that is jeopardizing the future of the bill.

“Now is not the time for political games. If Senator Reid refuses to drop these controversial provisions it will send a clear message to gay voters that Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate cares more about pacifying the pro-abortion and pro-amnesty lobby than they do in protecting the brave gay men and women serving in our military.”

From GOProud's Dec. 1, 2010 press release "Do Democrats Want Tax Hikes More Than Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?" this statement from LaSalvia, in response to the threat by Republican senators to block DADT repeal if Democrats don't extend the Bush tax cuts:

“Senate Republicans are absolutely right. It is time that Democrats in the Senate stop playing political games with our economy. If Democrats are truly interested in getting to other important lame-duck issues, like the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, then they should act immediately to prevent jobs-killing tax increases. The American people are watching, now is the time for Democrats to decide what they want more – tax increases or repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The choice is theirs.”

Well, the priorities are clear, even if the logic isn't.

I have no Porsche and I must scream

2010-10-31T18:13:11-04:00

In the Halloween spirit, here's a Porsche that daily haunts the parking garage at my gym.

My dad did some some custom artistic paint jobs when I was a kid -- Martian landscapes on the tailgate of an El Camino, that sort of the thing. But, you know, it was the fucking '70s so it was expected and accepted.

It's not the '70s anymore. So knock it off. We don't need German sports cars painted with all the taste and class of Chevy vans with carpeted dashboards and waterbeds in the back.

Seriously, who looks at a Porsche with a spoiler out of the back pages of J.C. Whitney and airbrushed anguished faces on the bumper burning in the pits of Hell and says, "You know what this really needs? A dragon!"

It hurts my heart, a little.

(Post title for non-SF geeks explained here.)

PIxellated Morality

2010-10-19T09:12:52-04:00

As I was playing through what I hope is the endgame of Fable 2 -- I finally got back around to the game when I realized the imminent release of Fable 3, which I can’t justify buying if I haven’t finished the second one -- I came upon another of the games moral choices. Namely, do I force a young woman to sacrifice her youth and keep myself healthy in order to better complete my mythic quest, or do I make the sacrifice on my own and deal with the consequences?

This was to be a weighty choice, a moment where I should be living up to my in-game reputation as a paragon of virtue. I was, after all, running around the vaguely European fantasy world of Albion with a literal halo over my head as the result of my conscientious approach to helping those in need, giving to the poor and eating a health diet of mostly vegetables. I had worked hard at saintliness.

Still, I found myself unable to give a good goddamn any longer, so I made her get old and decrepit so I could hurry up and finish this damn game already.

Probably not the choice context Peter Molyneux was shooting for.

Actually, the problem with Fable 2 is the ridiculous simplicity of the moral “choices” it presents. It’s always obvious what the “good” and “evil” choices are, and the repercussions of those choices are, essentially, only aesthetic. Aside from the my dog companion -- a brilliant little piece of programming -- there’s no compelling narrative attraction, no sense that I’m actually interacting with any character of value. Maybe that’s a result of the game’s incorporation of Python-esque humor. It just never feels serious enough to carry the weight of even a fictional moral choice.

You’d think that moral choices in an ironically humorous fictional universe would be just the sort of videogaming experience that would light my fire. And you’d be right, if we were talking about Fallout 3.

I have to say that Fallout 3 (I never played 1 or 2) is one of my favorite games ever. It’s often wildly funny in its creation of a post-apocalyptic world that’s aesthetically frozen in the post-war, can-do 1950s American ethos. But, unlike Fable, the humor inherent in the fictional world never really detracts from the feel of weight on the choices you make to be “good” or “evil.” In large part, this is because Fallout presented multiple characters to interact with -- characters with motivations and backstories to be discovered depending on how you choose to play -- while Fable mostly presents a parade of automatons who laugh when you fart.

My default position when playing moral choice games is to play as the good guy, at least on the first run through. After I finished Fallout 3, maxing out my character through the main and downloadable quests, I still wanted to play some more, so I created an evil character. I took her through the same story as my more saintly character, but making the choices that were selfish and cruel. Fairly early on, to keep the story moving forward, I nuked the entire city of Megaton, killing all the characters -- death in Fallout is a permanent and consequential thing.

I actually felt kind of queasy after I did it. Not long after, I put the game aside. It just felt wrong to me.

I don’t say that to put some moral judgment on those who enjoy playing the evil side in a role-playing game -- no different than literature and film, evil characters can be some of the most compelling. It’s just that, for me, it seems I prefer experiencing evil less vicariously. I’m happy to thrill at villains making despicable choices; I just don’t want to make those choices for myself.

