I wouldnt call you conservative....
Here in the UK we have a much more snappy word: Bigot.
Stunted by the eclipse of justice, Little Johnny Walker made his way over to the piano. He played a sad tune. One full of preambles, bees and summer vegetables. It made the women of the night cry, and the men of strong moral fiber tense. Jesus breathed easier that night. We all did. A Butter Dish for Beelzebub by Julio Stantore …
"Do we want the most popular destination on the web shoving limp wristed Christians who pay Spaniards for favors down our throats?"
Do we want right wing knee jerk neo facists making assumptions about what MIGHT happen writing thinly veiled homophobic features on here too? What has this got to do with technology except that it is on a website..... Like anything else you have a choice - don't click on it and read it - if your children are curious about being gay I'd hate them to have a father like you! They might even be straight but as bit more open minded and tolerant than you are. I suppose if it was heterosexual stuff being discussed you'd be looking at it in the privacy of your computer room with some kleenex handy!
Double standards abound!
Even though I am not gay, I feel insulted by your pathetic SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN approach. I know your type of writing is mostly flame bait begging for clicks, yet the hostility put on display is unbearable. If you do not want to read about gay folks, don't follow the links. If you are afraid your kids might be "harmed" by sexuality on the intertron, especially of the hot rompy male on male variant, then install filters, oversee their browsing, or frankly, educate them about what they need to know about anyway. Some folks are gay. Get over it. Boy, maybe your kids will turn out gay. I hope you won't feel a need to blame Yahoo! for that too. Also, I am sorry you feel "emasculated" by the sight of a well trained reporter. Worked out lately? If you feel that you can go and puke your moral opinion into the web, don't come complaining that others put their issues on display in their way. It's called tolerance. Try it. A hetero male taking offense in homosexuals is about as unmanly as it gets. What a sad sight.
Poor old Otto! Apparently he's unaware that something over 10% of the population are gay, and selectively reading bits of the Bible as definitive indications of "morality" (while happily ignoring bits that don't reinforce his bigotry) won't change that.
Meanwhile, one wonders if Otto has considered the implications of the fact that Yahoo! is (apparently) "the most popular destination". Either Yahoo! is mystically forcing business to their site, or possibly it's Otto who is out of touch with reality!
Still, maybe Otto would be more comfortable in a place like Saudi Arabia or Iran? In many respects, those nations seem a better fit for the sort of views that Otto is pushing! In the USA, "conservative" doesn't have to mean "intolerant", but all to often small-minded individuals like Otto conflate the two.
What a hate filled article. If I was to say the BET was all black or the KKK has to many stupid white men in it, then I would be called a racist and a bigot. But it is ok to mock gays.
If you were to subsitute Black, Asian, Muslim, Jew for the word gay in this article then maybe the majority will see how truely hateful and ignorant this article is.
I think it suffices to ask - why on earth is such bigoted trash being published on The Register?
As others have eloquently put it, if you are not interested in closeted celebrities, don't click the link.
And if you think your children can be "made gay" by the internet, and that "being gay" is a fate worse than death, you have a lot more to worry about than a particular reporter on Yahoo.
I honestly don't know why this article was posted. I'm not of the belief, unlike some other people, that El Reg posts only IT related articles. But there is simply no reason to post this trite shite. Perhaps it was meant as flame bait, it certainly has that feel to it. I used to think that Stern's articles were supposed to be satirical, but this article doesn't feel satirical at all. Instead, it has the feel of an insecure homophobic male who's afraid he might be gay, so he wants to eliminate everything that is gay to make sure he isn't "converted". It's pathetic. And quite frankly, speaking as a heterosexual male, it's insulting that El Reg would put such bigoted crap on its site. If you want to increase your page views by posting about controversial issues, or by posting satirical commentary, go for it. But to do so by personally attacking people or groups of people simply isn't cool.
> I ask you, though, is this the type of America we want to live in?
> Do we want the most popular destination on the web shoving limp
> wristed Christians who pay Spaniards for favors down our throats?
