Gail Simone keeps going downhill
35 Comments Published by Avi Green on Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:32 AM.
She's tweeted some groaners about "straights":
And this one is just as flavorless:
I'm finding her less and less funny by the moment. Orson Scott Card's hired for a job at DC I don't think she ever protested when Marvel gave him one, and she just loses direction? Sad.
Straight people are always trying to impose their straightitude on society! Next they'll want to marry badgers!
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 18, 2013
Everyone knows that gay marriage is a sacred right between two gays or whatever handed down by some guy or something! HISTORY.
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 18, 2013
I'm tired of all these straight people saying they should have rights like normal people! Let them have civil unions if they want!
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 18, 2013
I am not a heterophobe. I just think straight people would be happier in the closet. Let them do straight things in there ALL THEY WANT.
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 18, 2013
Jeez, straight people! You act like human dignity and the right to equal citizenship is just SOOOOOOOO important!#overreacting
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 18, 2013
I'd be okay with ONE straight Telletubby, but THREE is just sheer recruitment!
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 19, 2013
Well, I guess I'm just SO SORRY that I'm not all TOLERANT and POLITICALLY CORRECT like your hero Norm Crosby!#StraightsAreOppressingMe
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 19, 2013
And this one is just as flavorless:
I wonder if Carnival Cruise Lines would be as popular if they renamed the company SHITWALLS BOAT RIDES.
— GailSimone (@GailSimone) February 20, 2013
I'm finding her less and less funny by the moment. Orson Scott Card's hired for a job at DC I don't think she ever protested when Marvel gave him one, and she just loses direction? Sad.
Labels: moonbat writers, politics
Wow. Just wow....
Heterophobe? Actually, "heterosexist" is gaining traction (TV Tropes has used it), if you want to demonize your opponents properly, Ms. Simone. Don't be behind the times. Heh.
I hope Card has a good sense of humor, as he has completely unhinged Simone and the entire Comic Book Left (which is almost one and the same).
At least, she hasn't used "racist," yet. Wait for it....
Gee mister, you need to get a life.
It's okay though, you can do it after you finish masturbating in shame to Michelle Malkin
Way to show that you care about women by mocking their anatomy in your username. Well done, RC.
Anyway.....
How many times have the Left or Leftist trolls attacked your site, this week, Avi? 5-6? Apparently, they're finally taking noticing and attacking you -- you must be doing something right, then. Don't stop now.
Yo, heterosexism doesn't exist. Nobody hated heterosexuals as a whole, they just hate the one's who preach inequality due to sexual preference.
As a libertarian, I disagree with Card's views on gays; however, what the usual kneejerk "progressive" crowd is missing in this -- like Simone and other creators -- is that Card wanting to deny rights to a particular group of people is no different than THEM wanting to deny constitutional rights to a particular group of people ... in this case gun owners. Simone can be all cutesy and quippy all she wants, but the sad fact of the matter is that she's no better than Card. The only thing in her favor is that her views are ["progressively"] politically correct, which keeps her in good standing with most of the rest of the entertainment industry.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, that was great lol. There is a difference between being on a board whose sole purpose is to keep homosexuals from being equal to heterosexuals, and wanting to ban AT-15s. C'mon.
HAHAHHAHA And you're a clown who likes to put words in other people's mouths, it seems.
First, it's an AR-15. You, like way too many others who want to take away rights, cannot even get the terminology right. Let alone the fact that so-called "assault weapons" account for a miniscule amount of actual gun deaths. Second, gun rights are actually codified into the foundation of our law, unlike a supposed "right" for homosexuals (or anyone) to marry.
And don't be fooled that the current administration's ultimate goal isn't "interpreting" the 2nd Amendment to be something other than what it actually is. Obama is on record saying just this, pre-presidency.
And is fully one-half of the American public which doesn't favor gay "marriage" comprised of homophobes and believers of "unequal" rights? Or, is allowing civil unions which grant all the benefits of traditional marriage sufficient? (I am aware that Card favors neither, so don't bother bringing that up.)
1. The AR/AT mistake was an autocorrect mishap, I wrote AR, my phone decided I mean AT. It happens.
2. I'm a pretty strong proponent of the 2nd amendment, personally. I just believe that some weapons should be out of untrained, civilian hands.
3. I definitely don't believe the right to marry and the right to own a gun has ANY bearing on the other. So chill with the strawman routine.
4. Civil unions do not grant the same benefits as marriage. A quick google search will answer that riddle for you. You should research things first, because when you don't, you look like a dink.
