Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[Sovereign Dream]

Hey guys,

I made a blog in which I examine critically same-sex "marriage," atheism, and a host of other topics. I'd appreciate any feedback.

Sovereign Dream

 

[lewisnotmiller]

G'day...not sure what sort of feedback you're looking for (layout, general concept, direct debate on content) so I'll give some basics to start with. Pester me for more if it interests you to. I'm guessing I'm not quite your target audience, but I'll try and be fair.

LAYOUT and APPROACHABILITY

Welp, I was accessing it on my smart phone, and it was easy enough to view and get around, so I'm guessing you're using some sort of responsive template for the blog. Seems pretty good to me. Nothing out of the ordinary, but solid.

CONCEPT

Harder for me to comment. Not my cup of tea, but I'm assuming I'm not your intended audience. What's your intention with the blog? Is it to start debate on topics? Is it a vehicle for you to vent? Is it a way to recruit followers? Etc.

I read the Quick Update on the main page, the About Me section, and the post entitled Greetings, since it was of the most interest to me, as well as the Same-Sex marriage post which included the rest room pictures. I'm drawn to toilet humour.


I don't mind a fairly confrontational or argumentative writing style at all, and I found your style interesting. However, even without taking into account specifics of the argument (I really am trying not to show personal bias....) you do spend an inordinate amount of time (and "double quotes") building up hypothetical strawmen to knock over.

It all links back to the purpose of the blog, I suppose. If you are trying to develop complex and convincing arguments, I don't think that's a productive way to do it. If you trying to gain followers or likes amongst those who already agree with you, different story. Equally, if you're going for more of a light-hearted social commentary vibe, I can see why building an oppositional straw-man to knock over makes sense.

The Greetings post seemed to get a little looser and more rantish towards the end. I have noticed with my own writing (especially fiction-writing) I can tend towards this as the action gets more fast-paced. When writing an action scene, for example, I typically re-edit the scene once before even inserting it to draft, just to try and mitigate this, and get the pacing the way I want it, rather than the way I felt when writing it. Just a suggestion though.

CONTENT

Well...not my cup of tea. I'm happy to discuss any of the topics, though, if you want. Reading a blog about them is more frustrating to me than enlightening given the difference in our views, but I'm more than happy to argue the toss on atheism or same-sex marriage if you want to test your arguments, or whatever. But for now I'll hold off, since I think you were after more general feedback?


Hope it helps.

 

[Alceste]

Here's a bit of feedback.

1) You should not tile your header image. There are lots of pictures of St. Michael's Mount to choose from (great choice, BTW. I used to live just across the water from it)

https://www.google.ca/search?q=St+M...KoAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=740&dpr=0.9

Pick a photo that is at least 1024 pixels wide and trim it to the banner width (250 px). Upload that as your new banner image and you probably won't have to dick around with any other settings.

2) You should not have two right side bars. It looks odd. Choose a format with a right and left sidebar, or put all the right side bar content into one side bar instead of two. I would go with the latter option, since the text continues for ages after the side bar content runs out. You end up with a lot of blank space that way, which is off-putting and inefficient.

3) When you post images, you should align them to one side or the other and wrap the text around, rather than sticking them in the middle and letting the text follow after. Again, it's a waste of space and looks unprofessional. If you can't work out how to align images, try to choose images that are at least as wide as your text block (500 px). Then it won't look odd.

4) Your social media widgets should be in your side bar or header, not crammed in beside the title of every post. There are better ways to encourage readers to tweet or share your thoughts on individual subjects. If you've got the know-how, an inset "tweet this" or "share this" box in the body of your articles with a little Facebook or Twitter friendly blurb is the best way to encourage social sharing. If you don't have the know-how, just stick to the one general social media widget.

5) Break up your writing into smaller paragraphs and sentences and use fewer words. People are put off by a "wall of text". Also, delete all your pejorative adjectives. You should allow the reader to reach their own conclusions as to how "contemptible" the views you describe actually are, or you'll alienate most of them. See the example below:

You wrote:

Yet the contemptible social movement for the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" that many a "tolerant" teenage ignoramus is eagerly ready to defend on his Facebook against "bigots" by adopting a mathematical symbol as a profile picture just is, for the most part, the by-product of the wholesale accepting of a thoroughgoing materialistic and naturalistic worldview and the rejecting of truths about the nature and applicability of morality, metaphysical truths of all sorts, and certainly the existence of God and the nature of the human individual. To sharpen that previous thought: it isn't just an enormous coincidence that support of same-sex "marriage," abortion, feminism, etc. and secularism are bedfellows. Rather, the adopting of these views is just the reflection of the abandonment of traditional metaphysical, ethical and ontological truths which, although largely intuitively true, have, in several cases, been buried under superficially and rhetorically persuasive but philosophically bankrupt pseudo-intelligent babble about misunderstandings of the concepts of "rights," "equality," "justice," etc. In other cases, these metaphysical and ethical truths which centuries of clear-thinking have wrought have simply not been cultivated (and so wither and die as "superstitious thinking") in society in the recent decades, busy as families in the contemporary age are being self-shattered by divorce, abortion, poor raising of children, untempered promiscuity, and a host of other societal ills. Indeed, given the unfortunate success of the so-called same-sex "marriage" movement, one can say with confidence and perhaps sadness that society has fallen into deep intellectual and moral decadence. What better a time than to try to undo such catastrophic mess?

You should have written (edits in red):

Yet the [delete] social movement for the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" that many a [delete] teenager is eager to defend on his Facebook page [delete] reflects the acceptance of a [delete] naturalistic worldview. This perspective denies [delete] morality, metaphysical truths of all sorts, [rearrangement] the nature of the human individual, and certainly the existence of God.

[Delete]It isn't [a] coincidence that support of same-sex "marriage," abortion, feminism, etc. and secularism are bedfellows. Rather, the adopting of these views reflects the abandonment of traditional morality.

[What followed this was a total, unsalvageable mess. Deleted]

Indeed, given the [delete] success of the [delete] same-sex "marriage" movement, one can say with confidence - and perhaps sadness - that society has fallen into deep intellectual and moral decadence.

[I could not think of a way to fix the grammar and syntax of your final sentence. Deleted.]

6) Finish what you started. Edit, edit, edit. Trim the fat. Get your point across. Respect your readers by putting your thoughts across in the fewest words you can manage. Nobody wants to watch you ramble.

My last comment is that you could potentially be a decent writer (good vocabulary, moderately well-organized thoughts, very few spelling mistakes etc), but you are completely wrong about everything you say.

Fortunately for you, that is not likely to be an obstacle to attracting readers - especially in the US - if you follow the advice I've given above.

Most people pay me to do that for them. You can thank the pinot noir that I gave you my feedback for free.

 

[Amandi]

I am not intellectual but it was too hard for me to read. I kept waiting on you to get to the point. Maybe it is just a casse of your writing is not for me and that is fair enough.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not a fan of your writing style. Much of it is just ranting with insults and strawmen strewn all over the place. It makes you sound like a disgruntled elderly Englishmen who is surprised to find out that it's not the mid-20th century anymore (I don't know why, but I read the posts with the voice of an angry old Englishmen in my head).

 

[bobhikes]

Site has a nice look,

But like others I have a problem with your writing style. It's kinda random for a while I kept going back to the title to be sure I knew what your point was. Then I got bored and never finished. I looked at the others but couldn't commit to reading them.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I'm not a fan of your writing style. Much of it is just ranting with insults and strawmen strewn all over the place. It makes you sound like a disgruntled elderly Englishmen who is surprised to find out that it's not the mid-20th century anymore (I don't know why, but I read the posts with the voice of an angry old Englishmen in my head).

Haha, thanks for the feedback (not sarcasm).

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I'm actually pretty floored by the amount and depth of feedback you guys have provided. Honestly, I greatly appreciate all of it. Thanks!

I do realize the blog is very abrasive. For whatever it's worth, it is so on purpose.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Haha, thanks for the feedback (not sarcasm).

Lol. You're welcome.

 

[Skwim]

Here's a bit of feedback.

1) You should not tile your header image. There are lots of pictures of St. Michael's Mount to choose from (great choice, BTW. I used to live just across the water from it)

https://www.google.ca/search?q=St+M...KoAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1525&bih=740&dpr=0.9

Pick a photo that is at least 1024 pixels wide and trim it to the banner width (250 px). Upload that as your new banner image and you probably won't have to dick around with any other settings.

2) You should not have two right side bars. It looks odd. Choose a format with a right and left sidebar, or put all the right side bar content into one side bar instead of two. I would go with the latter option, since the text continues for ages after the side bar content runs out. You end up with a lot of blank space that way, which is off-putting and inefficient.

3) When you post images, you should align them to one side or the other and wrap the text around, rather than sticking them in the middle and letting the text follow after. Again, it's a waste of space and looks unprofessional. If you can't work out how to align images, try to choose images that are at least as wide as your text block (500 px). Then it won't look odd.