Unless the game is really boring. In which case, I’m as evil as the next bastard.

So Fable 3 and Fallout New Vegas are both out in the next week or so. I think my choice is going to be pretty obvious.

In which I become an asshat

2010-10-16T20:50:59-04:00

I can think of at least a few people thinking, "Become?"

Past asshattery (asshaberdashery?) aside, what I mean is that I have become the very thing which I once hated with a passion: the parking lot asshat. You know, the guy who parks across two spaces in the grocery store parking lot? The one you curse when you're looking for a spot -- or even when you're not looking you just curse out of general principle?

I was not immediately an asshat after I got the Camaro, a piece of property for which I still have an inordinate amount of excitement and adoration. In my zeal to maintain a dent-less and scratch-free paint job, my general approach has been to park as far away from the entrance of any place I go, on the theory that if I park in a distant section with about 50 empty spaces around me, then I won't have to worry about dickwads slamming doors into my car.

And, almost without fail, every time I do so, some asswipe in a 20-year-old fucking Honda beater or Toyota minivan with Hello Kitty stickers has parked right next to me, completely oblivious to the fifty fucking other spots available not only within the immediate area, but right next to the fucking entrance.

Seriously, what the fuck is up with you people? Is there some gene that causes your brain to fire off endorphins at the knowledge you're parking your shitty ass sludge-mobile right on top of any car that looks like it's been maintained with a modicum of care? Do you get hard when your clunker comes within inches of a car that's had more regularly scheduled oil changes than you have hairs on your calloused wide-berth ass?

(Obviously, when I say "you" I don't mean you. Unless you've shoved your grimy, faded, "Kerry 2004"-bumper-sticker-festooned Prius up my ass in a parking lot recently, in which case, yes, I mean you.)

Solution: Two parking spaces, thank you. It's not perfect, because I can't bring myself to take up two spaces in a crowded parking lot. I'm asshat with limits.

So you think you're a columnist

2010-10-07T20:13:12-04:00

I blame Sex and the City.

Well, that’s a little too vague, since there’s a lot you can blame on Sex and the City: vapid consumerism masquerading as feminism, everyone wanting to be Samantha, the Sex and the City movie and, oh dear god help us, the second Sex and the City movie.

I’m actually talking about columnists. Specifically, that so many people want to be one.

Editing a gay magazine and all, I get a number of inquiries every year from writers pitching weekly columns, and 75 percent of them mention THAT SHOW directly or indirectly (the latter is generally easy to tease out from “a weekly column about my life in the big city and nightclubs and fashion and sex”). I’ve been getting a lot more than usual lately. Not being a fan of the show -- hey, I didn’t like Queer as Folk and I don’t like Glee either, so shoot me -- it’s not the surest-fire way to get my attention.

It doesn’t help that I already wrote that kind of weekly column myself, back in the mid-90s, years before THAT SHOW ever appeared (he says with his nose held aloft). I wrote enough of them that I have a collection of them coming out shortly that I’m sure I’ve mentioned a few times before.

So, you know, it’s been done.

That doesn’t mean it can’t be done again. I’m actually not trying to stomp on creativity, drive and spunk. Well, maybe the spunk in this case, but the creativity and drive I’m all for. The problem is that I generally receive these pitches from writers who’ve never actually written a regular column -- or, often, any a column at all.

When I started writing the “Back Room,” it was essentially a one-off -- I wrote a column that I managed to sell to a small, local start-up mag. It was well-received, so I ended up writing a few more in the same tawdry, twenty-something gay way I had at the time, and those went well. I’d also sold some other writing to other magazines and had some full-time experience working as a journalist.

In short, I knew what I was doing and I was willing to prove that I knew what I was doing by, you know, doing it a few times in a row. Next thing I knew, I had a weekly columnist spot.

The point being that I love seeing new writers do good work and get published -- I really love helping them break into print at my own magazine, when possible -- but I want to encourage a lot of those writers to maybe scale back their pitch a bit. Don’t send me an e-mail telling me you have a great idea for a weekly column when you’ve never actually written or published one. Write a column -- and make it the best damn column you possibly can. Make it funny, make it maudlin, make it serious, make it provocative -- but make it good.

If you can do it once, you may convince me or another editor that you can do it again.

So, go do it again.

Does Ann Coulter charge by the minute or the hour?

2010-09-27T19:06:35-04:00

I'm kind of wondering how much GOProud paid Ann Coulter to show up at their HomoCon event and trash every gay equality issue known to man. Because, really, hookers generally charge extra to dish out that kind of verbal abuse.