Comments On: The Stranger

Channel Description:

Latest Articles in this Channel:

02/22/12--23:57: Re: Guns Don't Shoot Little Girls (chan 1506994)

Gun no doubt kept by parents for "protection". I hope they are prosecuted for assault and child endangerment!
Posted by Spokalou


02/22/12--23:59: Re: Guns Don't Shoot Little Girls (chan 1506994)

Shit, if the law could prosecute people for awful stuff, the prisons would be packed 10x worse than they already are.

Politicians would be the number one culprits.
Posted by Urgutha Forka


02/23/12--00:05: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

One day, BIATCH, you are going to realize that *most* women (and men!) have "100% platonic friendships" with members of the gender they are primarily attracted to. And you are also going to realize that having hooked up with a friend doesn't make your relationship 100% platonic. Maybe 98%, but once it gets sexy, it's not really a purely platonic relationship anymore.

It seems as though you are expecting most hetero male/female interactions to be defined by sex, or at least the possibility thereof. This is probably because you are young and were poorly socialized in childhood and adolescence. But having this attitude means that not only can you not really think of friendship without the sex question, you also believe that it's not really possible for men and women to be interested in friendship without using that as a way to get sex & romance.

I am here to deliver the good news! There is more that men and women want from each other than just sex! It is possible to be platonic friends with people, to have never hooked up with them and to never *want* to hook up with them (or even to want it but know that it is a bad idea and so abstain).

Everyone else has told you why dishonest mind games are bad. I just wanted to address your misperception that platonic friendships are somehow rare or make you special. I'm sure there are many other things which make you special, but this isn't it.
Posted by R.Taylor


02/23/12--00:13: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

Letter Writer: When he is feeling jealous, that isn't adoration in disguise. It doesn't feel anything like adoration from the inside. It feels like misery. And it sure as hell won't feel like adoration to you if he feels it strongly enough to bring it up. It will feel like fights and accusations. Not what you actually want at all, I'll wager.

Nor will it feel like adoration once he figures out that you are deliberately playing head games with him to make him miserable because you've mistaken jealousy for adoration and have decided to extract it from him by force. What it will feel like then is a cold spot in the bed where he used to sleep, before he dumped your manipulative ass.
Posted by avast2006


02/23/12--00:22: Re: Straight Kids Bullied to Death By Gays (chan 1506994)

i was bullied by gay ppl. ironically i'm lgbt but no1 knew.
but this sarcastic list is disgusting. because of course NO ONE is bullied BY gay ppl. ignorance is a two way street.
Posted by hay


02/23/12--00:29: Re: Pharmacy Can Refuse Women Emergency Contraceptives, Judge Rules (chan 1506994)

Item number #1 on Ralph's parent company Stormans mission statement:

1. Fulfill our customers needs, and exceed their expectations.

NO, rly.
Posted by K


02/23/12--00:32: Re: Savage Love (chan 1506994)

Oh man, Willard Cox!
You are DEFINITELY going to be happier in gay mormonland, with a name like that.
You're welcome!
Posted by Caralain


02/23/12--00:58: Re: James Egan Is Suing the City Attorney Right Back (chan 1506994)

Sure, Holmes' lawsuit doesn't ask for penalties or damages, but I'd be willing to bet it does argue that the tapes shouldn't be released. If Egan doesn't respond Holmes gets what he wants, Egan doesn't get his records and the SPD remains free to act without anybody looking at what they're doing. Good on Egan for going for it. Holmes' lawsuit obviously is about making sure people can't or don't ask for what should be public information. Love the SLAPP acronym.
Posted by Mugwumpt


02/23/12--01:00: Re: Savage Love (chan 1506994)