3. I definitely don't believe the right to marry and the right to own a gun has ANY bearing on the other. So chill with the strawman routine.
Sorry, but I don't follow your orders. And the only reason you say neither has a bearing on the other is b/c it makes your "point," such as it is, completely moot. Or, if you prefer, it makes you look like a dink. (Or was that a typo, too?)
4. Civil unions do not grant the same benefits as marriage. A quick google search will answer that riddle for you.
No shit Sherlock. But the matter is evolving even as we type. The only difference currently is the matter of federal benefits, and the SCOTUS is slated to hear the matter as it relates to DOMA. As for conferring benefits on a state-to-state basis, again, your problem is with the Constitution on that one.
We can continue to argue about the rights and wrongs about gay marriage; however, the issue remains the hypocrisy of those like Simone who clamor about someone whose against rights for one group, all the while they do just that for a group of people with whom they disagree. Again, the only difference is that Simone's beliefs are politically correct. Case closed.
Straight up: Do you think DC should fire Card for his views on gays and gay marriage?
I don't think they should fire him because regardless of his views it's their right to hire him but it's also my and others' right to want him to get fired. Also, if someone would like to clue me I'm on the argument against gay marriage that isn't bigoted, I'd be happy to hear it.
When you write things like "Or, is allowing civil unions which grant all the benefits of traditional marriage sufficient?" I wasn't sure if you knew what you Were talking about. My apologies. And dink is just funny to say to someone on the internet because I'm hilarious and shit.
Oh and difference between Simone being against the ownership of SOME guns and Card being against the love if actual real people, is that Simone's not on a board that once said that owning a gun should be a crime.
I don't think they should fire him because regardless of his views it's their right to hire him but it's also my and others' right to want him to get fired.
Um, huh? You don't THINK DC should fire him b/c it's their right to hire him ... but it's also your right to WANT him to be fired. Clear as mud.
I mean, yes, it IS your right to desire he be axed, but that wasn't the question, was it?
Also, if someone would like to clue me I'm on the argument against gay marriage that isn't bigoted, I'd be happy to hear it.
Easy: If gay civil unions are granted the same bennies that traditional marriage confers, it isn't bigoted. So, will you now offer up a "separate but equal" rebuttal which I can shoot down, too?
Oh and difference between Simone being against the ownership of SOME guns and Card being against the love if actual real people, is that Simone's not on a board that once said that owning a gun should be a crime.
So the f*** what if Card sits on a board. Simone has a pulpit few people possess through her very employment to espouse her views. You say Simone wants to outlaw merely "some" guns; however, the lady said she "loathes the NRA" ... that "they are horrible." This is substantively different from Card how ...?
When you write things like "Or, is allowing civil unions which grant all the benefits of traditional marriage sufficient?" I wasn't sure if you knew what you Were talking about.
I did not make the conditional clause as apparent as I'd wished. It happens. ;-)
"I don't think they should fire him because regardless of his views it's their right to hire him but it's also my and others' right to want him to get fired. Also, if someone would like to clue me I'm on the argument against gay marriage that isn't bigoted, I'd be happy to hear it."
Yikes. This is pretty convoluted. Intellectually, it's like he's a superball that was shot out of a cannon in a small room.
Question: In terms of creating a healthy civil society, is there an ideal? If millions of Americans decided that a man and a woman joining together in a union — with the primary purpose of eventually having children together and raising them in a loving home — is the ideal we should strive for … would you call that bigoted?
If Americans decide the function that ideal union provides to society (i.e., a child being raised in a loving home with its biological parents … because mothers and fathers play different roles) is so important that it deserves its own special place carved into the societal fabric through the institution of marriage (defined as a union between a man and a woman) … would you call that bigoted?
Or is it only bigoted because one group is upset that it is biologically out of its reach?
Regardless of my personal views (which, at the end of the day, are probably pretty close to Hube’s in this instance) I think a strong case can be made that the importance of the traditional family unit has been eroded over the decades, and we have seen the effects on civil society as a result.
http://www.agreeablecomics.com/therack/?p=1823
The crazies are out in force, I see.
Isn't it funny how people like Card, Joe Lieberman, etc. - people who agree with the self-styled "progressives" 90+% of the time - are usually the targets of their most vile vitriol?
And, of course, how utterly intolerant the so-called "tolerance" crowd is? Tolerance means agreeing with them - or else.
Jackbooted thugs.
Yep, because not wanting to give money to some bigoted douchebag is TOTALLY Nazi like behavior. Us jackbooted might as Well be Hitler we're so goddamn intolerant!
Colin: As I asked and Doug reiterated, is your opinion that Card should be fired ... or not?
