Are homophobic ads OK if they’re run by Democrats?
Absolutely.
Because, you see, Democrats are unmitigated scoundrels who are out to destroy America.
This being so, they just cannot help but be evil.
In support of this argument, I advance the work of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, numerous patriotic Republican politicians, and most especially World Net Daily.
Thank you for posting the link, CLedet. After watching it I have a mixed reaction. On the one hand, there was a reason to show Taylor doing hair-dressing work, since the ad accused him of abuse at that time.
OTOH the picture sure looks suggestive. And, the accusation against Taylor concerned his hair care school, rather than his beauty salon work. Furthermore, the final line of the ad was, “Mike Taylor-- not the way we do business in Montana.”
Overall, it looks like intentional or inadvertant homophia.
How many more december trolls are we going to have to put up with before the good Admins decide that some ignorance just can’t be fought?
I’m a resident on another message board where there was a long time poster who did very little except cause controversy. He would reply to questions with an extremely scathing attitude. Every post contained some sort of personal attack, then he would include an answer to the question. The community was divided because the poster in question really DID contribute valuable stuff more often than not. He also contributed a bunch of misinformation which he held as gospel truth even in the face of other evidence provided by other members. In two years I NEVER saw him change a position on ANY issue, even when someone completely disproved his position with mathematical analysis. He would simply re-phrase his position or insist his opponent’s understanding was flawed and cite “it’s obvious” as his evidence.
Still he contributed factual information more often than not. The problem was that it was couched in such a horiffic form that about nine out of ten threads he participated in would degenerate into discussions of him and his posting style.
The Admin did not want to ban him. Why? Because he personally HATED the guy. He despised his attitude, his aggressive debate style and his continually presenting his opinion as fact, even when his opinion was contradicted by facts. He flat out stated that he would not ban this poster because he WANTED SO BADLY TO BAN HIM, and he felt his feelings may be coloring his judgement. He asked his moderators to come to a consensus and decide if this poster should be banned. The moderators, following the Admin’s example, also waffled in their positions. This man also had accounts on other message boards where the subject was discussed. He was banned from almost all of them for exactly the same behavior. There was a “moderator-only” section of the boards and out of about four hundred posts in it, about half were about him.
One poster said “He never contributed anything worthwhile that would not have been contributed by someone else.” His continued use of misleading rhetoric and aggressive style contributed more to the chaos on the boards than any type of progress towards a better understanding of the subject.
A consensus was not reached until about a month ago. The occasional pearls did not justify the constant trolling.
We don’t miss him.
Enjoy,
Steven
PS. minty: they all spew stuff you’d be better off satying away from?
Thanks and a tip of the hat to CLedet, for the SmokingGun link.
Oh god give me strength. :rolleyes:
No, it doesn’t. << sigh >> See below.
December, how in the name of Sam Hill is this any kind of coherent rebuttal?
What a stupid thing to say. You imply, “Oh, here I posted this very important OP pointing out the evil homophobia taking place out in Montana, and DDG, preferring to ignore the real issue, just piles on poor little me.” There IS no homophobic ad out in Montana and there IS no “real issue” here, unless it’s your massive anti-Democrats agenda.
Helloooo? I mean, WTF? I don’t think Taylor is playing the homophobic card–Taylor thinks Taylor is playing the homophobic card. Everybody thinks Taylor is playing the homophobic card–that’s the whole POINT of the friggin’ Billings Gazette article you linked to. “Announcement–Taylor Playing Homophobic Card, film at eleven.”
<< sigh >> Geez. My kids could grasp this. Taylor is playing the homophobic card as his fortuitous, heaven-sent excuse for dropping out of a race that he can’t win. He’s been 20 points behind in the polls ever since last December. Nobody’s going to vote for him in a month. Now he can quit with honor, sort of, as it’s all going to be the fault of the Evil Homophobic Democrats. :rolleyes:
Huh? I mean, WTF is that supposed to mean? Oh, I see, it’s a riddle. Well, I’ve always sucked at guessing riddles, so why don’t you give us all a hint?
December, this has to be one of the most worthless OPs I have ever seen in GD. Even Seethruart had sincerity–all you seem to wanna do is rattle our collective cage.
It’s not a homophobic ad. Period. I just watched it 20 times in a row to make the following transcript. The ad has absolutely nothing to do with gays, or homophobia. The only people who are saying that it’s homophobic are Mike Taylor and the few people he can get to agree with him–and you.
