Things I Really Don't Understand

lonewolf678's picture

1. Overcomplicated gender terms.
2. Overreaction to the Chicken sandwich place scandal.
3. Pieces of history being defaced and dismantled.

Let me begin with number one, I really don't get it. What exactly is a "post modern sexual" or "homo-romantic" or "asdfghjkl-sexual"? I know there are many types of people, but I don't see why it needs to be made so complex. It confuses me, I must sound stupid right now, but I really need someone to explain this to me.

Now onto the Chicken place. The counter protest was to kiss at the chicken places. What did that accomplish? It didn't make any sense to me why that would be effective. Why not just stick with the boycott? It seems like a better solution to honest, after all the less money being fueled into the anti-civil rights organizations the better.

Oh... This one really makes me confused. Making record albums into "art". BULLSHIT! There was a man in the newspaper a few weeks ago saying that he made old record albums into art like clocks and other pieces. He said he used Madonna albums, Metallica albums, Beatles albums, et cetera. Not to resell the albums, but to make them into "art".

And some of these record albums really were in good to fair condition. He was defacing them, and dismantling them. All to appeal to the hipster niche. Dude I would totally buy those record albums from you! Why turn them into crap! It makes no sense! :-(

Let me know what you think everyone, I'd like to hear opinions on all 3 if you can.


MaddieJoy's picture

For number 1

As I understand it, using specific terms for gender, sex, orientation, etc. helps people figure out who they are. For a lot of people, having some kind of term or definition for what they are, however "over-complicated," can be a great comfort. It is a way of knowing exactly what you are so you don't have to feel like who you are is so vague you can't understand it yourself.

"It's a helluva start, knowing what makes you happy."
--Lucille Ball

Tycoondashkid's picture


im with Maddiejoy on number one

number two: the kissing thing idea was stupid, but its not a over reaction when a company gives millions to violent hate groups who are trying to steal same sex partners children, and have been know to rape people and kill people almost nothing can be a over reaction

3. idiots, idiots everywhere, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN DO THAT!, the records themselves were already works of art

Super Duck's picture

1. Don't worry, I don't

1. Don't worry, I don't understand either.

2. I also think it was a bit of an overreaction. I don't even have that chicken place where I live. The nearest one is like 3 hours away. I've eaten there maybe twice in my whole life, and it wasn't that great. I just won't go again.

3. I love old record albums. That makes me sad. :(

jeff's picture


1. Ironically, the complicated labels seems to start when people don't buy into all the characteristics of other more generic labels, but instead of realizing that labels are stupid, they just create more specialized ones, often to the point where no one will know what half of them mean anyway (what I usually refer to as the 30 words for bisexual).

2. There are a few issues at play here. The gays lost the Chick-Fil-A debate when they let it be reframed by the right as being about free speech, so the majority of people heard that this guy is religious and believes in traditional marriage, but then the gays went crazy about his comments, leaving out that this guy spends millions on anti-gay stuff like ex-gay ministries, the Uganda laws, etc. So, we lost on Chick-Fil-A appreciation day. That said, the kiss-in would have one point, keeping the issue in the press. It is similar to what I deal with regularly when people mention PETA and how crazy they are, but they think PETA is about making change. But it isn't. PETA is about keeping the issues in the mainstream, with the belief that most people are on their side and if presented with the issues, they will eventually come around. So a kiss-in would serve the same purpose, keeping something in the news cycle longer. The problem was that we were trying to keep a battle we had lost in the press longer, so it seemed like a dud because of that.

3. Who cares? I used to belong to the Pearl Jam fan club, and every year they'd send me an exclusive piece of vinyl, and I was like, and what am I supposed to do with this? I, of course, sold them on eBay and downloaded the MP3 illegally when someone had ripped them. But there's lots of vinyl out there. If you want a Madonna album, you can find it. Not to mention, this guy is probably not interested in mint conditions LPs. If you're making a clock, who cares if it skips, so he's a secondary market for worthless things. Not to mention that you can't decide how something can only be used. If a Madonna fan likes the idea of having a Like A Virgin clock, fine by me. There's a blender company on YouTube that show how powerful their blenders are by blending top of the line stuff. So, they'll buy an iPhone the day it comes out, and then shoot a video showing how their blender can turn it into dust. The comments on their videos include people who wish they could afford or have an iPhone, but if you want one, they are still out there. This guy bought his and he put it in a blender, since it is his property. And if blending a $500 iPhone sells him a few thousand blenders, he's probably fine with that.