4) Your social media widgets should be in your side bar or header, not crammed in beside the title of every post. There are better ways to encourage readers to tweet or share your thoughts on individual subjects. If you've got the know-how, an inset "tweet this" or "share this" box in the body of your articles with a little Facebook or Twitter friendly blurb is the best way to encourage social sharing. If you don't have the know-how, just stick to the one general social media widget.

5) Break up your writing into smaller paragraphs and sentences and use fewer words. People are put off by a "wall of text". Also, delete all your pejorative adjectives. You should allow the reader to reach their own conclusions as to how "contemptible" the views you describe actually are, or you'll alienate most of them. See the example below:

You wrote:

You should have written (edits in red):

6) Finish what you started. Edit, edit, edit. Trim the fat. Get your point across. Respect your readers by putting your thoughts across in the fewest words you can manage. Nobody wants to watch you ramble.

My last comment is that you could potentially be a decent writer (good vocabulary, moderately well-organized thoughts, very few spelling mistakes etc), but you are completely wrong about everything you say.

Fortunately for you, that is not likely to be an obstacle to attracting readers - especially in the US - if you follow the advice I've given above.

Most people pay me to do that for them. You can thank the pinot noir that I gave you my feedback for free.

This ↑ Your blog is just far too difficult to wade through to hold my interest.
​

 

[StarryNightshade]

The overall look is fairly good (in my opinion), but your writing style makes it seem like you're trying too hard to be intellectual. It doesn't sound or look natural.

Also, I disagree pretty much with most of what you write, so that's a major turn off from wanting to read anymore of it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You may want to scale back the tone of your rhetoric, unless you intend to merely preach to the choir. Also, referring to WLC as a "philosophical juggernaut" certainly isn't going to help your credibility. Lastly, your arguments against SSM are terrible- no offense- but I suppose that can hardly be helped, since there are no good arguments against SSM.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You may want to scale back the tone of your rhetoric, unless you intend to merely preach to the choir. Also, referring to WLC as a "philosophical juggernaut" certainly isn't going to help your credibility.

Lastly, your arguments against SSM are terrible- no offense- but I suppose that can hardly be helped, since there are no good arguments against SSM.

Actually, I think just the opposite is the case; there are no good arguments for SSM.

 

[Alceste]

I'm actually pretty floored by the amount and depth of feedback you guys have provided. Honestly, I greatly appreciate all of it. Thanks!

I do realize the blog is very abrasive. For whatever it's worth, it is so on purpose.

I don't think "abrasive" is what's coming off though. Long winded is what I picked up on. I only noticed your writing is littered with needless pejoratives when I tried to fix up one of your paragraphs for readability. As to the rest, I couldn't get through more than a couple sentences before getting exhausted waiting for you to come to a point.

 

[Alceste]

Actually, I think just the opposite is the case; there are no good arguments for SSM.

Since when do we ever need reasons not to deny whole categories people equal rights and freedoms to the rest of us?

We need reasons to restrict and oppress the freedoms of others. We don't need any reason to live and let live.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since when do we ever need reasons not to deny whole categories people equal rights and freedoms to the rest of us?

We need reasons to restrict and oppress the freedoms of others. We don't need any reason to live and let live.

^This, exactly. :yes:

I have not heard one good argument from the anti-gay marriage camp. It's not as if gay marriage has never existed before. All sorts of marriage concepts have existed. Learn some history and cultural anthropology.

 

[averageJOE]

Your very first paragraph will put readers on the defensive. Therefore, the first paragraph alone tells me that your purpose is not to persuade, instead provide confirmation bias. With strawman arguments on top of that.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, I think just the opposite is the case; there are no good arguments for SSM.

I don't know if you have noticed yet, but the argument is pretty much over now. Your side lost.

Your choice now is either to accept the loss gracefully, or to continue to fume in impotent rage. Doesn't matter either way.

 

[Alceste]

Fun fact: men who describe themselves as least comfortable with homosexuality are the most likely to be sexually aroused by watching gay porn.

You might want to think twice about maintaining an anti gay blog. That's a heck of a lot of work you're putting into contemplating homosexuality for somebody who isn't into it. What will people think?

 

[McBell]

I don't think "abrasive" is what's coming off though. Long winded is what I picked up on. I only noticed your writing is littered with needless pejoratives when I tried to fix up one of your paragraphs for readability. As to the rest, I couldn't get through more than a couple sentences before getting exhausted waiting for you to come to a point.

Comes off as though he is unsure who he is trying to convince, himself, or others.