> Do we want toned, well-maned reporters tossing their soft balls at
> self made porn stars?
Couldn't be any worse than listening to blowhards talk about how anyone who is different than them deserves to be exiled to the backwaters of culture for all eternity...
Hey, Commander Prothero, there are lots of other websites besides Yahoo that would love to have you, like maybe Repent America (blamed Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans' "decadence") or the Westboro Baptist Church (the God Hates Fags people).
And no, this doesn't mean you are conservative...even the arch-conservative unholy dark father Dick Cheney himself is pretty tolerant on this subject. The National Rifle Association even has a membership association called the Pink Pistols. Just own up; gays threaten your atrophied sense of masculine self-worth. It's ok. Just get a Hotmail account. I hear they send tons of helpful emails to men just like you.
Just an ignorant Bible-thumper ("You know, if I wanted to go to hell.").
I must say, shame on El Reg for letting this homophobic trash called news on their site. Shame on you!
To Mr. Otto Z. Stern (which sounds like a fictitious pseudonym anyways): Hope you come out of the closet just fine! Those who are the most anti-homosexual are invariably deep-closet homosexuals themselves. Well, it would explain why you're using a fake name.
Somebody has apparently not yet realized that the Internet was never even intended to be a democracy, let alone one with any central authority regarding content.
Ideally, the Net is just a metaphor for that big bad scary thing called The World: If you don't agree with something you might see somewhere, then [insert drum roll here]... don't go there!
Thunderous revelation, I know. If anyone else needs a whack with a cluestick, I accept MasterCard and Visa.
In the past I've read Mr. Stern as a Hunter S. Thompson knockoff, a practitioner of gonzo journalism. The idea behind gonzo journalism is to mix fact and drug induced diatribe into something akin to redeemable social commentary. Maybe Mr. Stern tackled a subject that got a little too deep inside him and he dropped the ball. I once responded to a query from my ex wife by saying: "Hey, sometimes I'm so subtle not even I know what I'm doing".
The nature of our kind and the resulting social conventions that imbue our culture has made more of sex than is necessary or healthy. I worked as a bouncer in a night club that had 'made' guys in the upstairs bar and members of streets gangs in the basement pub. The upstairs bar was modeled on a Vegas lounge. Hookers and pimps worked out of the tables near the main doors. Two sisters were pimped by the older sister's husband. They had more money than they could of ever hoped for and were happy people. The sisters often came in laughing and stopped off to tell me how truly comical some of their johns were. They had no drug addiction, no outward awkwardness, and, in our insular night world were happy and successful. Somehow we have to shed our Victorian views of sex while protecting the innocent. Excluding sexual predators no one needs the extra baggage of being burdened by being branded sexually deviant. It's just sex.
Surely not - as has been noted, it's called the real world, where people often have opinions different to your own. Get over it. Or argue back - it's called debate, welcome to how those of us with an IQ that breaks double figures get one over on people who selectively quote from religious texts to justify their arguments, rather than just crying about it.
Still, it's good to see that El Regs readership are a relatively open and enlightened bunch, from the comments here at least, it seems.
As an aside:
"I always pull the user-agent strings so I can make a few browser customizations. Like yahoo, if there's the terms "Gecko", "Safari" or "PPC Mac OS X", I serve the homosexual version of the page. To avoid sex of any kind, I suggest you use linux instead"
Bwhahaha! Brilliant. >:-D
Oh, wait - I installed Ubuntu on my laptop the other night.
I made myself sad :-(
When middle-aged gays were marching(dancing?) the streets in leather bondage outfits trying to get the gay age of consent lowered to 16 they are somehow respectable members of society trying to save the world from bigotry.
When Christians(that's people who follow the word of God, not selectively removing portions that don't fit their personal ideas) march in suits, calling just for the protection of children from ALL sexual influences(not just gay) they are called all sorts of nasty things.
Grow up. Children don't need to know about sex until they reach a level of maturity fit to deal with it. They especially don't need people telling them that being gay is good when they don't yet have a concept of what 'straight' is.
