RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Vile New Republic Column Kills Climate Conference - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Vile New Republic Column Kills Climate Conference Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,929
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 13 July 2019 - 07:56 PM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The New Repugnant published an especially vile column about Pete Buttigieg, one of the Democrats running for President. The magazine deleted it from their website nor will Right Nation allow me to quote it verbatim, but you can link to it here. https://www.mediaite...vasive-content/

I am unfamiliar with the homosexual slang terms in the column so I looked up one of them on the Urban Dictionary. I decided not to look up the others.

Dale Peck, a novelist and literary critic, wrote it. The New Republic has taken it off their website but it has been reported in many places because it is particularly contemptuous toward Buttigieg especially on the question of his homosexuality. I don't know whether all of its coarse language will get past the Right Nation censor, just as I don't know why in the world the New Republic would publish this.

They did, though, and one of the consequences is the hasty cancellation of a conference on climate change. The New Republic was one of the sponsors but has dropped out now that the vile column about Buttigieg has appeared. The League of Conservation Voters dropped out, too. So did the Center for American Progress Fund. So did the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. Link: https://news.yahoo.c...-213126218.html

Fasten your seat belts, friends, it is going to be a bumpy election.
0

#2 User is online   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,819
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:13 PM

Vile indeed. :angry: This is a good insight into the militant, nasty (and self-hating) gay activist types. Truly disgusting people. One is either neck-deep with them, or you're a target of their hate. Worse than anything I have ever seen or experienced from anyone sitting on the right, by a long shot.

PS I had to look up some of those terms as well. I guess I"m not gay enough either. :shrug:

This post has been edited by Howsithangin: 13 July 2019 - 08:14 PM

0

#3 User is offline   Wag-a-Muffin (D) 

  • Still clinging bitterly. . .
  • View blog
  • Group: Blog Moderator
  • Posts: 19,664
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:19 PM

Is the New Republic a right wing rag? (I am not familiar with it--and judging by the post, that's not a bad thing.)
0

#4 User is offline   SARGE 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 10,912
  • Joined: 26-June 03

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:24 PM

View PostWag-a-Muffin (D), on 13 July 2019 - 08:19 PM, said:

Is the New Republic a right wing rag? (I am not familiar with it--and judging by the post, that's not a bad thing.)



"The New Republic is an American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts, published since 1914, with influence on American political and cultural thinking. Founded in 1914 by leaders of the progressive movement, it attempted to find a balance between a humanitarian progressivism and an intellectual scientism, and ultimately discarded the latter.[3] Through the 1980s and '90s, the magazine incorporated elements of "Third Way" neoliberalism and conservatism.[4]"-----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic#ďMary_PeteĒ_controversy
0

#5 User is offline   Wag-a-Muffin (D) 

  • Still clinging bitterly. . .
  • View blog
  • Group: Blog Moderator
  • Posts: 19,664
  • Joined: 03-November 04

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:38 PM

View PostSARGE, on 13 July 2019 - 08:24 PM, said:

"The New Republic is an American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts, published since 1914, with influence on American political and cultural thinking. Founded in 1914 by leaders of the progressive movement, it attempted to find a balance between a humanitarian progressivism and an intellectual scientism, and ultimately discarded the latter.[3] Through the 1980s and '90s, the magazine incorporated elements of "Third Way" neoliberalism and conservatism.[4]"-----https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic#ďMary_PeteĒ_controversy

Thanks. (I didn't even think to search it.)
0

#6 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,294
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:41 PM

Reading it, and ignoring insults, I thought the authorís point was that PB is still a relatively freshly declared gay man whoís just got his sexual freedom without having to hide it, and the author worries that PB will not focus on his job as president, should he be elected. Iím wondering if that point has any merit? I donít know PBís history, sexual or otherwise.

Of course, easier for me to not think about the insults than it is if youíre a gay man.
0

#7 User is offline   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,330
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 13 July 2019 - 08:48 PM

View Postzurg, on 13 July 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Reading it, and ignoring insults, I thought the authorís point was that PB is still a relatively freshly declared gay man whoís just got his sexual freedom without having to hide it, and the author worries that PB will not focus on his job as president, should he be elected. Iím wondering if that point has any merit? I donít know PBís history, sexual or otherwise.

Of course, easier for me to not think about the insults than it is if youíre a gay man.


