C l u t c H 385
Banned
Wow, how homophobe of him.
I can see it now, eh?
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, Clutch, and I'm just sick and tired of this kinda vermin infestin the Jazzfanz board, ya know? Imma git up in da mornin and write Jason a lil email. Imma volunteer my services as the head spy, informant, and investigator of the odious homophobic element on this board. I can gather evidence--I can frame a guy with the best of them, if need be. One way or another, this filth must be exterminated.
As a reformed homophobe my own damn self, I'm perfect for the job. I know the way this kinda scum thinks, how they act, how they scurry in dark places to avoid detection, and how they lie. I can spot a damn homophobe a mile off. Ya can smell em, ya know? They're devious, and almost as prevalent as people think. My estimate would be that between 95 and 98% of the posters on this board are homophobes. Most of them stay in the closet and diguise their intentions when in public, but privately they tell gay jokes and EVERYTHING!
I hope I git the appointment. I can't wait!
People use the phrase "That's so gay" to describe situations that have nothing to do with being gay, but simply to express their distaste for a situation by comparing it to the situation of being gay. The implication, at least to me, is that merely being gay is distasteful.
By using it to describe things that have nothing to do with the original item. Whether or not people are a fan of the blues has nothing to do with whether or not they are shallow thinkers. Using the first to express disdain for the second is taking a description and turning it into an insult.
Doesn't sound like me. Perhaps you see something as subjective that I see as objective, or perhaps you still don't see what I am actually discussing.
Respect, as in esteem, should be earned. Respect, as in fair treatment, shouldn't need to be earned. Who has asked you to esteem something/someone you did not wish to?
No, I don't. Hopefully, what I described above will clarify my position.
He never heard of Rock Hudson? No doubt some research could pull up several others, people that a theater critic should be aware of.
The bigoted part was not giving a bad review. The bigoted part was attributing the poor performance to the actor's sexuality, as opposed to just being a bad actor.
Unless, you think you can provide a defense for the notion that gay men can't be convincing in straight roles.
C l u t c H 385
Banned
Did you just call Rock Hudson gay, One Brow? I don't know or care who that is, but sounds petty homophobic.
Homophobe. Unless you meant he was stupid, then yer off the hoook!
Homophobe. Unless you meant he was stupid, then yer off the hoook!
Hopper
Banned
So, you too readily and unhesitatingly slander this guy with the "bigoted" explanation, eh, Eric? I find the smugness startling, frankly. He says:
"Sean Hayes, best known as the queeny Jack on Will & Grace. Hayes is among Hollywood’s best verbal slapstickers, but his sexual orientation is part of who he is, and also part of his charm. (The fact that he came out of the closet only just before Promises was another one of those Ricky Martin “duh” moments.) But frankly, it’s weird seeing Hayes play straight. He comes off as wooden and insincere, as if he’s trying to hide something, which of course he is...It’s not just a problem for someone like Hayes, who tips off even your grandmother’s gaydar."
https://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/straight-jacket.html
I have no idea who this actor is, and I really don't care. But there are indeed types "who tip off even your grandmother’s gaydar." Apparently this guy is one of them, or at least that is how this guy sees it. Attributing an honest, objectively observable and verifiable, perception to bigotry is revealin of it's own blind bigotry. It's like me sayin that anyone who claims blacks are capable of being bad people is a bigot. An utterly stupid and agenda-driven claim with no factual basis whatsoever...counter to even cursory observation and common sense.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
This is not a point I "missed." At the outset I said that aint even the point.
You still seem to entirely miss my point. You are talking about two different sides to this, as I was:
1. The factual (descriptive) status of being gay, and
2. The subjective evaluation, held by some, that "merely being gay is distasteful."
Two ENTIRELY different things, and I am merely pointing out that distinction.
If a guy is black, he is. Is that bad?
If some KKK guy thinks its bad, does that MAKE it bad?
How can you turn a objectively neutral description into an "insult?" Your disapproval of the status being described cannot make the status insulting.
You wish to control feelings of disdain, not INSULTS. You demand approval, not mere acceptance.
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Two different people make the same statement:
Martin Luther King: "John Jones is a black man."
Grand Wizard of the KKK: "John Jones is a black man."
Who, if anyone, is "insulting" blacks, or John Jones, here?
Now add this in:
Grand Wizard: I don't like black men.
