Racist heterophobe.
I’ll be really happy when the word “dude” becomes offensive.
This is probably the shittiest analogy I’ve read in a long time.
I don’t give a fuck about Brett Ratner. I think GLAAD is a worthwhile organization with a respectable mission that has done, and continues to do, a lot of good. But I agree with the point that their comment about “a series of concrete actions” is somewhat arrogant, and in my opinion should be met with a response along the lines of “I apologized, and I was sincere. I shouldn’t have used that word and now realize that it is hurtful, and I regret using it and would like to ask the forgiveness of those that I offended. I will also make every effort to change not just my use of the word, but my outlook and viewpoint with respect to homophobia. However, there will be no further ‘concrete actions’. I trust that will be acceptable to GLAAD.”
If Ratner wants to fulfill GLAAD’s expectation that he continue to accept a public flogging and do penance, good for him. But for Pete’s sake, it’s time to move on.
And I’ll be even happier to never have to refer to myself as “straight”. I console myself with the notion that nobody actually gives a rat’s what my sexual preference may be. Cold comfort farm.
Why do you feel entitled to decide when it’s appropriate for the people he’s insulted to “move on”? It’s been about two days, dude.
He’s not entitled to enforce his opinion. But he is entirely entitled to have one.
Okay, but why are so many of you straight people of the opinion that what this guy did is so much less important than what GLAAD expects from him in exchange for their approval? A straight guy says something horribly homophobic, a gay advocacy organization demands some token effort on his part to actually make up for what he did, and you straight people seem almost unanimous in thinking the former is not really a problem but the latter definitely is. Why?
Because the impression is that GLAAD is making the punishment exceed the crime.
“You straight people”? How divisive. 
[Moderating]
mister nyx, altering another user’s words inside the quote box is against the board rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Well, got me on that one, gotta 'fess up. Sure, I watched Will and Grace, but only because it was funny and she’s hawt! I most likely would not have been friendly with him, but because he’s a yuppie lawyer, and I don’t much care for folks like that.
And some of you keep playing it like GLAAD has some sort of official sanctioning power over Brett Ratner. They don’t. The reason they are asking him to take further actions than just an apology is, again, we do not live in a society where using anti-gay slurs does absolutely nothing but cause gay people to be offended. I really wish that were the case, because that would be a great world to live in.
But in reality, which when you’re straight you get to sweep under the rug and pretend doesn’t exist because it doesn’t affect your life (and yeah those jokes about “heterophobe” is doing exactly that), that is not the only effect of being permissive of homophobic language. Brett Ratner is not personally responsible for every gay teen that is bullied to death, or every gay person who is beaten either to death or to within an inch of their lives (and these crimes happen. probably more frequently than you realize), or the number of gay people that still have to live in the closet out of fear of being fired, or kicked out of their homes, or suffering violence. But if you really believe that feeling free to casually use anti-gay slurs doesn’t contribute to the cultural idea that gays are less than people, then, welp, you’re kidding yourself.
Given that the entire extent of “punishment” that GLAAD has imposed so far is an apology, taking you at face value, this means you think that literally anything beyond an apology “exceeds the crime”.
Given how nearly unanimous you straight people have been in agreeing that this guy is entitled to be unconditionally forgiven, and that GLAAD’s actions are worthy of condemnation but his homophobic attitudes are not, I literally can’t imagine what I could do to sufficiently accommodate you and not be “divisive”.
I don’t understand. I used square brackets – isn’t that universally understood?
You’re trying to get gay rights street cred on the basis of having watched Will & Grace? Are you serious?
(Sorry for my excessive number of replies.)
I noticed something remarkable in his quote. It’s remarkable how he says he doesn’t give a fuck about Brett Ratner. A straight person he literally doesn’t care at all about, and yet he still thinks it’s way more worthy of condemnation that this straight person is being held accountable for his actions than that the straight person said something blatantly homophobic.
It’s amazing the way they stick together no matter what.
Well, damn. Who do I have to blow to get gay rights street cred?
Um, nope. Where did you get that from my post?
Agreed.
Again, where exactly in my post do you get that? Actually, never mind. You didn’t, you just decided to assume that’s the way I feel. Way to go. :rolleyes:
But it’s not. They also want “a series of concrete actions”. Don’t you read?
Again- where do you get this stuff?
The poster you’re responding to said “if”. Do you read much? Do you know what that word means?
I suspect the reason Aqualung said that was because of the way you (and the rest of your straight pals) have continued to blithely treat what he said as something unimportant that gay people should just shut up about. Which really makes it hard to believe that you care that much about what this asshole said. But if you don’t think that – if you honestly think that saying that sort of thing is bad (albeit, obviously, still not as bad as a bunch of gay people getting mad at him over it), well, I suspect that’s why Aqualung said “if”.
Yes. Do you?
You have absolutely no idea what those “concrete actions” are. You just know – automatically – that it’s excessive. In other words, because anything at all, no matter how trivial, beyond an apology, is automatically excessive, in your mind. Your statement makes no logical sense otherwise.
Sorry, did I miss the thread you started to condemn this jerkass for saying what he did? Because in this thread you’ve spent a lot more time being upset at GLAAD that you have at him. I mean, if you thought what he said was worthy of condemnation, you would be a lot more worried about that then about those meanies at GLAAD who won’t let him get away with it.