Besides which the contention that Colbert would ever make a joke about President Hillary Clinton fellating a male foreign leader is completely absurd to begin with. Whatever the differences in implication of giving oral sex to a man based on the giver’s sex, in the real world of politico-entertainment who do people think they are kidding hypothesizing a crude sexual joke of any kind made by a liberal politico-comedian v a female Democratic president. Or against a male Democrat probably either, but ‘just as likely to have made it against HRC depending on her policies’: ridiculous.
Crude and crass, but not homophobic. Now, if you find ‘crude and crass’ to be objectionable, well, have at it.
Interestingly, I don’t remember anyone defending the “grabbing pussy” statement as not being misogynistic because women can, and do, grab another by the pussy and get away with it.
We call that intent, which can be usually be reliably inferred by past words and/or deeds.
I have not heard many male leaders called that either, it’s even been uncommon in reference to Trump but tell you what, when we have a sizable n of female presidents pandering to autocratic dictators, we can double back and see how many are labelled such or of “bending over to take it in the ass” … which of course is similar in its connotations. Heck I do not hear* anyone* insulted that way myself.
Is “butt hurt” also homophobic btw?
Again, I’m not defending the attempted joke. It was needlessly crude, not clever, and just not funny.
And yes a woman leader who was talking about “grabbing pussy” without consent of the grabee in reference to doing it herself because she was able to by virtue of being in a position of power would be attacked for the statement. You do not think so?
You don’t say! Does Trump have a history of homophobic words and/or deeds?
This. Not homophobic at all but stupid and juvenile.
I don’t think Colbert intended to be homophobic. The problem here is that not everyone who hears the joke or retells it will have the same intent. There are a lot of jokes I won’t tell anymore because I don’t want some asshole laughing for the wrong reason or retelling it to his asshole homophobic, racist, sexist, bigoted, friends.
So it wasn’t homophobic to me, but it’s being perceived that way by many because of their own context.
I was talking about Colbert-the topic of this thread.
Did someone say something about something Trump said that pertains to this?
I said something about Trump and his supporters. Then you gave me a Big C lecture about intent.
Its not calling him gay. It’s calling him Putin’s whore.
If Colbert is trying to slur Trump by calling him gay, why restrict these jokes specifically to Trump and Vladimir Putin? Why does he make so many jokes about Trump sexually abusing women?
I’m not trying to justify a double standard, though - I’m arguing that Bricker’s hypothetical doesn’t demonstrate a double standard in the first place.
There’s multiple possible interpretations of Colbert’s joke. Some of them are homophobic, some of them are not. But we can look at Colbert’s over all body of work as an entertainer and political commentator, and see that he routinely supports gay rights, and regularly attacks politicians and public figures who express unambiguously homophobic positions. Therefore, it’s most likely that the non-homophobic interpretation of the joke is the correct interpretation.
Bricker suggests that a double standard exists, because if a conservative made a similar joke, liberals would leap to the homophobic interpretation. But he can only get away with this comparison by suggesting a generic, nameless conservative. Putting almost any actual name in there breaks the comparison, because there’s virtually no one on the American right who can be considered a genuine ally on gay rights. The best you can do is find someone who pays lip service to the idea of gay rights, but still routinely supports explicitly bigoted politicians - and I don’t think it’s remotely unfair to question just how sincere that person is when they say they support gay rights.
This is an excellent example: Trump was heralded, in some quarters, as the most queer-friendly Republican candidate ever. He had a gay guy talk at the RNC! He held up a rainbow flag on stage! He actually used the phrase “LGBTQ!” But look at who he’s tapped to fill out his administration: Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos, Tim Price. The list of virulently anti-gay Republicans in the Trump administration goes on and on. In judging Trump’s attitude towards gay people, is it really that unfair to put more weight on what he’s actually done, instead of what he claims to believe?
Agree. Most prison rapes are homosexual, they are about control. The implication is that Putin controls Trump to an extreme degree. Not that they are lovers.
I find all this Colbert blather to be just that: BLATHER. Dude is wayyyyy too full of himself. He’s not that important and certainly not to be followed or imitated in any way . . . except maybe for Rachel Madow wannabees!
If I were Trump I’d give him all the attention he deserves: NOTHING.
Have a nice day, Steve . . . you LIBERAL shill!
And when the EON comes that you have any better ideas, rather than cynically object to everything Trump, who at heart is TRYING to help the country, feel free to get elected yourself and try to put your own ideas into play.
Don’t hold yer breath waiting, though. <g>
Uh, no… men routinely insult women by accusations or threats of fellatio; they don’t typically use that specific term, but neither did Colbert.
I don’t think Colbert’s statement is homophobic as such. It reflects an unhealthy view of sex as an exercise in power dynamics, but one that is not specific to gay sex.*
Our cultural context around sex still casts sex as “dirty”, penetration as domination, and providing sexual gratification (to a man) as degrading. We as a culture routinely use fellatio as a metaphor for toadying and boot-licking in politics and elsewhere, and I’ve certainly seen women’s perceived obsequious behavior towards those in power referred to in those terms.
I agree that it would be slightly more unlikely to have a similar “joke” made about a female politician in a highly visible forum like Colbert’s show, but I think mainly because it would have a really obvious sexist slant that even the anti-“PC” crowd would recognize is bad PR. As I said, in less formal contexts men use fellatio-themed insults against women all the time.
- Bonus side rant: That view is indeed used to diminish gay men, but it ultimately comes from sexism. Gay men are contemptible because they are like women; being sexually receptive is unthinkable for a man because it is what women do; sexually penetrating a man humiliates him because it makes him a woman. None of that makes sense unless you believe that being a woman is an inferior state.
Progressive pearl clutching at the mimir missteps of people sympathetic to us is going to be the death of us. A death star is targeting progressives and this lightweight nonsense is the hill we want to die on.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
It must be a radically different environment that allows heterosexual men to be aroused enough to have sex with other men. It’s something that I’ve never really understood but I admit that I am relatively ignorant on the matter.
Did you mean “Colbert is”? The structure you used implies Cobert owns low-brow trash… and that the low-brow trash that he owns tends to enjoy “low-brown” simpletons.
Also, “low-brown” simpletons: Are they simpletons which are banned for life from shipping through UPS… or is it just fiber related?
I have no personal experience with it but from what I’ve read, it is indeed a radically different environment.
I disagree with this, but that would be another thread. Trump has never tried to help anybody but himself.