I don’t get this remark. Why would a skinhead want Rogaine? They are a skinhead after all.
I don’t think his last comment was homophobic, but I did find it somewhat juvenile. Kinda like when one kid calls another a poopyhead. There has to be a more elegant way to express the same sentiment.
I don’t consider it homophobic. But I do question the implication that cock sucking - by someone of either gender - is anything other than a total delight.
And as much as I dislike Putin, in all honesty the guy could do better.
Even a liberal comedian wouldn’t get away with a joke that visualized a female Republican fellating Putin, by similar token to how a conservative comedian wouldn’t get away with the joke male to male if the target were a liberal. So you’re switching stuff around under the assumption it shouldn’t matter which perhaps it shouldn’t, but it definitely does.
On whether it’s ‘remotely homophobic’ this would be parallel to endless discussions here about whether particular events, comments reactions etc are ‘racist’. Besides being a matter of opinion inherently, it also depends on relatively stricter or more elastic definitions of the terms. If ‘racist’ means a belief in strict racial hierarchy based on categorical inferiority/superiority by race that’s one thing, but the term is often stretched way beyond that (perhaps it should be, but people still often talk past one another as a result of not sharing the same definition). Likewise if the question is whether the joke signifies Colbert’s mentally disturbed ‘fear’ of homosexuals then no IMO. If OTOH ‘homophobic’ includes any implied disparagement or accusation of weakness on the part of a man who performs oral sex on another man, it kind of obviously is IMO.
I think under a broad definition of ‘homophobic’ the joke just gets a pass from many because Colbert is on the liberal team and it’s against Trump (whether or not he’s actually a conservative, I’d say not, but he’s on the liberal disliking team anyway).
Right. Spot on, I think.
Which is along the lines of what I meant when I was pondering whether the joke was homophobic or meta-homophobic. If it’s the latter, then the real joke is the mental image of Trump, with smoke coming out of his ears, thinking: “Is he calling me gay?” Followed by Colbert, calmly pointing out that, “Yeah, and you’re such an insecure homophobe that you’re actually insulted by that.”
This is my take. No matter how odious the current Prez is, you shouldn’t say shit like this.
Well, that’s not enough use of leather for it to be considered animal cruelty, but if Trump gets The Order of Lenin for being a Grade-A “Spertsnaz Command-Oh”, I wouldn’t be surprised.
No, it’s more like he’s always sucking up to Putin, kissing his ass, that he’s worshipping the guy, has a huge crush on him, etc. Basically, he’s a prostitute for the guy.
If it was Hilary making those remarks, I imagine Colbert might say the same thing.
No. It wasn’t anti-gay. It was meant to portray Trump as a ‘bottom’, a submissive who gives pleasure to and takes orders from the dom, it has nothing to do with gender. If Putin were a woman I’m sure Colbert would’ve accused Trump of wearing a gimp suit with whip marks across his ass.
Anyway, PC stuff like this is why so many people hate us liberals.
The joke is that involuntarily bald people (interested in Rogaine) could be described as “skin heads”. No one would say that due to the strong idiomatic meaning, but playing with the tension between literal and idiomatic meanings is a common component of humor (Carlin’s “get on the plane”, etc.).
No, Trump himself is disrespectful to the office of the President.
Every gay person I know (which is more than a couple but not a huge number) has said it’s “not homophobic.”
Almost every Twitter account calling for “FireColbert” has a frog picture and/or something about MAGA/alt-right, being a proud white nationalist, blatant white supremacist language, antisemitic posts complete with the triple parentheses, anti-gay slurs, stuff about Hillary’s emails, etc
But I agree that there is a double standard. I’m a liberal who doesn’t reach for and find offense everywhere and going around shaming and calling for peoples’ jobs. But a lot of the left does. So, as political tactics go…
Of course, if this remark had been made by a conservative, there’s a real good chance that conservative has a documented history of homophobic speech and opinions.
Neither do I.
Stupid, childish, retarded and completely unprofessional…yes. But not homophobic.
Whether it was or wasn’t, it was foolish of him to say it. All this uproar about it distracts from why Colbert was saying it in the first place. It would have been just as meaningful to say something like “your mouth is only good for kissing the ring of Putin” and there wouldn’t be all this distraction about nothing. There’s no need to give ammo to the morons.
…
I wouldn’t. I’ve heard that phrase plenty of times. It just seems too common. I can imagine a version that’s a homophobic putdown, but the one I heard in my head when I read you comment isn’t. It’s making fun of them for being too close.
Colbert’s quote, however, does have a tinge of homophobia in it. Though I agree with the history remark. If you don’t have a history of saying bad things, you’re inherently more forgiving. I tend towards the version of “they would find it offensive, so it works.”
But I can understand people finding it homophobic in a way in which just calling them lovers would not be. Making fun of people for being too close by implying they are hot for each other isn’t gender specific. But using sucking cock to imply subservience…
I mean, I understood what the joke was supposed to be, it just didn’t really work IMO. I’ve never once in any context understood “skinhead” to be anything other than a term for white, racist/supremist groups that shave their heads as a form of ideological identification. Involuntarily bald men are practically the antithesis of this.
Giving ammo to morons doesn’t have to be a bad thing, though. They’ll often use it for shooting themselves in the foot.
That explains a lot.