Colbert’s insult was homophobic in the same way that calling someone an idiot is ableist. If Putin were a woman and Colbert said Trump is a pink noser or a pearl diver I wonder what the reaction would be.
Funnier than Colbert’s joke, which I thought was pretty lame (another ableist slur), is seeing reactionaries cry crocodile tears for gay people. The best is when they cite defending gay people as an excuse to ban Muslims.
Well, ‘suck my dick’ is a generic enough insult that I think it’s used across gender borders (though English is admittedly not my first language, so I might be missing a nuance); so I don’t see it as specifically gay-themed. Besides, at least according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, ‘to suck’ as in ‘to be contemptible’ takes its meaning from oral sex (and also, the correct female form of cocksucker, as Nick Cave reminds us, would be ‘cocksuckstress’ ;)).
That’s not to say that there can’t be any occasions where calling somebody a cocksucker or alleging something along these lines is unambiguously homophobic; but I see no reason to suspect this here, and I don’t think it’s wise to always jump at every chance to take offence.
There’s a curious inversion of the burden of proof in these things: rather than having to show that what somebody did was intended to offend, this seems to be the default judgement, with instead innocence requiring proof. Although I do recognize that doing it the other way around gives carte blanche to toeing the line, since there’s almost always some justification one can cook up to show that some slur or insult was used all innocent-like.
You lost me there. What’re you gagging on?
Fun to see Sheldon Cooper himself, Jim Parsons on the show a couple of days ago. He stated how, as a gay man, he thought the concept of what Colbert said as being homophobic is silly and missing the point.
Which means conservitives are succeeding on two fronts.
#firecolbert has been almost exclusively conservitives demanding Colbert be fired for his ‘homophobic’ comment.
None of my liberal friends have been critical of Colbert for the comment. My conservitive relatives are very concerned about Colbert’s ‘homophobia’. Some of the same family members I’m not on speaking terms with due to their positions on homosexuals and gay marriage.
It’s almost as if any excuse to attack a liberal is a good one. Some in this thread have made accusations about what hypothetical liberals would do if a conservitives made the same comment. #liberal hypocrisy
The insult isn’t about him supposedly being gay as it is about him being Putin’s bitch.
I think it’s sort of both? It’s a joke about a man being submissive to another man by sexually serving him, which comes out of misogynistic and homophobic stereotypes about gender roles and sexuality (the idea that giving oral sex to somebody is unmanly or ‘taking the woman’s part’). Do I think that makes Colbert homophobic? No. But I think the joke is probably homophobic.
Both these points also just come back to justifying the double standard, a double standard of how the same words are judged, not at all to say one doesn’t exist.
I think your argument would be more coherent if you just said a double standard is OK.
And elements of point 1 snipped plus point 2 also just come back to what I said, that some people would apply the double standard just based on a blanket ‘Republicans are homophobes (one way or another, commission or omission)’.
But the two problems there have already been expressed also. First it’s again selective and inconsistent in not damning Democrats for accepting support from religious traditionalist Democratic voters (often racial minorities, or a religious minority, Muslim voters) who are often much more strongly opposed to things like redefining marriage (from one man one woman) than Trump has ever expressed, no evidence IMO Trump cares, as a lot of people don’t. And second and related it seems to have no concept of degree. I don’t think Trump’s expressions of respect for and desire for support from gays should necessarily deeply impress gay rights activists. But it’s not a binary of ‘stamp of approval by gay rights activists’ or ‘homophobe’. Or shouldn’t be, or again that’s the kind of attitude which which is self destructive in politics, extreme ‘with us (1000%) or against us’.
Not the biggest deal in the world by a long shot. But an inappropriate unfunny joke, and IMO a basic common sense, non-‘1984’ type attitude says that basically words are acceptable or not in a given combination and context, with only extreme cases where the same words are OK for one person but not another. ‘You’re not really my ally’ is not a justification to call one person’s word -ist/-phobic when the same words from your ‘ally’ are not -ist/phobic. That’s hypocrisy, pretty much textbook.
No, they show there isn’t a double standard. A double standard requires everything else to be the same except for the issue at hand.
And it is a big deal, since you are accusing the people with the moral high ground of hypocrisy, in an effort to undermine the morals they espouse. If we permit something among our own, then we do t really believe it.
But, in reality, the situations are different, and thus merit a different response. That is explicitly not a double standard.
You’re seriously asserting that insulting a man by insinuating that he’s a sexual partner of the other man has nothing at all to do with homosexuality?
It seems to me that male sexual dominance was evolution in action, and generally worked quite well for a long time. I think instinctually, many, even most males, particularly enjoy intercourse on top & receiving oral. Understandable.
These days, sex is much more recreational vs childbearing than it’s ever been. Evolved and sexually healthy people can enjoy swapping dominance for their partner’s enjoyment and/or sharing and/or whatever. Then there are those who are not interested in anything but top & receiving. Many tend to look down on women - and gay men especially, often hating, fearing and ridiculing them. I suspect a strong correlation along party lines.
There’s no way in hell that Stephen is homophobic. The guy he’s talking about though, has empowered homophobes (as well as white nationalists, racists et al). He himself may not be, but his treatment of women paints him as a top/receiver only and an obvious bully.
The dominance of the Putin/Trump relationship is the main point, but Trump will be furious with the homosexual aspect, which is an excellent thing. Another excellent thing is the attention this has garnered because of it’s outrageous nature. Anything that rightly exposes him for what he is, is sorely needed. The base will stay with him no matter what, and the 1% will stay with him as long as they can, but others can be moved by the exposure he never got with the pathetic GOP primary field and, with few exceptions, a compliant and incompetent press.
Hillary had 3,000,000 more votes, an obviously biased FBI director working against her, Putin working against her, Wikileaks etc. and a not very good campaign. This travesty of a president has to be exposed, to limit what he’s doing to destroy the country, and make the GOP congress pay dearly in '18.