Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure to most anybody who might ever listen to Santorum, that joke is a much larger negative for Savage's cause than it helps. I know it's one of the reasons I've developed some willingness to listen to the guy.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure to most anybody who might ever listen to Santorum, that joke is a much larger negative for Savage's cause than it helps. I know it's one of the reasons I've developed some willingness to listen to the guy.

Why?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why?

Because it's mean spirited and disgusting.

No matter what you think of someone and their views, treating them this way reflects badly on you, not on them.

 

[Spindrift]

All I'm saying is that the dead horse has been a fine red mist for some time now, and yet every time anyone even mentions Santorum in any context, inevitably about fifteen people feel the need to make hilarious "subtle" gags about the "secret" meaning of Santorum that's been around literally for years. I have been guilty of this on occasion, and deeply regret it. It's annoying as hell.


/grump

ETA:


But that's what I'm saying! Even saying something as simple as this does far more to advance the cause of "hey, that Santorum guy is kind of an intolerant dick" than just saying LOL HE'S POOP SEX LOL

I can understand your tiring of it, but it is exactly what Dan Savage hoped would happen. That in no way could Santorum be discussed without santorum jokes. Some may disagree with it, but it has been effective.

 

[Spindrift]

Because it's mean spirited and disgusting.

No matter what you think of someone and their views, treating them this way reflects badly on you, not on them.

Treating someone as the despicable person that they are does not reflect badly on someone.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Why?

Because, regardless of intent, reason, or any other factor, it immediately paints the joke-maker as a petty jerk. It's demeaning an ideological opponent with a personal attack simply because it's supposedly common knowledge that he's an awful human being. If your point is to make jokes about someone with a bunch of people that already agree with you, then it's going to work great.

However, if you want to be persuasive or actually have a message that you want to get out to the world about him being a bad person who should not be in power, then you (general you, not you in specific) need to move away from just saying "HA HA HE'S POOP SEX XD." It does nothing to actually further any message or cause beyond juvenile insult humor, and I cannot see how anyone would think anything otherwise.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I can understand your tiring of it, but it is exactly what Dan Savage hoped would happen. That in no way could Santorum be discussed without santorum jokes. Some may disagree with it, but it has been effective.

It really hasn't.

The people who make the "santorum jokes" on one side are the equivalent of the people who consistently refer to the President as B. Hussein Osama on the other side. They are part of the discussion when the discussion includes mean-spirited people who hate the guy to begin with. They don't do a thing to convince anyone on the fence, and they're not included in discussions among anyone other than fierce opponents.

I have discussed Santorum several times IRL with different groups of conservative, moderate, and even some liberal folks. Only once did the whole alternate definition come up -- long enough for everyone to shake their heads in disgust and praise Rick for being willing to uphold his beliefs against really nasty attackers. Never once has it led to any sort of joke, subtle or otherwise.

But maybe I just travel in the wrong circles.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Treating someone as the despicable person that they are does not reflect badly on someone.

Yes it does.

That's what you're missing. Treating someone this way makes you the bad guy whether the person "deserves it" or not.

And -- let me be perfectly blatant for a second -- this confirms exactly what people already think about you. For those of us, like me, who continue to try to make the arguments for inclusiveness in churches and other traditionalist settings, these stunts make those arguments incredibly hard to make. When they have any impact it all, it's incredibly negative. It's fodder in the culture war for the other side.

I'm not sure why this confuses anyone; maybe it's because advocates who are only familiar with "one side" of the issue are convinced that everyone on "the other side" is so blatantly evil that there's no reason to even try to be civil anymore. Fortunately, some of us recognize that the world doesn't work that way.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

As a hypothetical, imagine someone unused to the political process hearing someone call the first lady "Moochelle." This is roughly analogous in that it's a simple personal attack repeated over and over about one (in this case semi-) political individual with the intent of causing derision upon simple mention of the target's name. How do you think they would react?

Do you think they would say "Oh, of course I should disagree with any initiatives brought forward by Michelle Obama, or should I say Moochelle" or do you think they would go "Good lord, what the hell is wrong with you people?" To me, the Santorum joke does absolutely nothing to get people unfamiliar with Santorum's policies or ideas to become familiar with (and by extension, ostensibly go on to reject) those same policies. It just makes them go "that's gross."

There's no room for the "well he's a terrible person so I'm going to call him that" argument. That's just a flat refusal to confront what you are doing because you enjoy doing it. Trust me, I was there. I've denied it myself. I disagree with essentially everything Rick says and does, but I just don't think that playground humor is going to accomplish anything except a sense of self-satisfaction among those who already disagree with him.

 

[RandFan]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure to most anybody who might ever listen to Santorum, that joke is a much larger negative for Savage's cause than it helps. I know it's one of the reasons I've developed some willingness to listen to the guy.

