oh.
my.
god.
June 17, 2000 1:38 PM Subscribe
It would only be better if it came with some kind of media implemenation so "Dr." Laura could read you the riot act when you land on the "I'm So Stupid and Screwed Up I'll Call A Radio Show Instead of Seeing a Real Shrink" square....
posted by m.polo at 5:12 AM on June 18, 2000
posted by m.polo at 5:12 AM on June 18, 2000
(Thanks Ezrael. You just made me spit breakfast all over my monitor.)
My parents told me how wonderful this show was about five years ago. I don't get it. In fact I'm so far from getting that I don't understand why anyone can listen to her for more than a few minutes.
I haven't listened in years, and maybe things have changed, but back then she was mean, bitchy woman whose advice usually sucked.
Of course I also think that Rush is an ignorant asshole, and Howard is boring. So what do I know?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2000
My parents told me how wonderful this show was about five years ago. I don't get it. In fact I'm so far from getting that I don't understand why anyone can listen to her for more than a few minutes.
I haven't listened in years, and maybe things have changed, but back then she was mean, bitchy woman whose advice usually sucked.
Of course I also think that Rush is an ignorant asshole, and Howard is boring. So what do I know?
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2000
I think she's far worse now than five years ago. You know how you can become conditioned so that hearing your alarm clock will elicit physical pain? Her voice & its attitude come very close.
posted by EngineBeak at 9:56 AM on June 18, 2000
posted by EngineBeak at 9:56 AM on June 18, 2000
I actually ENJOY listening to her show. It's not that I even like the woman or her attitude/advice. I simply find it entertaining -- and frightening as well. It frightens me to learn that her obtuse callers are reproducing at such an alarming rate.
She is entitled to her opionions, just like anyone else. I don't think her remark about 'biological errors' created any new homophobes -- it just lost her a few sponsors.
Interesting how gay community calls for the boycott of Dr. Laura's sponsors, but they considered the boycott of "Ellen's" sponsors to be "censorship"? Could someone explain this to me?
posted by chiXy at 9:04 AM on June 19, 2000
She is entitled to her opionions, just like anyone else. I don't think her remark about 'biological errors' created any new homophobes -- it just lost her a few sponsors.
Interesting how gay community calls for the boycott of Dr. Laura's sponsors, but they considered the boycott of "Ellen's" sponsors to be "censorship"? Could someone explain this to me?
posted by chiXy at 9:04 AM on June 19, 2000
easy: in both cases we're defending our right to exist. duh.
posted by patricking at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2000
posted by patricking at 10:32 AM on June 19, 2000
Hmmm... perhaps I should rephrase the question? I was simply asking how one can be considered 'censorship' and the other is merely a 'boycott', when they seem to be one in the same.
I have been a very active member of GLAAD for three years, but I do not agree with GLAAD's 'talking points' regarding Dr. Laura. She is entitled to her ignorant point-of-view and 'media access'. She is breaking no law in being a misinformed mindless talk show host and having inaccurrate opinions. Dr. Laura's opinion/speech is 'First Amendment-protected' contrary to what GLAAD may claim. I believe that we should take an approach education and tolerance rather than the finger-pointing and name calling, as this continually produces even more negative attitudes en masse.
Your derisive, sarcastic answer of 'duh!' to my question merely compounds the propagation of anti-gay rhetoric. An immature attempt to insult my intellect does nothing for either side.
__________________
"ignorance never settles a question" --Disraeli
posted by chiXy at 7:21 PM on June 19, 2000
I have been a very active member of GLAAD for three years, but I do not agree with GLAAD's 'talking points' regarding Dr. Laura. She is entitled to her ignorant point-of-view and 'media access'. She is breaking no law in being a misinformed mindless talk show host and having inaccurrate opinions. Dr. Laura's opinion/speech is 'First Amendment-protected' contrary to what GLAAD may claim. I believe that we should take an approach education and tolerance rather than the finger-pointing and name calling, as this continually produces even more negative attitudes en masse.
Your derisive, sarcastic answer of 'duh!' to my question merely compounds the propagation of anti-gay rhetoric. An immature attempt to insult my intellect does nothing for either side.
__________________
"ignorance never settles a question" --Disraeli
posted by chiXy at 7:21 PM on June 19, 2000
I have to admit, I agree with chiXy on this one. I may not necessarily like myself for it, but I have of long standing demanded that the First Amendment protect me when I said things that offended my relatives and neighbors (things like 'The Bible is an edited document by human beings, not a revealed script of the Divine Word' and 'Homosexuality should not be punished by death' following the Matthew Shepherd case...my family is not a very open-minded group, but what do you expect from people who think that bar codes are the Mark of the Beast?) and so, ultimately, I need to extend that same protection to that arrogant harridan. (Dr. Laura, not chiXy.)
She's boorish. She's simplistic. She's deranged and bigoted. But it is her right to have such opinions, just as it is my right to slap each one of them down and reveal them as the trite homilies they are. People who find Dr. Laura offensive have every right to not support her financially; the same is true of Ellen, or Will and Grace, or what have you. (Will and Grace, being a ratings juggernaut, manages to prove that sponsors will stay where they think they can reach the most people...an interesting fact on its own.) Similarly, Southern Baptists had every right to decide a few years back that Disneyworld was too gay friendly for them to patronize; I notice they're back again, too.
Money talks. Now that people are beginning to realize that gay people spend just like anyone else, interesting ripples are being felt, and that'd fine by me. But let's not pretend to any sacred mantles. The very people who called for the 'Ellen' boycotts feel just as strongly that they're fighting for their very existence, too. It's when people get entrenched and there is no room to debate or discuss these topics that we end up with what Shakespeare called 'Bloody constraint.'
I'd prefer to avoid that nowadays.
posted by Ezrael at 4:09 PM on June 22, 2000
She's boorish. She's simplistic. She's deranged and bigoted. But it is her right to have such opinions, just as it is my right to slap each one of them down and reveal them as the trite homilies they are. People who find Dr. Laura offensive have every right to not support her financially; the same is true of Ellen, or Will and Grace, or what have you. (Will and Grace, being a ratings juggernaut, manages to prove that sponsors will stay where they think they can reach the most people...an interesting fact on its own.) Similarly, Southern Baptists had every right to decide a few years back that Disneyworld was too gay friendly for them to patronize; I notice they're back again, too.
Money talks. Now that people are beginning to realize that gay people spend just like anyone else, interesting ripples are being felt, and that'd fine by me. But let's not pretend to any sacred mantles. The very people who called for the 'Ellen' boycotts feel just as strongly that they're fighting for their very existence, too. It's when people get entrenched and there is no room to debate or discuss these topics that we end up with what Shakespeare called 'Bloody constraint.'
I'd prefer to avoid that nowadays.
posted by Ezrael at 4:09 PM on June 22, 2000
« Older how helpful. | The Oscars TM AMPAS will NOT... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Ezrael at 9:04 PM on June 17, 2000