Plus, if they were in good to fair condition, as you said, those are some of the lowest valuations people use to rank the quality of records:
"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (

radiosilence95's picture

1) People make labels

1) People make labels overcomplicated because it makes them feel deep and mysterious. It really is just that simple, and anyone who says they label themselves complexly for other reasons is deceiving themselves. I really dislike labels anyway, even outside the spectrum of sexuality. They limit people.

2) I'm honestly so sick of hearing about this damn Chick-Fil-A fiasco that I just don't even care anymore. Yes, the owner or CEO or whatever he is donates money to anti-gay organizations and shit, and yeah that is really irritating. But that's his right to do so because it's his money and this is America and freedom of speech and blah blah blah. Such information should have been kept private anyway in my opinion.

And now people are assuming that the entire company, its employees, customers, managers, etc., are all homophobes, and that's just unfair. Does a kiss-in thing solve the issue? No. Of course not. BUT I'd probably do it. Why? Personal satisfaction, I guess. Sure it's purposeless, petty, and really does nothing but piss off any potential homophobes who happen to be dining there at the moment, but it'd be gratifying in a small way.

3) I don't listen to old records, so I have no opinion on that really.

lonewolf678's picture


So what I've gathered:

No. 1
They are labels that a person feels suits them, yet (often to the confusion of others due to not understanding what the term means) it can be justified by the person who uses the term because they identify as such.

No. 2
Yes it does appear that this did keep it in the press for a good while. It was publicity and it worked, by bringing attention to the matter.

No. 3
(Just for Jeff) I care Jeff. WTF WHY JEFF WHY?

No. 3
(Everyone other than Jeff) Works of art, and simultaneously just bricks in the wall. I get that, but I guess I feel it as a loss more than others since I usually pick around and can't find very many pieces of interest to me that I can play on the old phono.

Thanks for the responses all, I really appreciate it. :-)

jeff's picture


It's the same argument against e-books. The whole 'I like to feel a book in my hands, and if it's older, wonder where it's been and how it found its way to me, etc.' argument, but 97% of the value of the book is the words, so if that is being preserved, I'm fine with it.

But I find most people like the ideas of these things more than their functionality. I've always been functional. All the people who mourned the death of the LP because of the artwork and reading the liner notes, I couldn't care less. I never sat around bothering with those things. The music lives on, so the important bit carries forward. Plus, if it were truly about fidelity, the move is to high end systems based on DVD-A and Blu-Ray. When Neil Young released his archival material, it was on Blu-Ray for the quality.

Plus, after I moved 14 heavy-ass boxes of books once, you quickly fall out of love with them. After that move, I converted nearly my entire library to e-books (since I knew the next move was cross-country, and it would cost way too much to ship them).

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (

MacAvity's picture

1. Agreed. 2. Haven't heard

1. Agreed.

2. Haven't heard about it. Guessing it'll all be forgotten in a few days anyway, so don't really care. My apathy is extensive.

3. I'm probably not qualified to give an opinion on this since music and especially old records are not my thing, but... I guess I don't see how this is wrong. It's not like the songs are being destroyed - they still exist in other recording media, right, discs and digital and I-don't-know-what-all. So the records' value is is mostly in that they are records and therefore cool, ne? And since probably most people don't even have the machines necessary to play the music contained on them, to most people their only value would be in being records and therefore being cool? So I at least don't see anything wrong with finding a way to display them by turning them into other things. But like I said, not my thing.

anarchist's picture

Am I the only one who never cared about the Chick-Fil-A thing?