I think this is a fair point to make. Not sure I agree with your conclusion but that could be bias (I wrote the thread title). If I had to venture a guess it would be that the strategy worked. But I don't honestly know. I don't think Santorum is taken seriously much outside of right-wing circles. He might garner some sympathy for being the brunt of the joke but not too much, IMO.

 

[RandFan]

Yes it does.

That's what you're missing. Treating someone this way makes you the bad guy whether the person "deserves it" or not.

And -- let me be perfectly blatant for a second -- this confirms exactly what people already think about you. For those of us, like me, who continue to try to make the arguments for inclusiveness in churches and other traditionalist settings, these stunts make those arguments incredibly hard to make. When they have any impact it all, it's incredibly negative. It's fodder in the culture war for the other side.

I'm not sure why this confuses anyone; maybe it's because advocates who are only familiar with "one side" of the issue are convinced that everyone on "the other side" is so blatantly evil that there's no reason to even try to be civil anymore. Fortunately, some of us recognize that the world doesn't work that way.

While I share your sentiment I don't, per se, share your conclusion. It's a matter of perspective, philosophy (opinion). It's subjective. At best you could perform a scientific study and tell us prevailing attitudes that might support your conclusion but you can't reasonably tell us that your proposition is a fact.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I think this is a fair point to make. Not sure I agree with your conclusion but that could be bias (I wrote the thread title). If I had to venture a guess it would be that the strategy worked. But I don't honestly know. I don't think Santorum is taken seriously much outside of right-wing circles. He might garner some sympathy for being the brunt of the joke but not too much, IMO.

Your thread title is another thing that is far, far better than just another Santorum joke. It explicitly details WHY you disagree with him.

The more I think about this, the more I think that it's just as easy to argue this from an information set perspective. If the goal is to broadcast a message regarding Santorum (the person), then how is making a poop joke out of his name helpful in that regard? To someone completely unfamiliar with the scenario/players, how is that going to help them come to the decision that maybe his policies and ideas aren't as good as he says they are?

For that matter, if they're really bad at Google (for example, many older people), how are they to know that he's not just unfortunately named, like the eminent Senator Gloryhole?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Because it's mean spirited and disgusting.

Boo-***********-hoo. He brought it on himself.

But maybe I just travel in the wrong circles.

Clearly.

 

[Spindrift]

As a hypothetical, imagine someone unused to the political process hearing someone call the first lady "Moochelle." This is roughly analogous in that it's a simple personal attack repeated over and over about one (in this case semi-) political individual with the intent of causing derision upon simple mention of the target's name. How do you think they would react?

Do you think they would say "Oh, of course I should disagree with any initiatives brought forward by Michelle Obama, or should I say Moochelle" or do you think they would go "Good lord, what the hell is wrong with you people?" To me, the Santorum joke does absolutely nothing to get people unfamiliar with Santorum's policies or ideas to become familiar with (and by extension, ostensibly go on to reject) those same policies. It just makes them go "that's gross."

There's no room for the "well he's a terrible person so I'm going to call him that" argument. That's just a flat refusal to confront what you are doing because you enjoy doing it. Trust me, I was there. I've denied it myself. I disagree with essentially everything Rick says and does, but I just don't think that playground humor is going to accomplish anything except a sense of self-satisfaction among those who already disagree with him.

You are totally missing the point of the redefinition of the word santorum. It is not a matter of disagreeing with 'initiatives', it's holding a view that certain people are sub-human.

Santorum (the ex-Senator) equated homosexuality with bestiality and refused to back off of that.

If Michelle Obama did something equally heinous then calling her Moochelle would be tame.

santorum is equivalent to quisling. Sometimes people's actions make their very name an insult. Do you feel that using the word quisling only accomplishes a sense of self-satisfaction among those whose disagree with him.

 

[A'isha]

It should be noted that the "Santorum" thing was started by Dan Savage as a specific response to some of Rick Santorum's specific comments regarding homosexuality (in a "your words are hurtful, so let's see how much you like it when that sort of thing is directed at you" sort of way), and was not intended to be an overall insult to the man because of a dislike of his political views in general.

EDIT: Spindrift beat me to it.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Boo-***********-hoo. He brought it on himself.

I get the feeling that this is going to get me accused of various fallacies, but this is the sort of justification that you will often see for calling people "faggot," for example. Or the sort of justification you'll hear from certain members of this forum for just calling everyone they disagree with drongos. It's a completely invalid and empty justification, as far as I'm concerned. It just strikes me (any time I see this justification) as simply refusing to stop doing something that one enjoys doing, regardless of its merit.

I understand I'm not making any friends saying this, but I really deeply feel that for any progress to be made--in discussion (on ANY topic), in politics, in America, really in anything--we have to be able to turn a critical eye on ourselves and say "wow, hey, maybe this thing I'm doing isn't necessarily the best idea." Sometimes that means being nice to people who really don't deserve it.

I know I'm being preachy, and I'm honestly sorry for that (I know it's annoying), but this is an example of a concept that really bothers me. It's a personal sticking point. I hope you'll forgive me for getting up on my soapbox about it, and if not, I understand that.

