MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Kevin Hart Quits Oscars Hosting Gig Over Past Homophobic Tweets, Social Media Mobs Win Again

"I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past."

HartAbaca Press/Hahn Lionel/Abaca/Sipa USA/NewscomActor and comedian Kevin Hart, who was tapped to host the 2019 Oscars earlier this week, resigned that job late Thursday night after social media sleuths dug up his homophobic tweets from a decade ago.

In an Instagram video, Hart claimed that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had issued an ultimatum: apologize, or lose the gig. Hart initially refused to revisit the issue, which he claimed he had addressed several times in the past. "This is not the first time this has come up," he said. "I've addressed it. I've spoken on it. I've said where the rights and wrongs were."

Hart also criticized those that went looking for such tweets in the first place.

"The same energy that went into finding those old tweets could be the same energy put into finding the response to the questions that have been asked years after years after years," he said.

This was a brave stance; unfortunately, it did not last. At midnight, Hart posted on Twitter that he had stepped down as host. He also offered an apology to the LGBT community.

Congrats, social justice lynch mobs: You win again.

Most of the people I saw on Twitter demanding penance from Hart were journalists at generally left-of-center publications, which makes this something of a left-led lynch mob. For comparison, the previous notable social media pile-on—which targeted Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn over his gross child sex jokes—was driven by far-right Twitter personalities Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec. Recall that when Cernovich and Posobiec did this same thing—dig up weird comments from a different era of the internet and force modern corporate PR concerns to do their work—they were accused of launching a bad-faith smear campaign of retaliation. It will be interesting to see whether those who put Hart in this same position are capable of reflecting on the similarities. I'm betting not.

When Roseanne said something horribly offensive about Valerie Jarrett, she was justly fired, in the view of many liberal commentators. But when Sarah Jeong was found to have tweeted constantly about how much she hated white people, this was questionably described as satire, and nothing happened: She got to keep her new gig at The New York Times.

I for one was glad that Jeong survived an attempted social media assassination, because there ought to be some understanding that human beings are more than their worst moments on Twitter. And I hoped that right and left could call a truce on finding reasons to get people fired. Alas, the perpetual outrage machine must be fed.

For what it's worth, Hart's tweets—like Gunn's, Roseanne's, and yes, Jeong's—were bad. It sounds like he had some issues with gay people back in 2010. These issues probably stem from his own insecurities. I assert that with some confidence, because Hart himself admitted as much. He made it part of his comedy routine, in fact. (Not that this matters to the woke crowd: Even comparatively progressive jokes offend certain unreasonable people when the messenger doesn't fit neatly into the requisite category.) Consider this interview Hart did with Rolling Stone in 2015:

In 2010's Seriously Funny, he tells the audience, "One of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay. That's a fear. Keep in mind, I'm not homophobic. . . . Be happy. Do what you want to do. But me, as a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will." This leads into vignettes in which Hart reacts to imagined signs of Hendrix's blossoming homosexuality with interjections of "Stop, that's gay!" Discussing this bit today, Hart says, "It's about my fear. I'm thinking about what I did as a dad, did I do something wrong, and if I did, what was it? Not that I'm not gonna love my son or think about him any differently. The funny thing within that joke is it's me getting mad at my son because of my own insecurities — I panicked. It has nothing to do with him, it's about me. That's the difference between bringing a joke across that's well thought-out and saying something just to ruffle feathers." Even so, he adds, "I wouldn't tell that joke today, because when I said it, the times weren't as sensitive as they are now. I think we love to make big deals out of things that aren't necessarily big deals, because we can. These things become public spectacles. So why set yourself up for failure?"

Why indeed?

Photo Credit: Abaca Press/Hahn Lionel/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • esteve7||

    It's really the apology that makes it worse. For once I want someone to tell these people to fuck off.

    Oh right, that's why we got Trump

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    They will never understand that. They are so busy congratulating themselves on following the parade that they don't see the road goes in a circle and it themselves they are targeting.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    +1

    Most revolutions happen this way, from the Jocobins to the Night of the Steely Knives.