It's ridiculous. People are acting like organizations have opinions. And who cares if the CEO spends money on certain organizations? It's his money, and he can use it how he wants. Boycotting will only make the issue worse. The more attention Chick-Fil-A gets, and the more liberals boycott it, the more conservatives will eat there to compensate. They already made more money than ever on the Chick-Fil-A Day thing. If this issue never went to the news, this wouldn't have happened. But everything relevant to homosexuality has to turn into a huge issue in this country. Especially when a company, made up of thousands of people, has its own opinion on it.

elph's picture

No... You're not!

The way this issue has been exploited by attention hogs is totally out of control and is counterproductive for legitimate LGBT interests.

OTOH... I don't support the organization... but strictly because their profits are made by peddling high-calorie food of questionable nutritional value.

Let it rest!

Bosemaster42's picture


I do believe the protests have had an opposite effect. I also think it was a foolish battle to pick to begin with. The media, of course, loves this shit. It's funny though, I've never seen this fast-food joint in Mass. I don't go around looking for new fast-food choices either. Yeah, your not alone!

jeff's picture

Well, some errors here...

(on all three posts above, maybe more)

There is a misnomer that we shouldn't have picked this battle. But we didn't. Anyone who tracks this stuff has been aware of the Chick-Fil-A CEO's stance and donations for years. Unlike many right-wing CEOs, though, who make themselves a bit more protected, since you can't really dictate how he spends *his* money, etc., he has an actual Chick-Fil-A funded philanthropy arm connected to the main company, and that philanthropic group gives out the donations to the Uganda 'kill the gays' bill, ex-gay ministries, and anti-marriage equality stuff. So, for Chick-Fil-A, it *is* the company that directly supports anti-gay causes, rather than the CEO having the right to do what he wants with his money. If there are pro-gay people working there, they are working for an anti-gay company, NOT at a lovely politically neutral chicken place with an anti-gay CEO. Usually, it is level removed like that and less of an easy target, since he obviously can do whatever he wants with his money.

The new bit that happened was that the CEO finally addressed it in a quote, on the record, which he had smartly never done before. The actions spoke pretty loud, but now people had words and audio backing them up.

So, like many things, it started spreading on social media, getting shared, and getting a bigger audience on the liberal pro-gay side. The activists were actually not that surprised, but just shared on Facebook/Twitter/etc., that he finally said something on the record about it.

But for many non-activists, this was their first time hearing about Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay activities (as the majority of people don't really regularly follow what the gay organizations say/do, which is recommended), so it was an organic thing that occurred because of social media, etc.

Most of the shares/retweets mentioned we should boycott them, etc., although as I said, gay activists have been boycotting them forever already. So, most of their messages actually didn't call for a boycott, since they've been unsuccessfully boycotting them for a while.

So, when people say we shouldn't have picked this battle, it wasn't the gay activists calling for the boycott, typically, but random people who are typically not politically active sharing something thousands of times on Facebook walls and Twitter feeds that called for a boycott. And there is something nice about people becoming organically passionate about something like that, too, if misguided.

GLAAD is the only gay group that tracked and somewhat engaged in the Chick-Fil-A issue. And just was tracking coverage more than anything. And the media was covering this, because it became a big issue online.

However, on the other side of all of this liberal chicken grumbling, the right wing of course, started to defend Chick-Fil-A. However, their side actually started to get immediate support from the American Family Association and the usual suspects, so they became organized.

That is why this was reframed as a free speech debate, as to not rehash that millions of dollars go to anti-gay causes. The talking point was that he expressed his Constitutionally-protected view and the gay community want to shut down his free speech, and that he has a right to do what he wants with his money, etc. Interestingly, many gays are now mentioning these right-wing designed talking points, as well. Some of ya'll have even touched on them, except no one on the gay side has EVER made these points.

So, when people question why the gay community became embroiled (chicken joke!) in this issue, we didn't start it, per se. It became a thing that got shared for a day or two, and would have died out had the right wing "family" groups not made it a cause celebre for free speech. There are people boycotting things ineffectively all the time, so most boycotts are nonsense anyway. Many atheists avoid eating at In N Out burger, since the cups and burger wrappers have bible references to John 3:16 or somesuch on them (not even the passage, just the citation).