I question whether Pete is gay for pay.
0

#8 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 6,690
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 13 July 2019 - 09:43 PM

View Postzurg, on 13 July 2019 - 08:41 PM, said:

Reading it, and ignoring insults, I thought the authorís point was that PB is still a relatively freshly declared gay man whoís just got his sexual freedom without having to hide it, and the author worries that PB will not focus on his job as president, should he be elected. Iím wondering if that point has any merit? I donít know PBís history, sexual or otherwise.

Of course, easier for me to not think about the insults than it is if youíre a gay man.

I don't think it's going to be a problem...
0

#9 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,929
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 14 July 2019 - 08:49 AM

One of my ideas, open to challenge, is that it is a bad idea for pressure groups to award each other prizes because it rewards and reinforces groupthink. The inner group teaches its members that the path to fame and fortune runs through pleasing the elite of the in-group, who dispense the prizes. This has two bad effects, one individual and the other collective.

First, it teaches the honoree that only the in-group opinions matter. When a journo has won a Pulitzer Prize, which will precede his name ever after at the foot of every future column, he thinks he won it because he is such a good journo. It never occurs to him that he has come to define good journalism as that which appeals to the Pulitzer Committee. When a man has won as many awards as Dan Rather, you cannot convince him that the reason CBS fired him was his own egregious misconduct. He thinks the abrupt cancellation of his news-reading career was the work of "partisan political operatives."

Second, it undermines the general credibility of the pressure group among the society they live and work in. Look what the journos did to the White House Correspondents Association dinner, the so-called "nerd prom." There is a reason the Academy Awards presentation show, and all the other awards presentation shows, have lost much of their audience in recent years. It is not just the honorees among the in-group, but the in-group as a whole, which ignores criticism from outside.

So, if you wonder why Dale Peck would write such a lurid, frankly obscene column like the one in The New Republic, or why The New Republic would even think of publishing it, remember that Dale Peck is an award-winner. His novel, "Sprout", was honored by the homosexual pressure group Lambda Literary Foundation and the Stonewall Book Award sponsored by the American Library Association. He won a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1995. He has written reviews for the New York Review of Books, as well as The New Republic, and is editor in chief of Evergreen Review. You watch, the same groups which have honored Peck for glorifying homosexuality are going to assure him that the reaction against his current obscene column is mere bigotry. And he will believe it.
0

#10 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,251
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 14 July 2019 - 09:29 AM

You've hit the nail on the head Martin...witness "The Academy Awards."
0

#11 User is offline   Joe the Pagan 

  • I'm a Whovian not a Dweeb
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 6,851
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 14 July 2019 - 10:08 AM

View PostMartin, on 14 July 2019 - 08:49 AM, said:

One of my ideas, open to challenge, is that it is a bad idea for pressure groups to award each other prizes because it rewards and reinforces groupthink. The inner group teaches its members that the path to fame and fortune runs through pleasing the elite of the in-group, who dispense the prizes. This has two bad effects, one individual and the other collective.

First, it teaches the honoree that only the in-group opinions matter. When a journo has won a Pulitzer Prize, which will precede his name ever after at the foot of every future column, he thinks he won it because he is such a good journo. It never occurs to him that he has come to define good journalism as that which appeals to the Pulitzer Committee. When a man has won as many awards as Dan Rather, you cannot convince him that the reason CBS fired him was his own egregious misconduct. He thinks the abrupt cancellation of his news-reading career was the work of "partisan political operatives."

Second, it undermines the general credibility of the pressure group among the society they live and work in. Look what the journos did to the White House Correspondents Association dinner, the so-called "nerd prom." There is a reason the Academy Awards presentation show, and all the other awards presentation shows, have lost much of their audience in recent years. It is not just the honorees among the in-group, but the in-group as a whole, which ignores criticism from outside.

So, if you wonder why Dale Peck would write such a lurid, frankly obscene column like the one in The New Republic, or why The New Republic would even think of publishing it, remember that Dale Peck is an award-winner. His novel, "Sprout", was honored by the homosexual pressure group Lambda Literary Foundation and the Stonewall Book Award sponsored by the American Library Association. He won a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1995. He has written reviews for the New York Review of Books, as well as The New Republic, and is editor in chief of Evergreen Review. You watch, the same groups which have honored Peck for glorifying homosexuality are going to assure him that the reaction against his current obscene column is mere bigotry. And he will believe it.


