Twitterverse reacts to Colbert commencement announcement

You're half way to being a rational conservative. Unfortunately, you promulgate three clearly false positions in this article while otherwise denouncing such damaged 'thinking'. The specific falsities are;

1: You repeat the tired claim that 'extremist insanity from both sides is eclipsing the facts'. Yet you only cite examples of this insanity from one side. Shouldn't that be a clue? Or can you cite liberal/democrat conferences which are equivalent to Heartland's madness? Are left leaning politicians and activist groups screaming about the impending 'end of the world' and I just haven't noticed? I've heard Heartland and similar groups CLAIM that 'the other side' are extremists... but in the rare cases when they give an example (e.g. 'Joe Romm claimed GW would cause 20 meters of sea level rise by 2100') it always seems to turn out to be just as much nonsense as the rest of what they say (i.e. Romm did say GW could cause 20 meter sea level rise, but in the next sentence specified that it would be over the course of hundreds or thousands of years). There is nothing remotely similar to the rabid insanity of Heartland, Watts, Limbaugh, et cetera on the left.

2: You claim that Heartland and their ilk are on the fringe and not representative of the national Republican party. Again, this is nonsense. Every one of the major GOP candidates for president except Huntsman either enthusiastically denied global warming (e.g. Santorum & Perry) or was forced to backtrack on earlier acceptance of reality (e.g. Romney & Gingrich) to avoid offending the MAJORITY of GOP voters who, according to all polls, believe that human induced global warming is either a total fraud or at worst a minor problem.

3: You state a belief that a conservative president would be better for the economy. 'Conservative' economics are every bit as at odds with observed reality as their stance on global warming. Every conservative economist and politician out there swore blue that Obama's stimulus spending would destroy the U.S. economy while the spending cuts (aka 'austerity') in Europe would bring them roaring back to economic prosperity. What actually happened? The U.S. economy got better while Europe has gone into free fall. During a recession individuals and businesses naturally cut back on spending due to concern and uncertainty. If government then ALSO cuts back on spending then there is less money being spent overall... which perforce means less money being EARNED over all. Since most people won't take a voluntary pay cut, especially during a recession, the only way for there to be less earnings overall is for people to lose their jobs. Ergo, spending cuts during a recession = layoffs. All obviously and inescapably true... and proven over and over again by economic history. Yet directly at odds with modern 'conservative' economic 'thinking'.

Yes, the younger generation has thrown off many of the ridiculous lies their predecessors told themselves... but don't get complacent kid. You still believe a lot of things which are demonstrably nonsense.

So if i understand the author correctly, gays portrayed on television aren't always relatable because not all gays share their interests or life experiences. So the solution is gay superheroes because superheroes interests and life experiences are so relatable? I don't have any problem with trying to diversify gay characters on television, movies, or comics, but what exactly is the purpose of having a current superhero come out as gay? What if you just introduced a new gay superhero? The only reason i can think of is that if they create a new gay superhero and he's not popular/a failure that would look bad. So they want to force feed a gay superhero on people by making one of their already beloved characters gay. This isn't about giving options to gay people to read about gay superheroes, this is about requiring comic book fans to read about gay superheroes (unless they want to give up reading about one of their favorite characters.

What peeves me about this is the changing of the character after the fact. Once a piece of art or literature is created and shared i believe it belongs to everyone. A writer should not create a character and then later on say oh by the way he was gay (or anything other major changes.) If you want to include a gay character feel free I would have been happy to read the harry potter books with a gay dumbledore. I am not happy that his sexuality is never brought up in the books, and then after the last book is written the author decides to announce by the way he was gay all this time. No he wasn't gay if you wanted him to be gay you should have written that. He was neither straight nor gay, he was whatever the reader wanted. If you leave something to the reader's imagination, then it should be left to the reader's imagination. Create a new gay superhero, put your best people on it to ensure good work, just don't try to change history/rewrite characters in an attempt to be politically correct or grab attention/headlines.

G$