Transcript.
The visuals that go with this are of two kinds: first, there are photos of him as described, wearing perfectly normal, not particularly “gay-looking” 1980s clothing, doing “stuff” to a guy in a chair, and second, there are black-and-white head-and-shoulders photos of him, juxtaposing “Then” and “Now”. There are also some plain text graphics saying things like “Mike Taylor Beauty Corner Broadcast 1980s”.
The ONLY way these visuals are even remotely homophobic–pay close attention now–is IF you think that male hairdressers are always gay, and that a scene of a male hairdresser doing “stuff” to a guy in a chair is depicting a scene of a Gay Guy doing “stuff” to a guy in a chair. That is the ONLY possible basis for thinking this ad is homophobic–if the viewer is someone who believes that a certain stereotype about male hairdressers is true.
Evidently, you are one of those people.
Unless, of course, you just posted this OP as a deliberate attempt to get a rise out of the Democrats on the board, which of course would be “trolling”…
“well, for a scathingly brilliant analysis, DDG has won a metric ton of GoodNPlenty’s, a personalized Google Search Engine, and a membership in the ‘gadfly of the month’ club.”
The guy looked like an ass. It was funny. Of course it’s childish to show an ad making fun of a guy based on his appearance, but how many politicians could resist showing an opponent in a goofy moment? I personally never understood why Dukakis driving the tank in a little helmet was supposedly so “devastating” to his chances, and I’d like to hear reasoned criticism of his policies instead, but a lot of people seemed to think it was relevant that he would ever have the poor judgment to present himself that way, so I could never have blamed GHW Bush for showing that footage, and can’t blame the Dem. here too much.
I’m not sure what the satisfactory approach is, and I don’t know that the OP reaches one, for exactly how to throw your opponent’s policies, which you disagree with, back in his face. That is, many in the GOP probably don’t and wouldn’t think there is anything wrong in the abstract with criticizing a guy for homosexuality, or flighty/effeminate behavior, or for having a dodgy/less than “serious” business. That’s fine, those are all theoretically defensible personal/political bases for criticism, and a GOPer might well invoke them against his opponent if applicable. Of course, he would be criticized by those on the left who don’t think those are appropriate grounds for attacking your opponent.
But given that many GOPers have the ostensibly-principled belief that “homophobia” is not a particular sin, and that effeminate behavior is fair game, how can they criticize a Dem. for a sin in which they don’t themselves believe (and which some of them would vociferously argue is a neologism that should not even be part of our political vocabulary)? Shouldn’t you be able to win without invoking the other side’s vocabulary and (you allege) goofy constructs? Don’t you risk legitimizing the notion of “homophobia” as a damnable (and actionable) form of discrimination – which many GOPers don’t want to see happen?
The obvious retort is that the GOP candidate is reacting in frustration to perceived hypocrisy, not to “homophobia.” He’s mad because if the roles were flipped, and a Rep. showed such an ad of the Dem., the Dem. might well accuse him of homophobic bias (although it would be equally baseless), and the Dem.'s charge might well have traction even if baseless. Why should Dems get to have it both ways? If they’re going to be hypersensitive about themselves/their constituency groups, they have to be equally hypersensitive, and equally accountable, when fall afoul of their own exaggerated codes of sensitivity to others – says the GOPer.
Okay, that makes sense as a GOP reaction – but can’t he make the hypocrisy/eat your own words point without coming across as piously, and insincerely, endorsing the very identity politics Republicans purport to be rejecting? In other words, is there a quick, effective, and sincere tactic for saying “I don’t believe homophobia is a political sin, but my opponent does, and so you should damn him for insincerity (not homophobia) when he acts in a way arguably hurtful to a protected group?” Maybe that’s the verbiage, but why doesn’t anyone seem to approach it that way?
Slight digression, but am I the only one who thinks that describing your political opponents’ tactics as “partisan” and “negative” (whereupon he will no doubt respond that your accusation of partisanship and negativity was, itself, the eptiome of negative partisan campaigning – ad infinitum) has pretty much ceased to have any content?
Politicians don’t want to lose with honor; they want to win.
Nope. It’s too simple.
Well, yes. All those who say it’s a homophobic ad are people who agree with him, by definition. One of them is State Sen. Ken Toole, D-Helena, and program director for the Montana Human Rights Network.