...and don't get me started on evolution!
...we don't want him. Couldn't believe that someone had used what i consider a great site to spout this homophobia.
I'm all for a debate and have to say from the comments against this artical I'm heartened to see that the readership of El Reg is what I would expect from an educated group, but I also have to say that the artical itself is as relavent to the Register as an article on the brazilian Rubber industry (with out the suitable puns or obviously it would be prime register territory).
Well done reg readership for shouting down this article. As to evolution since a it's a straight guy and gal that tend to parent us gay guys and gals I guess that makes us the ultimate destination of evolution.
Why El Reg decided to run such a blatantly homophobic and ignorant piece (which is clearly not 'news') I don't get. Maybe it is supposed to be satirical, if so then its just plain bad writing. If it's not satire, then the thing that irks me most is that Mr Stern, like many other self-righteous bigots, clearly has lead a very sheltered life and obviously has not encountered many (if any) real 'gay' people in his day-to-day life yet feels he is the authority on the subject.
Lumping us all into the same boat (as if we all prance about dying our pubes, sending random wank vids around the internet), whilst crying 'save our children from this' is clearly the signs of an insecure man who has a problem; I just cant work out whether it's with gays per se, or just with well-groomed men who look after themselves (I'm guessing Otto isn't much of a looker). I think what Mr Stern needs to realise is that there are freaky gays, and also (this may come as a shock to some) freaky straights as well (or would a straight woman dying her pubes and masturbating online be ok for ya Otto?)! There must be a problem with his computer, as he only seems to be getting the 'gay' stuff, the heterosexual stuff is obviously getting filtered out.
And as for the 'biased comments' post..... OK, granted, I've never quite gotten what the leather thing is all about, but I think the point is is that these guys (despite their poor taste in clothing) are more concerned about equality rather than wanting to give your poor little 16 year old Johnny one up the bum. I personally feel 16 years of age is too young for most young adults to make a sensible choice about sex, regardless of orientation. I would love to know where you have heard this 'gay is good' message (like there's some sort of national campaign going on). I am not an activist; I am just a gay man who had to deal with his sexuality (in the UK) when I was at an early age (16) and was lucky enough to have very supportive parents and friends. Some poor kids grow up believing they are freaks and that there is no other way to be than 'straight' because their social surroundings teach them that. So no, gay is not 'good', gay is just 'there' in the same way 'straight' is. The sooner some people get that the easier life will be for everyone.
Has there been some kind of texan take-over at the reg? here's a portal alternative for your kids - http://www.faithtree.com/
and then just block yahoo! to finish i all up.
However puh-lease don't post you're toxic opinions on what i thought used to be a decent website.
Why are people taking this so seriously, don't they recognise satire when they see it?
I know that irony and satire aren't something widely understood in the US, and that minority groups always tend to have a sense of humour failure when they're the butt of a joke, but come on...
Read any of the other Otto Z. Stern 'articles' and you'll also see plenty to disagree with. You may also not find it funny - I know I don't, and could live without it on El Reg. But for f**ks sake don't take it seriously.
Maybe it could have been better written, but I think I can see part of the point that was trying to be made, and it doesn't look like it was gay bashing, more a comment on distorted media reporting based on personal interests.
Yeah, sure, one could see the whole thing as satire on the type of persona Otto tries to represent in this piece. Thing is, it doesn't work. One would expect El Reg readers to have a well developed sense of humor and irony, but apparently they don't get it here. So it's either bad content or badly written.
If it is satire, its not done very well.
satire so subtle that the majority of readers dont realise its nature is a failure. Satrie seeks to subvert a known perspective using the same language particular to that perspective. Hence politcal satirists mostly 'imitate' the politicians they are ragging, the intention often being to over infate the clams expressed to the point where thier inherant flaws become obvious. Like Swift's giant Gulliver, the concept that what is being said is intentially ridiciouls must be implicit from the outset.
