It shall be rebuttably presumed that defendant is not guilty of anti-X bias in his portrayal of complainant if defendant’s alleged bias consisted solely in portraying or reproducing literally the actual words, appearance, conduct , and writings of complainant (without additional and misleading characterization, distortion, ellipsis, or commentary on said words, appearance, behavior, and writings).
What say? Showing a film that a guy <voluntarily made and distributed> falls clearly within this safe harbor. “It is what it is.” Now, the disco music – that might fall a bit afoul of the “commentary” provision of my resolution. But I think it has some promise. Show a photo of Patrick Ewing in one of his more funny-looking moments and you’re not a racist; you’re just showing a black guy who is also ugly. Show Bill Clinton leering down at a coed, you’re not a partisan; just a documentarian. And show film of a provincial goober acting like what could equally be deemed an unfair Camaro-driving stereotype of a “Jersey guido” (jewelry and all) , you’re no more guilty than the makers of That '70s Show (who may well be guilty of manifold crimes, but of the aesthetic rather than bias variety).
December, you may also note that my proposed anti-thin-skin rule would help conservatives at least as often as it helps liberals, and arguably more, because conservatives are probably at more risk of being accused of (real or imagined) slights by a protected class – protected classes being, more likely than not, Dem.-leaning.
Don’t call fellow posters idiots, CLedet. And I am Sparticus, you should have posted your remark in the Pit. Samclem, do not call people “horses ass” in this forum. Shape up, guys.
Can someone explain this to me like I am a four-year-old. Say, the ad did imply the candidate was a homosexual, why is that grounds for dropping out of the race? Isn’t it easier to cry and leave because you know you don’t have to rigorously prove or defend your claims? Even better, he could have used the so-called “smear” as his weapon.
Let me step back in just for a moment to point out that two people called the OP out for mischaracterizing their posts (to the point where one of the two called it flat out lying), one was moi a card-carrying bleeding heart [color=green] liberal[/color, and the other a staunch (they don’t have a color for that) conservative Scylla.
Gaudere You rightly called me out for calling december a name. That was wrong. I won’t do that again.
december Have you had a general physical exam lately. Did they do a CAT scan? Have you had unexplained headaches lately? Do your close friends, assuming you have any, suggest that you see a doctor? Has a loved one taken you for tests?
These comments are not posted in jest but in loving concern. Your profession and obvious intelligence in making arguments on this board which appear to you to be logical cause me to worry.
I’ll be the first gay poster to chime in with the “Sullivan is hardly representative of gay pundits”.
Andrew Sullivan is the HIV+ man who condemned barebacking for years in his column, and then was found to be an avid barebacker. He’s one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in action among the “famous gay” crowd. Sullivan isn’t terribly credible to the majority of the gay community.
I’m not surprised, however, that Sullivan would be the first gay pundit I’ve ever seen december quote. Not only is he not a liberal gay pundit, he’s not even a centrist gay pundit. The man is conservative through and through. He was an editor for The New Repubic for Og’s sake! They don’t give that kind of job to Michelangelo Signorile.
Perhaps you’re confusing TNR with some other magazine. TNR has always been a liberal magazine, albeit relatively centrist.
This thread has proved the OP. The only poster who has even hypothetically condemned what may have been homophobia is gobear.
Already observed in this thread are nine clues: [ol][li]It more-or-less outed a candidate who was in the closet. []It was unrelated to his role in government. []It was only peripherally related to this accused wrong-doing in operating a beauty school. []He was shown as a hairdresser. []He was flamboyantly dressed. []He was fondeling another man with his fingertips. []And with a yellow powder puff []To music that sounded like it came from a porn movie. []The final sentence: Mike Taylor – not the way we do business here in Montana.[/ol]Of course, it is pretty likely that many Montana viewers saw this as a slam at his sexual orientation. Also, many of them must have registered it as Taylor not being like them, whether or not they realized what the nature of the difference was.[/li]
However, you folks focused on my deficiencies and Taylor’s deficiencies. Anything not to criticize the Democratic party!