To Poop, If you want to ease your way into making your mans fantasy come true, go into it slowly. Have him right outside the closed bathroom door while you poop, talking to you and maybe beating off if he likes. Then, when that scene is no big deal, have the door open a crack, but don't let him look in..still talking staying relaxed and all. When that's cool, keep him outside the barely open door and let him take little peeks inside...you can keep your eyes closed or open, your choice. Then you get to a point where the door can be wide open, but he has to stay outside the bathroom. Then you can invite him in, but he has to keep his back to you.....talking, flirting, watch him play with himself. Then let him take peeks....before you know it you'll be ok with him watching you and he will be so driven crazy by the lead up that you will both be happy with the results. The important thing is for you to be able to stay relaxed, any tension and you won't be able to perform. So figure out your course of action and don't move on to the next step until you are fully comfortable with the step you are on. It may take a year before he gets to watch you the way he craves, but it should be worth it to him and maybe even fun to get you there. Good luck and have fun!
Posted by ema629


02/23/12--01:11: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

When I got to "my almost pathological need for adoration and attention" I told myself I should just stop reading right there.

If only I'd listened to myself.
Posted by geekgirl


02/23/12--01:25: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

@1 For the win!!!
Posted by rowan redwing


02/23/12--01:37: Re: Savage Love Episode 279 (chan 1506994)

I'm going to have to agree with @10 to some extent. Those soldiers (men and women) are put together, broken down, and rebuilt. This has several beneficial effects, but one effect that is less than optimal is the teasing. The platoon will become almost like a family, and no one will yank the chain of someone harder than a brother will to a brother. Soldiers look for these mental weaknesses and focus on it exclusively.

If you want to not get teased mercilessly in the military, never complain about anything that hurts your feelings. The first time you say your feelings are hurt by ANYTHING, that is the first thing someone will latch on to and they will exploit it as extremely as possible.

I guarantee that if the offending soldier had said he had a thing for women with red hair, and the husband said, "STFU, my sister has red hair," you could replace the comments about his daughter with comments about how he would rape his sister.

It's odd. It's uncalled for. It's highly offensive, even in the context. But, it's pretty much par for the course. I wouldn't recommend necessarily reporting it if it was a one-time thing. Ignore it, ignore the offender, ignore future comments. Report it only if it keeps going on, escalates, and the husband begins doubting the support of his fellow soldiers because of the teasing.
Posted by PsychoLoco


02/23/12--01:44: Re: Savage Love Episode 279 (chan 1506994)

Before anyone complains, I reread my comment and want to change "mental weakness" to "soft spot or touchy subject".

The husband isn't mentally weak because of his daughter, but it is a subject that will make him defensive and/or emotional. Showing that defensiveness is what will spur people who have been trained to fight to focus on the area they perceive will do the most damage.
Posted by PsychoLoco


02/23/12--01:47: Re: James Egan Is Suing the City Attorney Right Back (chan 1506994)

@12,

Yeah, just for the record, I'm 100% on Egan's side in this matter, and I can't tell you how grateful I am to him for stepping up to the plate on this one.

That being said, I don't think Holmes is trying to be obstructive. SPD is Holmes' client, and I don't imagine there's any way he could have advised them to abandon this position without destroying his working relations with the SPD leadership.

Posted by Eric Arrr


02/23/12--02:06: Re: The Future Is Now: Sexist Billboards and Google Glasses (chan 1506994)

Google Glasses? So I guess Denno Coil is finally coming to life.

Now if I could only get rid of that damn Sacchi...
Posted by Obscure anime reference


02/23/12--02:18: Re: Savage Love (chan 1506994)

@103(TokenCanadian), it's not simply that it's easy to play advice columnist when one has no skin in the game; it's that, given that most (all?) letters don't give you sufficient information (the world is complicated, many things could be happening that we can't exclude without further information, letters must not be too long -- we don't want to read a whole book --, etc).

So what happens is most of us here fill in the blanks, usually projecting their own favorite takes (or pet peeves) on the relationship described by the LW.

I don't think this is bad in itself -- it means we're all talking about hypotheticals (and as Dan says all letters are hypotheticals to everybody except at most one person). We don't know for a fact that LOST's wife has been 'bad' to him -- we know what he wrote, but as the team defending LOST's wife above says, he didn't give her view on it and he didn't mention much about how she was feeling (and he didn't even say he loves her); maybe she's suffering and he's not caring. And we don't know for a fact that she hasn't been 'bad' to him -- he certainly is suffering and makes that clear in his letter, he does mention a number of talks about the topic with her that led to no changes, so apparently she isn't paying that much attention to his suffering either.

