The Old Geezer's Thread.

[garbon]

The article stipulates the reason why the media was pushing for gossip on this was because it is the sports media and is made of hetero males. The premise that the bedrock of the celebrity gossip market is demand for it by heterosexual men is ludicrous and destroys any point thr article is trying to make.

That is not a fair summary.

[garbon]

Is the article saying that Swift normally doesn't put her love life to the press, but that her new boyfriend and the sports press are running with a lot of "look at sport-bro banging this super hot famous chick"?

Yes

[garbon]

To be clear, I think the argument in that article is an overreach, essentially using this pop culture moment to build what sounds like a well trodden path for that author.

But nevertheless, I'm shocked on the defensive posturing it elicited along the vein that queers are bashing  heteros.

[Tamas]

For the record all I sakd was that the author was bashing hetero males. I had no idea (and even less interest) they were "queer"

[Admiral Yi]

Is the article saying that Swift normally doesn't put her love life to the press, but that her new boyfriend and the sports press are running with a lot of "look at sport-bro banging this super hot famous chick"?

That and Jason Kelce stalked her.

Him and his brother have a regular podcast if you want a quick scan on his persona.

[garbon]

For the record all I sakd was that the author was bashing hetero males. I had no idea (and even less interest) they were "queer"

author thinks rumours about celebrity relationships (hetero ones, yuck!)

Then what was this?

[Admiral Yi]

What this is a test case for toxic masculinity.

[garbon]

What this is a test case for toxic masculinity.

I'd agree that's the author's approach.

[Tamas]

For the record all I sakd was that the author was bashing hetero males. I had no idea (and even less interest) they were "queer"

author thinks rumours about celebrity relationships (hetero ones, yuck!)

Then what was this?

A jab at the article's attitude, not at the author's self-declared identity, which, again, I was not aware of and did not seek to confirm before formulating my opinion on the piece they wrote.

[garbon]

For the record all I sakd was that the author was bashing hetero males. I had no idea (and even less interest) they were "queer"

author thinks rumours about celebrity relationships (hetero ones, yuck!)

Then what was this?

A jab at the article's attitude, not at the author's self-declared identity, which, again, I was not aware of and did not seek to confirm before formulating my opinion on the piece they wrote.

Alright, I take you at your word. Did seem strange that you felt it was attack hetero relationships when that wasn't written.

[Grey Fox]

I am not reading the article, being made fun of because I am not queer is not something I enjoy.

Same question to you that I asked Tamas. But perhaps even more inquisitively as I'm not sure how the author was making fun of you for not being gay. In fact, what has led you to such a defensive conclusion?

Sav's last sentence and Tamas posts. I might be wrong, I didn't read the article.

[garbon]

I am not reading the article, being made fun of because I am not queer is not something I enjoy.

Same question to you that I asked Tamas. But perhaps even more inquisitively as I'm not sure how the author was making fun of you for not being gay. In fact, what has led you to such a defensive conclusion?

Sav's last sentence and Tamas posts. I might be wrong, I didn't read the article.

So maybe we shouldn't be quick to jump to concerns that heteros are under seige, no?

[Grey Fox]

Sure we can. Inability of avoiding trauma and other cause of ache is why we need to create all sorts of safe space every where.

[garbon]

Sure we can. Inability of avoiding trauma and other cause of ache is why we need to create all sorts of safe space every where.

Say what?

[mongers]

Sure we can. Inability of avoiding trauma and other cause of ache is why we need to create all sorts of safe space every where.

Say what?

"What"