Daniel Nester wrote:
Zebonka, I don't really fall back on anything when I don't like what Adam Lambert sings, but safe to I don't say I don't like how he once kissed a member of his band or projects/leverages the wrong message.
A new pinnacle of sentence construction from Professor "I critique language". If this thread is any guide and sentence clarity was an Olympic sport you'd be sweating in a mascot suit, hauling water bottles and rubbing Ben Gay on the lips of real communicators.
Did you forget the quotations on "message" this time? Eliminating them kind of loses that smarmy sense of exasperated incredulousness that some of an artist's choices just might be in service of a deliberate theme. When one pulls a hamstring pretending that concept is even remotely difficult to plumb it becomes clear they were never really capable of dicussing the ideas in the first place.
As far as I can tell your investment in issues that affect gay people is about an inch deep, inch and a half if you count the self serving part. You are completely ignorant on the specifics here: You clearly don't know much about Lambert, or the extent to which he himself has tethered his sexuality to his art and his fame and how clear he has made it that he intends to be a vocal and visible role model. You don't know who makes up his fanbase. You don't know what you're talking about. So you assemble arguments clearly predicated on uptight redneck male stereotypes and project them like a clueless ass at a liberal minded female poster and ramble about Mick Jagger instead. Those with a productive investment in human issues like this don't stoop to faux outrage and the indiscriminate splatter of slyly manufactured homophobia, they attempt to look at things as they are, and sometimes framing them in a way that is honest means it will not be politically correct. They don't handicap gay people or treat them like china dolls when what is deserved and has been earned is the equal right and equal responsibility to succeed and shine or fail and learn on their own merit. I've never once implied that Lambert projects the wrong message. What I very specifically communicated is that I think he projects the right message ineffectively. Oh and that he often sounds like shit. I said that too. So I'll worry about keeping track of what I say and what I mean and supporting meaningful equality as I see it, and you can focus on making sure you're conspicuously seen regularly doodling pride rainbows in some earnest hipster grub pub in the U district.
Loose end: You mentioned in one way or another higher post counts on QZ not once, not twice, but THREE times. It really does kind of blow my mind that somebody would volunteer to lay themsleves out as that much of an imperious ass on the internet. Your inflated sense of superiority is unearned on just about every front you've tried to assert it on. I can think of at least three high count regular posters on QZ off the top of my head who almost certainly have superior intelligence, you're not consistently coherent, your comprehension sucks ass and you actually posted "[sic]" at somebody and yacked about the MLA guide. Hilarious in a Jesus Christ kind of way.
Anyway, whatever. I'm done with this. Apologies to those weary of the arguing on this topic whose names don't rhyme with Spaniel Fester.
