1 Yeah, that pretty much meets my definition of homophobia - the whole killing thing.  Okay, I'm now going to lob COMPLETELY UNSUPPORTED accusations out there.  How do we know this is not an agent provocateur?  I mean, look, there's been several examples from both the freak right and the freak left about people faking "hate crimes".  It would be easy enough for someone on the far left on this to make that call and then point to that as an example of those omg hateful bigots.  Note, I am not saying that's what happened, it's probably the exact opposite.  But hell, it has to be considered.

Of course, at the moment I'm blindly furious with everyone involved in the Amazon Fail thing to be able to think clearly.

2 I've seen a little bit about the Amazon thing but maybe you could fill me in a bit more on the full thing.  Was it intentional?  Being a computer professional I just assumed somebody was an idiot.

3 I'm assuming you know a hacker took responsibility for #amazonfail, alex?

4 Re:  Amazon Fail:  Yes, I know a hacker took responsibility for it.  I know there are some questions as to whether or not what he claims he did was possible. 

Amazon Fail primer (not even remotely objective):  Rumors began flying around that Amazon was attempting to, more or less, hide any and all LGBT works by delisting their sales ranks.  Apparently, this makes those works not show up on ranking lists.  There were also rumors flying around that LGBT works weren't searchable at all from the main page.  The kneejerk response was OHNOES!  CENSORSHIP HOMOPHOBIA!  This was not helped by Amazon sending out emails to some of the authors involved in which they said, more or less, that this was done to keep adult stuff off the main pages (paraphrasing here).
 
I did my own investigation into this and determined that what people were saying was going on simply wasn't.  I took a random sampling of ten clearly adult gay works.  By adult I mean "adult".  Each and every one of them had sales rankings.  6 of the 10 were showing up in various subcategories.  So it obviously wasn't all works.  In the other part of my internets life, I am acquainted with those who run a small epublishing house for gay literature.  They claimed that all of their works weren't searchable from the main page and all their sales rankings were gone.  Again, I did a search and that wasn't true, many of the works were gone but not all of them.  I'm not saying at all they were lying, what I'm saying is that search results were wildly inconsistent. 

From my own investigation, it was pretty clear that *something* was wrong.  It's just that it was very unclear what that something was.  My presumption at that point was that Amazon was trying to do some type of automated searching and the programmers fubar'd the search terms.  This appeared to be borne out since people started looking at the metaterms and it looked like that's where the inconsistancy in results occurred.  So programming error, not active malice. 

What I'm furious about is that 90%+ of the queer people I know online jumped INSTANTLY to Amazon Fail and calling for boycotts and not even remotely listening to facts.  So far I've actually lost two friends over this because I kept pointing out that what they were saying simply wasn't factually true and they refused to listen.  I can put up with a lot, but being told that what I saw with my own eyes isn't true isn't one of them.  I'm actually right back to wanting to slam the closet door behind me and nail it shut because I'm so embarrassed by what those who claim to speak for me are doing. 

The problem now is that Amazon is trying to roll it back.  So the data is corrupted and I can't do another check to see what's going on.  Do I think Amazon screwed up?  Oh hell yes.  If nothing else, Amazon had an incredibly exploitable system in place.  Do I think it was censorship and homophobia?  Nope. 

It's what I keep saying over and over again.  If you claim that not being able to find Hero by Perry Moore on Amazon (which you CAN), is homophobia, then what the hell is calling for someone's death for being gay? 

It's just so freaking infuriating.  There's a huge flash mob going on and facts are not only irrelevant but unwelcome.  That really really bothers me. 

5

It's not a stretch to assume he received death threats because he's gay, but it's still an assumption.  Perhaps the caller was upset with McCoy's sponsorship of SF 210, which establishes fees and taxes for producing alcoholic spirits.  That's just as feasible, though moderately less likely.  Maybe it's just a hillbilly rube upset with Democrat representation.  My point is that it's far too easy for a newspaper to print coincidental facts that allow readers to draw unfounded conclusions, especially when they pertain to chronically hyper-sensitive subcultures (gays, Christians, you name it).

Granting the assumption, there's also a semantic argument to be made that threating to kill a state Senator for his stance on legislation regarding gay marriage is not the same as calling for the extermination of all homosexuals.  It wouldn't be a terribly relevant argument, but it is necessary for clarity's sake in light of MPs second paragraph.  I suppose it's prudent at this point to add that I don't support death threats of any kind.

Perhaps I'm somewhat ambivalent toward "Senator Receives Death  Threat," which is all this headline amounts to once irrelevant coincidental facts are discarded.  Comes with the job description.  Now, find the idiot that did it and hold him accountable.

6

MP:

The sort of unfunny dipshittery and silliness going on in the comments at AoS you referenced is why I seldom comment over there.