Has the grand wizard suddenly "insulted" John Jones? Had he made the mere status of being black "insulting?" I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
Martin Luther King: "John Jones is a black man."
Grand Wizard of the KKK: "John Jones is a black man."
Who, if anyone, is "insulting" blacks, or John Jones, here?
Now add this in:
Grand Wizard: I don't like black men.
Has the grand wizard suddenly "insulted" John Jones? Had he made the mere status of being black "insulting?" I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.
What does Hayes being wooden and insincere (the actual complaint) have to do with his being gay?
Do you think you can provide a list of features about a perception of being gay that are "honest, objectively observable and verifiable"? I think not. Is there any reason this is significant to Hayes's acting in the part? I don't see how.
If someone on this board claimed seeing a black person trying to behave honestly was weird, that it meant he was trying to hide something, or that he can't help tipping off your "blackdar", you wouldn't see that as bigoted?
So, it used to be that Hudson seemed sufficiently masculine in film, but now that author knows he gay, it changes the meaning of the movies for the author. However, this is not due to the feeling of the author himself, but due to the "honest, objectively observable and verifiable" features of Hudson's performance that only appeared after the author knoew Hudson was gay. Because the author is not a bigot, really. He just thinks gay men can't play certain certain roles in Hollywood unless they are in the closet, but if they are in the closet, they they are fine in those roles. Nothing bigoted about that position, in your view?
Before this post, I was not discussing either of those points. I consider the presence/absence of bigotry in the article to be a tangential issue. In fact, I thought I had explicitly said that I was not trying to discuss that. No one has said that you can't factually describe a person as gay, and no one has said you can't say you dislike gay men. Of course, since free speech is founded on the free exchange of ideas, if you make such a public proclamation, enduring the scorn of others is part of the deal.
Neither, in and of itself, is what I have been discussing.
Tone of voice, to start. When the habitual use of a phrase is accompabnied by a prevelant tone, you start to associate the phrase with the tone.
I wish to discourage the casual association of antipathy with what should be a neutral term by getting people to control themselves.
Hopper
Banned
And what you can see sets the limits of awareness for others, that the idea? Eric, are you honestly trying to claim that no homosexual ever gives overt signs of his/her sexual orientation?
One Brow said:
You're totally confusin the issue. A black man might well do a poor job of trying to act Japanese. Not the least bit of bigotry in recognizing that.
One Brow said:
Where the hell is the bigotry? If some transvestite plays woman in a movie, and manages to convince some that he is a woman, they will look back on the scenes differently if the true sexual identity of the actor is revealed (later in the movie, or just in public). This is "bigotry?" Go figure. The author here was making more than one claim in his piece. One was about a particular actor in a particular play. He then tried to discuss broader social issues and common perceptions. Don't confuse the two areas.
I have seen movies (can't name one offhand) where, in the movie, a woman was trying to pass herself off as a man. In the movie, everyone who encountered her was "fooled" and immediately assumed that she was a man. From scene one, it was nonetheless obvious to most that she was a woman, and the movie lacked all credibility from that standpoint. Anyone who claims that you cannot generally distinguish a woman from a man is blind. It certainly is not bigotry to claim that there are objective, observable differences.
One Brow said:
Speak for yourself. Someone else's "tone of voice" does not generally lead me to make whatever subjective evaluation of a situation that I end up making, based on my own perceptions and values.
One Brow said:
Then you should quit denying that this is your true intention.
Last edited:
Crying Game.
Hopper
Banned
Yeah, Marcus, that was one where a transvestite was involved. A main goal of the movie seemed to be to shock people into re-interpeting their perceptions of prior scenes. For Eric, that would mean "exposing their bigotry," I spoze.
I have seen more than one movie with the "woman readily accepted as a man" theme. I have seen some where I had no idea of who the actor (actress) was, but it was obvious that she was a women. When character after character failed to see this, the movie lost all credibility, in that respect.
personally, I thought Robin Williams was absolutely brilliant as Mrs. Doubtfire.
and what was that movie with Dustin Hoffman, Tootsie? Playing a man playing a woman playing a man, or whatever.
well, maybe it just means that men are better at pretending to be women than women are at pretending to be men, who knows?
and what was that movie with Dustin Hoffman, Tootsie? Playing a man playing a woman playing a man, or whatever.
well, maybe it just means that men are better at pretending to be women than women are at pretending to be men, who knows?