—Andrew Sullivan is the HIV+ man who condemned barebacking for years in his column, and then was found to be an avid barebacker. He’s one of the worst examples of hypocrisy in action among the “famous gay” crowd. Sullivan isn’t terribly credible to the majority of the gay community.—
This account may or may not be true. The “gay community” isn’t very nice to people that aren’t liberals, and Sullivan is a through-and-through conservative (also a libertarian). It’s not clear what barebacking, even hypocritical barebacking, has to do with the credibility of one’s opinion about an ad, however.
I don’t much like Sullivan (did Gore open his mouth OH MY GOD I CAN READ HIS MIND AND HES SO CRAZY!), but I don’t have much love for the way the “gay community” (i.e., the liberal gay community) treats him in return either.
Of course. The point was more to show him looking stupid
Well, he was a hairdresser. Would it be wrong to show Tom DeLay as a bug killer? Now, I wouldn’t approve of an ad showing Tom DeLay as a gay bug killer. I’d laugh my ass off, sure, but I wouldn’t approve.
Lost him points with the Amish voting bloc. Other than that…
Fondlling? I didn’t see any “fondling”. He’s touching, yeah. But fondling? Isn’t “fondling” more, uh, specific as to what is being fondled? Fondly.
Well, thats pretty damning. Are you sure it was yellow? Did he have in his left rear pocket? 'Cause a yellow powder puff in the left rear pocket is a signal that says “I’m a gay political candidate who dresses like a polyester straight guy” I read that in People
Don’t know, what does porno movie music sounds like, Dec I mean, I’ll take you word for it, if you can show any, uh, expertise. I sure as hell don’t know. Nosiree.
Referring to business. Its about business practices. If it was about his sexual habits it would be something like Mike Taylor - Queer as a Blue Horse, Which is OK for South Dakota, Maybe…
Are you sure about this “outing” thing. You are aware, are you not, that “outing” only occurs when the subject is, in fact, homosexual and is hiding that fact. You can’t “out” Barney Frank.
Besides, when it comes to slander like this, word of mouth is at least as effective, probably more so, doesn’t cost any money and you can’t get sued.
Old Lyndon Johnson story: running for state legislature first time, called an aide in and said he wanted him to start spreading the rumor that LBJ’s opponent was in to bestiality. His aide was aghast. “Lyndon, you can’t go around saying your opponent has sex with his cattle!”
“Of course not,” says Lyndon “But if I work it just right, I can make him deny it.”
elucidator, you seem to be arguing that the ad is not offensive. The Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian political organization, thinks that it is offensive. http://www.hrc.org/newsreleases/2002/021011mont.asp
This thread has demolished the OP.
There are only three people who can be found that actually believe that homosexuality had any part of it: two cranks and you. (Taylor obviously does not believe it (unless, as you implied with your “outing” statement, he is gay) and is only using the claim to hide an otherwise foregone conclusion that he would be defeated on normal political points.
And the HRC is simply making sure that if someone besides you and Taylor try to run with this, they have alrady established their position in opposition. They are going to condemn any action that any person claims is gay bashing–a perspective you would normally disdain heartily if you were not interested in scoring a different set of points in this case.
OK. So they’re gay. And they’re wrong. Big deal. Now, admittedly, the profession of hairdresser is commonly associated with gay men, but he was a hairdresser! Is there the slightest possibility he wasn’t aware of this, that he was going to have to confront that stereotype? Of course not!
I’m not that surprised by HRC’s reaction, but I think they’re seeing spooks. Besides, it isn’t necessarily destructive for a politician to be publicly gay, Barney Frank’s constituents seem to be pretty content. Hell, I’d almost move to Massachuessets just so I could vote for him, I flat out love that guy, he’s got stones!
Well, I mean, you know, I really like his political stance and his courage, is what I mean. Not like, well, you know. I’m drinking a beer, watching the game and scratching my nuts right now. Just so you know.
How can some of you folks say there’s no gay connotation? Right there on the Smoking Gun still you see two guys and the phrase “facial demonstration”!!!