If the perpose of this artical was satire, then it was poorly exicuted. The opinions expressed were pretty much indistiguisable from a opinion peice in a tabloid, from 7 years ago.
If its not satire, then I agree with the post above in that the internet is and should be a place where peopple will say what they like, and you are free to say otherwise, but I am still dismayed that I found this particular expression reported by the register, which gennerally is better than this.
In fact im fairly diaponted if it is satire, This should have been kicked back, maybe a few tweaks on the editor.bot?
At least I had fun writing coments :)
p.s. all spelling is deleberate.
I cant believe the stuff I'm reading here, morals being bandied about all over while the most important world shattering comment slips by, it just has to be put right, and the humble British sewage system can take any amount of crap flushed down it from human waste to deceased pets of the goldfish to guinea pig variety.......
so, you should all feel safe that no matter how much Kleenex you have to flush, its going to go if you visit and 'find the need'
...your problem is simply that you have no faith or knowledge in the American drug culture, so you think that Otto is nothing but a rambling fool. Of course he is, and the bastard probably wasn't sharing his intoxicants while he was writing, either.
As I was reading the comments section and laughing over your nearly psychotic moral crusading (I mean really, it's like a lot of you animals were auditioning for roles as Prince Valiant, sworn to protect cute animals, downtrodden minority groups, and the virginity of children), I decided that you folk would be more entertaining while high. So, I lept into action, grabbed me a quarter sheet of Fentanyl, and I've been chewing it like gum as I type this.
Ahhhhh. Now that the opiates have kicked in, let me do a line....
There we go. God, you fuckers with no sense of humor, you're going to be the ones to ruin everything for everyone. You are the narcotics agents, the hecklers, the tax collectors. You're the bastards that smugly look down on my 27 foot long 1972 Cadillac because it uses too much gas, while you're driving a slightly compressed sardine can filled with enough lead batteries to poison Love Canal again, thinking that you're saving the world.
At least the world and we practitioners of Gonzoism are still on speaking terms. When was the last time any of you swine C++ programmers went hunting for mushrooms in the mountains?
Chemical drugs are played out in America, coinciding with the death of the souls of our young. What used to be recreation is now escape, what used to be escape is now downloaded to your iPod, tossing a blanket over the head of kids wandering the streets, feeling alienated and alone, because they've fucking done it to themselves. People want something to make them feel, and they've lost enough of their culture to think that the TV and Internet really do.
Now, dear Limeys and the few Yanks, despite your disability of heritage, I'm certain you can understand most of what I'm leaving out. The disingenuous tirades, the proselytizing, the absolute lockstep of political correctness--- My brain might be swimming in drugs (and is), but at least through my purple haze I perceive the universe in much more subtle shades.
To be nearly an automaton, a net-head of the lamest order, unable to understand humor and perspective, screaming into the vacuum of a billion other voices, and missing the point so dramatically......
....well, you should really try Slashdot.
Here's one for you - Tolerate his intolerance.
He's entitled to his beliefs as are you, you may think that gaiety is ok, he clearly doesn't. This is pretty much the only website left in the world where over-PCism means that writers have to write what considered to be ok.
I heard one guy (who isn't a christian/bible basher/whatever you nazis call them nowadays) having a conversation with a homosexual...
"What! do you have a problem with the fact I'm gay?"
"Yes, I do! I'm allowed to think its wrong that you guys do what you do! Thats why you can't have babies!"
Come on "right wing knee jerk neo facists" "ignorant Bible-thumper" "blatantly homophobic and ignorant" little bit bigoted yourself there lads.
Since when was the internet a dictatorship run by humanistic, "Tolerate everything" hippies?
oh, yeh last year, but the Reg is happy to stand out and occasionally write very biased and bigoted writing (they even claim to be the most biased website on the net [lost the link]) So take it easy and tolerate intolerance
... if I wanted to read phuquit level anne coulter rantings I could go to fox"news" or stormfront. This article wasn't funny and it is such a transparent attempt at trolling for clicks that I feel ripped off complaining about it. Then again, having read it, I would be a subhuman if I *didn't* complain about it. I don't much like being manipulated in this way.