I agree that the transcript has nothing homophobic, except possibly for the last sentence. However, the visuals show him in a personal hairdresser relationship with a client and looking the way he did then. That visual is repeated more than once. Note that the visual has nothing to do with his fitness or lack of fitness for political office.
Well, yes. But, this is a widespread belief. Perhaps you remember the 1975 hit movie Shampoo, where the gimmick was that hairdresser Warren Beatty was, unexpectedly, NOT gay.
Feeble effort at an insult. The question isn’t how I react to the ad but how viewers in Montana reacted to it. Democrat Ken Toole has fought for homosexual rights for years in the Montana Legislature. He found the ad homophobic. Would you therefore consider Toole to be a homophobe? I don’t think so.
That’s quite an accusation, Huerta88. Please back it up with cites and examples or withdraw it.
Besides the student loan thing, it looks like Taylor was stuck in the 70’s for a while back then in the 80’s. I mean, do my eyes deceive me, or does that set have an entire wall of macrame?
I’m glad the post with the link made it. On my end it timed out. After reading the articles I thought the Dems were at it again.
After viewing the commercial I’m just, well, I can’t stop laughing. Homophobic? I don’t see it. Hell they should run it 24/7. Its one of the best political spots I’ve ever seen, and I’m from Louisiana. The printed press was way off base on this one.
Maybe we should revive one of the many “Ask the Gay Guy” threads and seek his opinion.
In fact, FNC reported tonight that Racicot has declined to run and the Reps will not attempt to get Taylor replaced.
Is Sullivan’s last sentence correct? If the Reps had done this, would there be hell to pay? Based on the furors over Willie Horton and the supposed “Barney Fag,” I think Sullivan is right. If the Reps had run this ad, we’d be hearing about it for the next decade.
December, note first that nothing in my post (which I guess is really a theoretical question about the fair and honest way to deal with your political opponent’s alleged hypocrisy) opines on whether GOPers who disapprove of homosexuality (or who oppose treating “homophobia” as a problem) are morally/politically right or wrong (leave that for another day) – it merely posits that some non-trivial number of Reps. do feel that way, and asks how then they ought best to deal with it in addressing Dems. and other liberals who presumably <do> think ‘homophobia’ is wrongful. If you are <not> a GOPer, and/or truly do agree that ‘homophobia’ is a grievous political wrong, then I apologize for any implication that my question applied to you, but am still interested in seeing people’s answers to it as it does apply to GOPers who <are> opposed to homosexuality.
And surely you don’t maintain that the GOP is leading the charge to see ‘homophobia’ enshrined as a capital offense in the ranks of thought crimes? Or (as one presumably sympathetic to the GOP, though forgive me if I’m assuming too much about your politics), do you think the GOP <should> embrace the concept that criticizing homosexual preference is damnable bias? If you do think that do you believe that most other GOPers do? Here’s one random stat on California Reps. (probably among the more moderate GOP state contingents) which shows a majority disapproving of homosexuality in all or almost all cases – and in greater numbers than the Dems. http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-97-May-GayRights.pdf. Why would members of a group who considers the behavior wrong, also consider condemnation of the wrong behavior wrong?
That many cultural conservatives (who I think we can agree are generally though far from universally more likely to find a home in the GOP) are opposed to recognizing ‘homophobia’ as a meaningful category of blamable behavior seems beyond dispute:
And note specifically Buchanan’s (alleged – the source is far from neutral) opposition to “anti-homophobia education efforts and Safe Schools-type programs to prevent violence and harassment against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender youth.” http://www.ngltf.org/elections/buchanan.htm
I was totally, totally wrong. I looked at the ad with my own eyes, and formed the opinion that it was not homophobic.
But, thanks to december, I have learned that pundits and bloggers have a different opinion than mine. As Master december has taught me, we cannot disagree with pundits and bloggers - they are the ubermensch.
Forgive me, Sensei Sullivan. I abase myself before you, Guru Kaus.
BTW
I called up the Great Seer William Safire, who informs me that “inadvertant homophobia” is an impossibility. He asked me to convey his command that you perform ritual seppeku for making such an obvious error.
Hey, don’t look at me - Safire’s a pundit!
Sua
P.S. Where can I send my absentee ballot so the pundits can cast my vote for me? I don’t want to screw up again.