By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
By Anna Pulley
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Erin Sherbert
By Rachel Swan
Be judicial about the language used in writing about prejudice: It's so important when someone writes about prejudice that he offer alternative viewpoints to those that blatantly nurture and perpetrate intolerance ["Muslim Hunting," Kyle Swenson, feature, 12/5]. But to do so with the same simplistic, blatant means?
This article left me with a really bad taste — Swenson uses the same lame tactics he denounces and thus greatly cheapens his effort. A couple examples: the title — I doubt Swenson has ever been hunting or else he wouldn't have used such lurid comparison — and "a white-meat gathering." Why should this kind of disrespect toward one race be okay but not toward others? There is no room for ambivalence in efforts for mutual respect. And also, his mentioning of funding is completely one-sided and doesn't allow the reader to get a comprehensive picture.
Blog Comments of the Week
Discussing authenticity among musicians: I find it remarkable that in order for Andrew Stout to find fault with Jack White's comments, he must resort to parsing the technicalities of philosophical debate ["What Jack White Could Learn About Lady Gaga and 'Authenticity,'" Andrew Stout, All Shook Down, 12/11]. He's taken one rather straightforward statement about artifice and turned it into a college theme paper.
Critics can still be respectful when disagreeing: As a woman who has been single, married, and divorced in San Francisco — and everything in between — I felt that Open made a gutsy take on the subject of relationships in 21st century S.F. ["Podcast Review: Open Explores the Perks and Pitfalls of Polyamory," Lily Janiak, the Exhibitionist, 12/7]. Being a human is chaotic and at times schizophrenic. We have inner voices and characters yearning to break free into the outer world and when couples get together it can result in an explosion of misadventures.
I felt that the reviewers were smarmy and even cruel at times. It is fine to have issues with the play and of course everyone has their own opinion — I just thought that the staff at SF Weekly would be more professional. It's really too bad. SF Weekly has a chance to encourage feeling of community. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Open, this review is embarrassing to SF Weekly.
Another reader found the podcast troubling: This podcast is so vapid, I have a hard time finding any substance in the opinions that Janiak and Benjamin Wachs try to articulate because I can't take them seriously. Really? It doesn't help that the background music drowns out their voices — wait; that's the best part of the podcast — but their review fails to deliver substantive insights. Instead, these two sound like flippant and opinionated know-it-all hipsters that should have stayed home.
As far as the play goes, I saw it and enjoyed it tremendously. It was very entertaining partly because of the ridiculous politics and complications that do arise in open relationships, all delivered in a wonderfully light and hysterical comedic manner. I'm wondering if it is the topic itself, of open relationships, that these two don't get. I have no regrets seeing this play and I was very happy and satisfied to support local theater.