I agree. I think we are also seeing the Democrat attacking machine targeting other Democrats. Democrats have long ago forgotten how to actually campaign. Now they just smear their opponents.
0

#12 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,929
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 14 July 2019 - 10:24 AM

View PostSeverian, on 14 July 2019 - 09:29 AM, said:

You've hit the nail on the head Martin...witness "The Academy Awards."


If I have hit the nail on the head, I shall try to countersink it.

Why did CFO Magazine honor Enron's Andrew Fastow as its CFO of the Year for 1999? Because they didn't know that Fastow was covering up billions in losses with fraudulent accounting. Why did Morningstar honor John Stumpf as their CEO of the Year for 2016? According to them, it was Stumpf's successful cross-selling strategy at his bank, Wells Fargo, which required all the tellers and junior assistant associate vice-presidents (clerks) to sign up every customer for at least six, and preferably eight, accounts because that was the only way to keep their jobs. A year later, the federal bank regulators detected millions of fake accounts which Wells Fargo clerks had created for their customers without the latter's permission. The bank's shareholders lost hundreds of millions and Stumpf still has his CEO of the Year award.

Why did Fortune Magazine honor Enron as "America's most innovative company" every year from 1996 to 2001, the year Enron declared bankruptcy? Because they didn't know, any more than CFO Magazine knew, what Enron was really doing. Even such comical awards are dwarfed by the San Francisco Chronicle. They honored the Rev. Jim Jones as their Humanitarian of the Year before the Rev became the most horrible mass murderer in U.S. history. Yes, the San Fran Chronic sure can judge character.

Pressure groups do not give out these comically misplaced awards to promote the careers of the honoree, but to promote the careers of the people on the awards committee. The Norwegian legislators who nominated Barack Obama for their Nobel Peace Prize, after he had been in office for just one month, weren't trying to honor Obama. They were virtue-signaling to their constituents. That is what Black Entertainment Television was doing when they made the despicable Al Sharpton their Humanitarian of the Year for 2012. Similarly, when the American Library Association and the Lambda Literary Foundation gave awards to Dale Peck, it wasn't an award for literary merit. It was marketing.
0

#13 User is offline   ASE 

  • You do NOT have a right to NOT BE OFFENDED!!
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,802
  • Joined: 15-June 03

Posted 15 July 2019 - 03:02 AM

Couldn't find the article. What was so terrible about it?
0

#14 User is offline   Tea Party Hooligan 

  • I kick puppies
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 17,181
  • Joined: 27-May 03

Posted 16 July 2019 - 01:14 PM

View PostHowsithangin, on 13 July 2019 - 08:13 PM, said:

Vile indeed. :angry: This is a good insight into the militant, nasty (and self-hating) gay activist types. Truly disgusting people. One is either neck-deep with them, or you're a target of their hate. Worse than anything I have ever seen or experienced from anyone sitting on the right, by a long shot.

PS I had to look up some of those terms as well. I guess I"m not gay enough either. :shrug:



Funny; you don't look gay.
0

#15 User is offline   Ladybird 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,178
  • Joined: 26-October 07

Posted 17 July 2019 - 06:53 AM

View PostHowsithangin, on 13 July 2019 - 08:13 PM, said:

Vile indeed. :angry: This is a good insight into the militant, nasty (and self-hating) gay activist types. Truly disgusting people. One is either neck-deep with them, or you're a target of their hate. Worse than anything I have ever seen or experienced from anyone sitting on the right, by a long shot.

PS I had to look up some of those terms as well. I guess I"m not gay enough either. :shrug:


Agreed.


View PostWag-a-Muffin (D), on 13 July 2019 - 08:19 PM, said:

Is the New Republic a right wing rag? (I am not familiar with it--and judging by the post, that's not a bad thing.)


There was a movie a few years ago about a writer at TNR getting totally made up stories published. Very good flik called Shattered Glass.
0

#16 User is online   Howsithangin 

  • The more ppl I meet, the more I like my cats
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 27,819
  • Joined: 07-March 08

Posted 17 July 2019 - 07:43 AM

View PostTea Party Hooligan, on 16 July 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

Funny; you don't look gay.

:D
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users