There are other sites on the internet for IT related news.
holy kleenex wrapped onto a hot-dog! I never figured El Reg would put me to so much hassle just to login to post a comment.. I mean, yeah, i wanna "register" to your bloody web site, but hell, I just don't want anything else! damn, this felt like loging in to -insert commercial web site which you despise..
oh, and on the matter at hand : almost every reader seems to agree that this article was a failure on its supposedly "twisted" twist on irony..
ok, every time everyone agrees on something, we should be wary.. but then again, this is The Reg.. I felt like I was reading a newspaper on the train..
but then again, maybe a nice "wake up call" was needed.. I used to like too many articles in here..
I'll be more than sceptical from now on..
yours truly, blah blah
Otto - I do like your flame bait writing. It is usually good for a laugh. But this REALLY is just bigoted claptrap, and it doesn't come across as being ironic, though I'm sure you intended it to.
However, if Tom Cruise past litigious history is anything to by, then this story may disappear fairly shortly anyway, so you'll be saved any further embarrassment...
This article wasn't satire:
SATIRE: a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
- If it was intended to be satire it was one of the worst attempts I have ever seen, if not, it was a bigoted intolerant attack on a group of people with no justification but his homophobia.
It wasn't funny, witty or enlightening and it is crap like this that makes me wish I had found an alternative to this site to read. Hopefully the editors will learn but they haven't yet.
Just because the majority of *commenters* don't get it doesn't mean the majority of the readership didn't. It just wouldn't have been worth a comment if it wasn't for the comments.
Stern's never funny; satire doesn't have to elicit the laughter of despair or schadenfreude to be satirical. There are thousands of newspaper cartoons that aren't "funny" and miss the mark of satire. It's just a shame that Stern always overdoes it. And more of a shame that people don't recognise it for what it is, even so.
dont like a website? -then dont visit it.
dont like your kids seeing certain stuff on TV? - then dont sit the little bug eyes in front of it with the remote for hours.
dont think maccyD's is healthy? - then dont eat there
while I hat to sound like a stereotypical yank hater (its hard) this type of thinking and vices has in the most part originated from the US. they love to complain, yet keep going back for more.
prob for the same reason they love to read about som starlet popping in and out of jail/rehab/relationships etc.....
I'm not usually one to go as far as voicing an opinion on a story where the author is exercising their right to free speech. No, not normally.
I've been reading The Register for years, and have always enjoyed the irreverent humour and spin on the [mostly] journalistically valuable stories you put out. Today, however, I read your correspondents article on homosexuals & Yahoo! [see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/23/otto_yahoo_pink/]. Is this the same Register I've known all these years? Who was responsible for allowing this narrow-minded bigoted diatribe on to your pages?
I know ElReg is international, but come on. We're not all bible-bashing creationists looking for the "Moral High Ground" according to God's bible (for ever after, Amen). Everyone makes mistakes from time to time, but allowing this sort of unadulterated tripe on to the hallowed pages of ElReg is beyond astounding.
I'll be suprised if you should ever allow said "Journalist" to syndicate his pitiful rhetoric here again!
The next sentence my require two or three readings before it makes sense, I apologise in advance:
How can you complain about a website that is complaining about another website by telling the author not to look at the website (the one the webiste was complaining about)?
If this website offends you then you should take your own advice and stop reading it, don't stop to tell us that you're going to stop reading it, just stop and move on, don't react to hate with hate and assume you have the high ground, just turn the other cheek and walk away
Looking at the text and refusing to get emotional without knowing everything there is to know: I am surprised that nobody seems interested in the opening quote, "A Butter Dish for Beelzebub by Julio Stantore"... The usual internet searches return nothing but references to The Register. Normally I would assume that this quote (if it does actually refer to another, existing text) should shed some light on the question whether or not this article/blog entry should be read as satire or not.
Nothing as well on "Julio Stantore" at amazon.
Am I really the only one to be the least bit intrigued by that?