7 Just remember what your parents taught you, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Or in the more modern internet vernacular, "if you wouldn't say it to their face, don't say it online."

I had an experience at work that showed me that you never really know who is listening to what you say/type/comment online, and there are many ways of finding out who you are. Watch your mouth.  No one says you can't say it, but sometimes is it really worth sharing with everyone?

8 It makes no difference to my main point which is that this issue is completely out of hand.

Oh HELL yes, do I agree with that.  Y'all have heard the rants, I'll spare it again.  I think that this has now become such a shorthand use of Good Person (pro gay marriage) vs. Evil Knuckledragger (against gay marriage) that every simply freaks.  the.  hell.  out.  about it. 

It's stupid.  It's insane.  It's really freaking annoying.  Everyone needs to STFD and STFU about it. 

9

Its just frustrating watching people get so passionate about something so stupid.  From now on I'm calling this issue the Hyperbole Debate.

That's more than a little ironic, given the (admittedly, inferred) tone of your post.  Then again, that's obliquely the point I was making in my earlier comment.  The level of reaction from both sides is totally disproportionate to the underlying issues where they're properly understood and completely insane where they're not.  Gay marriage is so inflammatory that an article that only superficially has anything to do with the issue can still generate hyperbolic responses just because some reporter used a few factually-accurate yet contextually-irrelevant adjectives.  The predictable reaction to this story is all speculation, and it's hardly worth that.  It's a piss-poor piece of reporting on a "Dog Bites Man" event with one sensational hook. That said, I won't tolerate death threats against my state senators, so go git 'im, coppers.

My reading of the article doesn't support your conclusion that it positively had anything to do with gay marriage.  I already conceded that it's probable, but the story doesn't contain enough facts to sustain the leap you made to condemning the whole debate.  If your point is to condemn the tenor of the debate then there must be better stories that have a more concrete relationship to gay marriage.  I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that this article is exceptionally weak support for your thesis.  You over-reached the available information.

My issue here is not with gay marriage or the nature of the ongoing debate.  My issue is with assumptions, no matter how likely they are to be true, being argued as facts.

10

Is it just me or does comment 7 seem a little ominous? 

I admit, I could be totally misinterpreting it. 

And re: Dr. Feelgood,

I'm not sure what tone you inferred from my original post but the summary seemed to handily explain my overall point which is that the gay marriage debate is not nearly important enough for anyone to go to the lengths that are (whether this specific instance is an example or not*) being used on both sides to carry the day. 

If you are referring to my obvious disgust at anyone that would threaten someone's life over the issue, that is completely separate from my feelings about the debate itself which would have difficulty stirring in me even mild indigestion. 

As for jumping to attack a person who may not exist about their desire to kill homosexuals, I will concede the point with the understanding that such people (doubtless, a tiny minority) do exist and certainly are insenced by the Iowa decision to the point of insanity.  I'd also add that such people are vastly inferior in number to the staggering quantity of pro gay marriage individuals are are similarly rabid.  Prop 8 in California showed very clearly how deranged these people are and how skewed their priority list. 

* - Again, I believe the article itself represents the insanity of this issue no matter which assumptions you make or do not make.  Either

 - There was a threat on the senator and it was related to gay marriage.
- There was a threat on the senator and it was unrelated to gay marriage but presented with obvious intention to be interpreted that way.
- There was not a threat on the senator and the senator lied about it or exaggerated it to score points and the media ran with it.
- There was not a threat on the senator and the media took something they heard from a staffer and ran with it to score points.
 - There was a homosexual activist calling in a fake threat to score points against the "homophobes" against gay marriage. 
- Etc.

It doesn't matter.  Any of these scenarios is equally disturbing from a perspective examining the level of importance people seem to be placing on this issue. 

11 MP:
FWIW, Jay in Ames is an old friend of Russ from Winterset.

12 What I mean is that he's cool.

13 I figured.  Cheerfully rescinded.

14 A good facecock will make it all better

15 Guess I should have put some context into what I was referring to. The comments on AoS can go overboard, especially into the realms of bad taste. By no means was I inferring anything bad happening to anyone. Just that it is surprising how brave people get on the innertubes, and how they might not realize how it reflects on them.

And thanks Eddiebear!  I'm cool now.  Well, you and my mom think so, at least.

16

Context clears it up completely.  I wasn't sure you weren't talking about me hehe and I know how tough you Iowans are.

17

MP, I meant the literary irony of your passionate tone decrying passionate defenses.  I'm not impugning your logic.  As far as assumptions go, I went with the assumption that the reporter is a sensationalist tool, therefore the facts of the story are that an Iowa state senator perceived a death threat during a telephone conversation.  Everything else is circumstantial and irrelevant.  The words of the caller aren't reported for us to judge.  The senator didn't say it was related to gay marriage; in fact, he's not speaking about it at all.  We're left with the reporter's salacious attempt to draw the issue into the gay-marriage arena.  I'm not biting.