I checked out your link; however, it's totally moot. I (and I don't believe anyone else here) am not claiming you shouldn't boycott Card's work if you find his views reprehensible. That's the American Way. I haven't bought a contemporary comic in years partly b/c of the outspokenness of many modern creators who think my opinions are "scary," "extreme," etc. But I wouldn't advocate someone being fired because I disagree with their views.
And, BTW, I've purchased many editions from authors whose views I disagree with over the years, even when they put their views into their work. For example, I have an immense collection of Authority TPBs. I think Kurt Busiek is one of the best writers ever to grace the pages of comics. His Marvels, Superman: Secret Identity and Avengers Forever are spectacular. However (and I am guessing here, but it's a very educated guess), because I had the temerity to make some screen caps of some of his more nutty comments about the Gabby Giffords shooting, and how people like Sarah Palin were possibly culpable (and then send 'em along to Avi here), he's blocked me from even following his Twitter feed.
Is that tolerant?
During the Chick-Fil-A issue and the Gay Left's outrage, Dennis Prager had said that A) what the Left wants is to politicize everything in existence, or "buy from only liberal or conservative makers" and B) there still has to be the freedom to still buy and enjoy products from people whom you can't stand ideologically. To further Hube's point, the Right believes this, as it or we still watch them dopey TV shows and movies Hollyweird puts out, even though, bluntly, Hollyweird really, really hates us. (Look at Joss Whedon, his success with the Avengers and how far-Left he has become, recently.)
It's the Left that won't do the same, that if "you're not of the body," you must be cast out, to semi-borrow from a Star Trek TOS reference. They got being lockstep to a science, but I'm repeating myself or what others said.
Card's a fucking scumbag. No two ways about it and defending him makes you guys scum too. You fucking republicans only care about those in your warped, bigoted, mostly racist bubble.
"Is that tolerant?" You're comparing the inequality of a people to someone blocking you on twitter because you're annoying. Get that weak shit off my track bro.
Killer Moth, to answer your points:
a. We don't want to give money to bigoted douchebags.
b. We respect the right of others to buy from bigoted douchebags even if we wished no one would. Because they're bigoted douchebags.
Since someone's gonna say this I might as well get it out of the way. If it seems like I'm unfairly targeting republicans, it's because I am. Your policies are rooted in bigotry and most of you guys are assholes. This is not, however, even close to targeting homosexuals because being a republican a choice.
Card's a fucking scumbag. No two ways about it and defending him makes you guys scum too. You fucking republicans only care about those in your warped, bigoted, mostly racist bubble.
Translation: You've shredded my pathetic argument so I'll refuse to address your points and I'll resort to the tired "progressive" manta of childish name-calling. Get that weak shit off my track bro.
If it seems like I'm unfairly targeting republicans, it's because I am. Your policies are rooted in bigotry and most of you guys are assholes.
Which proves how ridiculously historically illiterate you are. Until you get at least a 6th grade education, keep trolling the "progressive" sites which make you feel "smart."
What pathetic argument? That people should all have them same rights?
*Yawn* I ain't gonna retype everything.
Go be boring somewhere else, hypocrite.
Hypocrite?
You realize Card's a Democrat, right?
And you realize at least half the regulars here aren't Republicans, right?
For my next trick, I'll really make your head explode: Do you know why state governments regulate marriage? (Hint: both parties are historically responsible, though for very different reasons.)
Eh, I don't feel like coming back here to see if doofus ever replies, so I'll spell it out:
Republicans enacted marriage laws mostly to stop polygamy - specifically Mormon polygamy. This, incidentally, is why Mormons remained a largely Dem voting bloc well through the mid 20th century.
Democrats (both Southern populist and Northern progressive) enacted marriage laws largely based on eugenics - to keep the races separate.
There are at least three levels of irony here between Card and McWhatsisface.
Do I have to elaborate, Colin? I'm weary of repeating myself. Your schtick is boring already. Go away.
It's really helpful and great informative blog.Thanks for share with us.
Cheap Fabric
The crazies are out in force, I see.
Isn't it funny how people like Card, Joe Lieberman, etc. - people who agree with the self-styled "progressives" 90+% of the time - are usually the targets of their most vile vitriol?
And, of course, how utterly intolerant the so-called "tolerance" crowd is? Tolerance means agreeing with them - or else.
Why are there so many guns produced if nobody ever uses them?
Hmm, Card eh? Haven't heard that name in a while. Tried reading the first couple books of his years ago, didn't like them. I doubt that Superman story of his wouldn't have been any different.