So you can take one viewpoint or the other (and, despite some comments above claiming that the other viewpoint is the favorite one here, I frankly see just as many comments defending/attacking one of the two parterns as I see defending/attacking the other; plus a few comments apparently against both). If the LW were to add a few comments and answer a few questions, we might (I stress: might) be able to eliminate one of the viewpoints, but this hasn't happened, so we can't. (Which is why my own comment above was that both are not really in touch with each other, and that, unless this changes, they should divorce.)

That people will project their own preferences in what the LW doesn't say is to be expected, and reveals more about what these people think (or don't think), about what they remember (or forget), and so gives us some insight into the views of other people. All in all, not a bad thing. It's good to learn more about how others think, what assumptions they make, what their gut feelings tell them. It's good to learn more about people. It's in itself even better than simply being right or wrong.
Posted by ankylosaur


02/23/12--02:19: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

If it would make you feel uncomfortable for your bf to go visit an old fling solo, then don't go visit your old fling solo. And tell your bf it would make you uncomfortable if the situation were reversed. If this relationship is so important to you, why would you fuck with it? I know you claim not to have feelings anymore. But it seems to me like a recipe for relationship destruction. I think it should be ok to establish relationship boundaries like this, as long as you both feel comfortable agreeing to them. And if you don't, maybe you should work that out now so you don't get surprised down the road.
Posted by TheBigRagu


02/23/12--02:21: Re: Savage Love (chan 1506994)

By the way, I've just converted Brigham Young and Catherine King to homosexuality. That was fun!
Posted by ankylosaur


02/23/12--02:28: Re: Savage Love (chan 1506994)

The posthumous gay Moron site is problematic, for me.

On the one hand:
1) It appeals to my inner asshole.
2) Fuck the LDS!

But, on the other hand:
1) Using dead people's names is kind of a dick move.

I guess I'll have to stay away from that site. As funny as the idea of gayfying the entire Mormon afterlife is, the moral dissonance is a little too much for me.
Posted by Valhar2000


02/23/12--02:30: Re: You May Be Infected Already (chan 1506994)

So we consider Gauguin a bad person--with ample reason. I think his art very good, however, as well as highly original and extraordinarily influential, and am sure that it requires more sympathy than Graves can muster here to elucidate its positive qualities. There's a similar dilemma with Picasso, arguably, and Wagner, certainly: extremely influential art of troubling ideological content made by disagreeable men (putting this last point politely).

But it requires a pronounced presentist purism--despite all the adulatory talk of hybrids--to see this influence as simply pernicious. Progress is piecemeal, and however objectionable Gauguin's specific actions and general tone may be to contemporary ears, his rejection of the west and celebration of the "primitive" (which is how he and his contemporaries construed the matter--to drop the word is to be ahistorical) was a major move in a history leading to the more enlightened Western attitudes vis-a-vis the rest of the world of our own time, of which Graves' review is such a shrill example.

"These issues are not historical. They are contemporary." No, exactly not. The life of a painter who died in 1903, when cultural attitudes were a world away from those of our own time, requires truly historical criticism in order to be fully and fairly understood. In contrast, Graves condemns with a reductive caricature.

Again, my objection is not to the points made in criticism of Gauguin's biography. Rather I object to the imbalanced nature of this review: all but ignoring the paintings to instead offer up a facile condemnation, with a prurient obsession with Gauguin's affairs and a cliched, anachronistic post-colonial critique of a still colonial time. And all this to the philistine end of encouraging a dismissive attitude about a major artist. Congrats, this requires "profound" ideological skill.

Graves writes, "Where Gauguin found messy impurities, other artists (and curators, and historians) have found richer options, options that challenge the contemporary viewer." Context reveals that the alternatives Graves is referring to are at work right now, and that by "challenging" she really means "agree with." I strongly suspect Raymond Boisjoly will not be eliciting such heated discussion 109 years after his death! Needless to say, providing alternatives from Gauguin's own time would make Graves's argument stronger.