18

This is really out there, but could this be the democratic media machine in full thrust?

We see this uh...memo about right-winged terrorists and this happens.

19 I think that this has now become such a shorthand use of Good Person (pro gay marriage) vs. Evil Knuckledragger (against gay marriage) that every simply freaks. the. hell. out. about it.

Note, however that this is not universally the case. Staunch marriage "defender" Maggie Gallagher had some provocative observations of her own in the Dallas Morning News.

From the interview:

Rod Dreher: Maggie, you and I are on the same side of the gay marriage issue, but I am pessimistic about our chances for success. You, however, are optimistic. What am I missing?

Maggie Gallagher: Vlaclav Havel mostly. "Truth and love wlll prevail over lies and hate." On that basis Havel took on the Soviet empire. Where is that invincible empire now?

Her equation: "Truth and Love" = opposite sex unions and "Lies and Hate" = same-sex marriage sounds just like what the Prop 8 protesters were saying, just with the parts reversed (and less violence). You guys know that when I talk about gay marriage, I'm not talking about lies and hate. But she doesn't and that makes it difficult to talk to her at all. She then proceeds with a strawman:

Same-sex marriage is founded on a lie about human nature: 'there is no difference between same-sex and opposite sex unions and you are a bigot if you disagree'.

No. Gay marriage proponents would be fools to say there is "no difference" between gay and straight unions. Obviously, there is a difference. The point of gay marriage advocates is that the difference is not substantial enough to justify disparate treatment under the law. Now, that's something to argue about, but Maggie's BS strawman enjoys the same callous disregard for the legitimate arguments of her opponents that she complains of.

20 Gabe - I understand your points but it's kinda of hard to read since Maggie Gallagher is totally Charlie Brown's Teacher to me.  I mean, whenever she speaks or writes or is interviewed, all I hear is wah wah wah wah. 

21 @alexthechick

I think your fact are confused on Amazon Fail. 

Amazon has a catalog system that allows them to flag a work as adult, when it is flagged it is removed from page rankings and will not show up in a variety of searches but can still be searched by title, and I believe, author.  At some point a worker in France flagged a number of works (about 57,000) the majority of which appear to be GLBT titles.  When questioned on it initially the CSR replied that it was the result of a new policy.  That appears not to be the case it appears to be an old policy improperly implemented. 

That happens, but as one of those who was complaining about the situation (and I started before I had heard about the entire #amazonfail thing) my complaint was, and remains, that Amazon is segregrating works I may want to read or watch from their main search results.  I don't care if they are political works, erotica, GLBT lifestyle issues, whatever, I want the results to show.  Now I understand that Amazon my have to find a way to keep minors from searching those works out but that is a different matter.

Anyway as a culprit in amazon fail here is my take on the situation -

here, here, and here

22 Chad - I appreciate the update.  Perhaps I didn't make my point clear, the problem for me is that the facts simply weren't clear at the time all of the screaming was going on.  People I knew were leaping to the worst possible conclusion (purposeful censorship of ALL LGBT works) with not only no support but directly in the face of contrary evidence.

I'll also admit, I walked away from following the issue when it became apparent that those with whom I was dealing were totally uninterested in hearing anything other than CENSORSHIP HOMOPHOBIA BEARS OH MY!  That's not to say that's what you did, not at all.  I was dealing with a different portion of my internets life and just couldn't take it anymore. 

I also hate the fact that I'm stuck more or less defending Amazon.  I think how it handled the situation was less than stellar.  I think this exposed a massive exploit in the system, regardless if that was the cause of this, and I think that Amazon needs to come up with some better way of dealing with the balance between open searching and reasonable restrictions on adult content.

23

Eh, the crazies are on the march again.

It happens every now and then, sometimes it doesn't happen for a century or two, sometimes it's happens continuously for centuries.

It's been most of 7 decades since they were really on the march for real, so we're due.

24

18:

 

I mentioned that as well, and it appears as though the meme is catching on:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/04/15/was-dhs-rightwing-terrorist-report-leaked-disrupt-tea-parties

 

 

25 @alexthechick -

Reasonable complaints and I am willing to defend Amazon to an extent.  In this particular case and maybe in the Craig Seymour case back in Feb. it appears to have been an employee mistake in cataloging.  It happens correct the problem and move on.

What I'm not willing to defend Amazon on is the underlying policy of deciding some works are inappropriate for me to view.  Don't get me wrong on this point, Amazon has a right to make that decision, but I want them as a service provider to be upfront with me so I can chose whether or nor I want to do business with the.  Also as I said I understand that there have to be some safeguard to keep kids away from inappropriate materials so if I had to do an additional log in I would be ok with that to.  Beyond that I don't ned protecting.