 

[johnny karate]

Because it's mean spirited and disgusting.

No matter what you think of someone and their views, treating them this way reflects badly on you, not on them.

Because, regardless of intent, reason, or any other factor, it immediately paints the joke-maker as a petty jerk. It's demeaning an ideological opponent with a personal attack simply because it's supposedly common knowledge that he's an awful human being. If your point is to make jokes about someone with a bunch of people that already agree with you, then it's going to work great.

However, if you want to be persuasive or actually have a message that you want to get out to the world about him being a bad person who should not be in power, then you (general you, not you in specific) need to move away from just saying "HA HA HE'S POOP SEX XD." It does nothing to actually further any message or cause beyond juvenile insult humor, and I cannot see how anyone would think anything otherwise.

Well, first of all, my question was specifically directed at AvalonXQ's "willingness to listen" to Santorum. I don't see how someone being the target of a joke of which you personally disapprove automatically lends their viewpoints credence.

Secondly, to the point you've both raised: Santorum is a bully who got his nose bloodied by someone he was victimizing. Period. I don't know about you guys, but in those scenarios, I don't usually sympathize with the bully or castigate the victim.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

You are totally missing the point of the redefinition of the word santorum. It is not a matter of disagreeing with 'initiatives', it's holding a view that certain people are sub-human.

Santorum (the ex-Senator) equated homosexuality with bestiality and refused to back off of that.

If Michelle Obama did something equally heinous then calling her Moochelle would be tame.

santorum is equivalent to quisling. Sometimes people's actions make their very name an insult. Do you feel that using the word quisling only accomplishes a sense of self-satisfaction among those whose disagree with him.

You are assigning a quote to me that misrepresents a very key point. I said policies or ideas (such as, oh, I don't know, bestiality being the same as homosexuality). I fully understand what Savage was trying to do, and the Quisling analogy is a perfect example--who really remembers who Quisling was (therefore fully accomplishing the intended goal)? However, it's been adopted as a simple way of dismissing anything and everything that Santorum says, which I feel is a very dangerous road to follow.

It's going to be far more productive in the long run if Santorum's terrible, terrible views are brought up all the time in public spaces (such as forums). Don't get me wrong, I think this forum is far, far better about it than others. It's a joy that the worst we usually see are posts like these:

That would be "Sanctorum". "Santorum" means something rather more unsavory, and I´m not talking about Latin.

In other forums, it's standard to just (and this is key) completely forget to talk about whatever it is that Santorum did/said that the thread is responding to and just race to make the most hilarious poop joke. That isn't productive. It goes toward Savage's intended goal, but if someone just makes a poop joke in response to Santorum saying something as inflammatory/ridiculous as this:

What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

What gets accomplished? One laughingly dismisses the man because lol poop, but the actual view goes without response.


ETA:

Secondly, to the point you've both raised: Santorum is a bully who got his nose bloodied by someone he was victimizing. Period. I don't know about you guys, but in those scenarios, I don't usually sympathize with the bully or castigate the victim.

I'm not castigating the victim or sympathizing with the victim. Santorum's an idiot, and I'm not saying that we should remove the Santorum joke from existence. It's fine. It does what it needs to do. What I'm saying is we need to remove simply making the joke as a de facto response to the man. Make the joke while actually addressing his hateful or idiotic stances. Don't just go (for example, as a hypothetical response to the above Santorum quote in this post) "Man, Santorum's sure frothing mad about Obama! lol!!!"

 

[Ladewig]

You are totally missing the point of the redefinition of the word santorum. It is not a matter of disagreeing with 'initiatives', it's holding a view that certain people are sub-human.

Santorum (the ex-Senator) equated homosexuality with bestiality and refused to back off of that.

Just to add some clarity, Dan Savage for years stressed that he would take it all back and encourage his readers to stop with the joke as soon as Mr. Santorum admitted that the comparison was completely inappropriate.


But, more importantly, at the end of the day, I find myself following most of Laughing Baby's words.

in America, really in anything--we have to be able to turn a critical eye on ourselves and say "wow, hey, maybe this thing I'm doing isn't necessarily the best idea." Sometimes that means being nice to people who really don't deserve it.

Although I might change "being nice to people who" to "not be a **** to people who."

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not castigating the victim or sympathizing with the victim.

Well... you did suggest Savage was a "petty jerk"...

Santorum's an idiot, and I'm not saying that we should remove the Santorum joke from existence. It's fine. It does what it needs to do. What I'm saying is we need to remove simply making the joke as a de facto response to the man. Make the joke while actually addressing his hateful or idiotic stances. Don't just go (for example, as a hypothetical response to the above Santorum quote in this post) "Man, Santorum's sure frothing mad about Obama! lol!!!"

... but, fair enough. However, your beef seems to be with the general state of political discourse rather than this specific issue.

Personally, I think what Savage did was hilarious, even if legions of tone-deaf "comedians" have appropriated the joke and driven it into the ground.