About the paintings, we read that they combine "sheer gall and fruity beauty," that they are "candy-colored", that "he is gawking with a mixture of pity and desire; the women are posed as melancholics."

The formal descriptions strike me as tone-deaf and, like the entire review, intentionally demeaning. I can guess what "sheer gall" is supposed to mean from the rest of the review, but "fruity beauty" and "candy-colored" are simply a cliched and vulgar way of characterizing Gauguin's revolutionary use of color. And there is no suggestion of his flattening of form and simplification of design (except implicitly in the mention of textiles and Matisse) in pursuit of expressive intensity and symbolical analogues.

The last point, describing the illustrational content, demonstrates Graves' ideological prejudice. There is nothing wrong with art that mixes pity and desire, or that depicts women as melancholics. But Graves is entirely unsympathetic, and describes Gauguin as "gawking"--an attitude I've never seen in a Gauguin painting.

To make "what would Gauguin not do?" into a mantra may make for a fair contemporary moral formula, but at the expense of flattening cultural history and shying away from quite good painting.
Posted by thoughtsfromberlin.tumblr.com


02/23/12--02:57: Re: Buddy Roemer Is Not Giving Up (chan 1506994)

"Take a look at Jon Huntsman"

I did. I'm still way more comfortable with Paul. I know how confused you guys can get over at the stranger here so let me dumb it down for you. In the way that marijuana is less harmful than heroine Ron Paul is less harmful than a drug known to kill people for little reason.
Posted by watchout5


02/23/12--03:00: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

@5 Histrionic personality disorder, agreed. Probably a few other cluster B streaks, too.

Everybody else: you're wasting your breath. Some people crave drama, conflict, and making others miserable in the same sense that the rest of us needs food, sleep, and a reliable relationship. You're just letting yourself get manipulated to play your assigned part in the drama.
Posted by Tjr


02/23/12--03:16: Re: Guns Don't Shoot Little Girls (chan 1506994)

Would any legally-minded types tell us what charges the gun owner can face, if any?

Oh Bremerton, my beleaguered birthplace, be better. You are to Seattle what Newark is to NYC.
Posted by Subdued Excitement


02/23/12--03:29: Re: White Man's Book Does Justice to Black Power Music (chan 1506994)

What's really interesting is that Thomas seems to have noticed that we're not actually racists; that we have excellent factual and logical reasons for believing everything we believe. Unfortunately, he starts from obviously false assumptions (like "white people are not, in fact, superior to blacks"), so he finds "contradictions" (with reality). Thus he is unable to fully wrap his head around the idea that the "racists" might be completely right. About everything. Hence the term "quasi-intellectual" and a sarcastic science. (Did you even try to understand my website?)

Thomas should know that we have indeed "come a long way" — a long way toward marginalizing, denigrating and destroying the white majority of this country, the very people who keep it functioning like a first-world civilized society, not a black or brown third-world hellhole. We've come so far now that the inevitable backlash by whites is bound to be spectacular. No, this doesn't end in flyers.

"Wacky shit," indeed.
Posted by unamusementpark


02/23/12--03:30: Re: SL Letter of the Day: Infantile-ism (chan 1506994)

Oh god, sounds like something out of a Brett Easton Ellis novel.

People: don't diagnose this girl. This is like, one letter. You do not have enough information for any sort of disorder pathological or personality wise! I can safely say that most of you were/are twits in college, with a least one shamefully melodramatic relationship, and possibly you were also a hipster who liked to flaunt your dependence on sleeping pills/caffeine/cigs. But I digress.

Dan's response was great, although I'm surprised he didn't lay into her a bit more for the druggy paranoia, unrealistic expectations, and blameshifting (and male slutshaming) going on here. Also: 100% platonic? Really? I wouldn't call ex flings or ex boyfriends "platonic". The fact that she is aware of the history between them enough to expect it would even be a source of jealousy, shows that she is very much aware of the very non-platonic past. Perhaps she feels some unresolved sexual tension with her "best friend" and her guilt makes her want to draw attention to it and have her bf notice it. (Of course this is pure speculation but that's something I've experienced, in the past.)
Posted by shurenka