The notion that there was any gay leadership, save for the Internet meme of gays and pro-gay people discussing it, pushing for this is really false. Also, with the kiss-in, who organized it? GLAAD? HRC? NGLTF? Umm, try no one. Once again, after the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day was successful, since it was being run by professional advocacy organizations, another reaction meme circulated, this one about we should have a kiss-in. But it was vague, just go there and take a picture and post it. No real time it was happening. No point. Again, we'd already given up the narrative to the right-wing advocacy groups, so there was no benefit to keeping the issue we already lost alive in the media. But no one was running it. It was sort of running itself, because someone somewhere happened to create the kiss-in idea that got shared the most.

So, it rings false to pin this on gay activists and such, since it was essentially an Internet meme (our side), that became a professionally run reframed free speech debate (their side), that we countered with a failed flashmob (our side). If anything it was the lack of leadership, and no gay activists, that hurt our side.

That said, any time spent calling people/companies out on homophobia is always worthwhile. A lot of people who don't track this stuff all became engaged and informed, so that's positive.

I guess it just seems strange to boast about political apathy, and how you feel this was the wrong debate for the gay community, and he can say and do whatever he wants, when it seems like the talking points you're using to some degree were written by the American Family Association.

So, if you don't want to politically engage, that's fine. But it's better to learn what you're supposedly against than to adopt right wing talking points to defend your disinterest, no?

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (

elph's picture

That said...

and since the subject remains quite alive in the media, what would you deem to be the most prudent course to follow by those wishing to favorably advance LGBT issues?

jeff's picture


If you want to do something, the best thing to do is find some narrower cause you're passionate about and do something on that issue. It doesn't even have to be a gay issue. Just be openly gay doing it. If you are the openly gay guy that does work to stop natural gas fracking, it ultimately helps gay acceptance.

If it is a gay issue, just do something that makes you feel you are contributing. There is no right way. Everyone does their own thing and, collectively, things move forward. Oasis is activism for me. I donate money to the ACLU. I tend not to join real-life groups, just because LGBT groups are so PC, 50% of the time is spent on nonsense. I'm also very out. Will engage people online who I think are wrong (see above, heh). Promote stuff on Oasis that I think are positive, etc.

That said, if people choose not to do anything, which is also an option, one would hope they also refrain from critiquing people trying to make a difference on their behalf. It is sadly a new online pastime, though.

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (

Tycoondashkid's picture

don't forget

they also condone kidnapping as several groups they pay money to are planning to steal children from same sex parents

Bosemaster42's picture

Thank you,

for clarifying what this debate is truly about, Jeff. I think I spoke out of turn, not for being tired of hearing about it, but for lack of information. I really haven't investigated anything about this issue. Actually, the first I heard about Chick-fil-A was listening to the Mayor of Boston saying this company wasn't welcome in the city of Boston due to the management's narrow views toward the LGBT community. I thought it ridiculous to think he could actually stop them from setting up in Boston, taking into account they would be paying taxes and providing jobs. Somehow, the mayor does wield enough power to make it very difficult for them to come into Boston Proper, but I'm sure they'll find a way into this state regardless. I apologize for my inference it was the LGBT community that chose the battle, obviously I was guilty of not doing my homework.

jeff's picture


A few mayors said dumb stuff that I didn't agree with like that. I think any city should be zoned to make it harder for chains, I like that in larger cities like SF and NYC, it is harder for a chain to get in certain neighborhoods so encourage local, unique places (usually in the better neighborhoods, of course).

That said, as a vegan, it was also weird telling people not to support a specific chicken place. So I can go back to thinking all chicken places are bad. ;-)

"You can judge the whole world on the sparkle that you think it lacks" - Dawes, When My Time Comes (

Bosemaster42's picture


Yeah, there are so many chains in the city, seemingly on every block. I found I have an affinity for Vietnamese cooking. There used to be this great little restaurant in Allston I frequented 'Viet Hong'. I think it was the first time I actually enjoyed Tofu. I haven't mastered cooking with it yet.