  • Rock Lobster||

    But they just can't kill the beast.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    If ever a FYTW is permitted....

  • Jeep's Blues||

    Newly uber-woke SNL once did a very funny sketch years ago about a pill fathers can take called Homocil if their son turns out to be gay. The sketch starred Will Ferrell, Tracy Morgan and the lesser known players Ana Gasteyer and Chris Parnell. Ferrell and Morgan's bits were either particularly funny or rabidly homophobic depending on the levels of your inner wokeness.

    In these types of corporate PR and offended group virtue-shaming campaigns exactly how far back into the alleged unperson's public archives are we allowed to go? 5, 10, 20 years? More? And do we use one standard to excommunicate all potential heretics or do we shame on an identity curve? Does one homophobic straight white male, for example, equal two homophobic straight blacks? And does what Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid says count? Is there a point where the social media serpents grow tired of serving up and eating their own tails?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yes. It's noteworthy that the left is addressing homophobia within the African-American community. It takes a Republican in the White House for the left to realize that LGBT lives matter. The LGBT people I know feel safer in a gentrified Southern neighborhood than in Paterson.

  • wreckinball||

    Blacks are way more anti-homo than whites. I refrain from the term homophobic because its a dumb use of the suffix phobic. No one is afraid of homosexuals. As contrasted with Islamophobic. Folks are indeed afraid of being blown up by nut job Islamo-terrorists.

    But black and white comedians made fun of each other in the past. See Richard Pryor/Gene Wilder. Way funnier than anything on SNL today. Lets face it blacks do some funny stuff as do white folks.

    And the amount of comedic material in regards to LGBT is basically unlimited.

  • MasterThief||

    The use of the term "homophobic" has always annoyed me. It makes it sound like you're afraid any gay will assrape you, turn your kids gay, or drink the blood of the innocent. These days anything besides praise and advocacy for homosexuality is considered homophobic. I also don't consider what Hart said to be particularly disrespectful of insensitive. What parent wouldn't want their child to fit in socially and at least fall within most norms? What parent wouldn't question if their parenting contributed to abnormality presented by their children?

  • CDRSchafer||

    Leaving gay people alone to live their lives isn't enough, we have to voice continual approval and people will not be forgiven for not always been 100% in approval. Damned Maoists.

  • Tony||

    It's just a word that means being bigoted against gay people. Any monkey can understand that. Words are not necessarily precise.

    And I would prefer my child to be gay. Think of the risk of unplanned grandparenthood.

  • wreckinball||

    And that's why you are an idiot

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Your perversion knows no boundaries.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Well I think we can all agree that the species will be better off if your genes don't pollute succeeding generations.

  • ThomasD||

    And progressive is just a word that means 're-education camps are awesome.'

  • posmoo||

    Truly a degenerate

  • commentguy||

    Maybe homo-hostile is a better term. But there are other ways the suffix "-phobia" is used in a way other than fear, e.g. oil is described as hydrophobic when it's not actually afraid of water (and has the same aversion to vinegar, wine etc.)

  • Fancylad||

    It's more revulsion than hostility, and only really applies to male on male.
    Homoapostrofí might be a better appellation.

  • unreligious||

    Actually despite your statement that no one is afraid of gay people the evidence is quite to the contrary. Why has the gay panic defense been used continuously for years and until recently with great success. Why did so many straight people fight tooth and nail against gay being allowed to marry. The rhetoric was always about how the gays would bring down human civilization if we allowed them to marry. You have legislatures saying how gay people are worse than terrorists (Google it). Or in the case of Dana Rochrabacher saying that it's OK to refuse to sell homes to gay people. For that matter just look at the case of the ten year old boy in California who was killed by his parents for saying he likes boys. Why is it that when gay people are roughly 7% of the population gay children make up 35% of homeless youth. Why did their parents throw them out if they were not afraid of the gay. For that matter look at your own response to Tony plus that of the other commenters, because he had the terminity to say he would prefer his children to be gay. Homophobia is so embedded in the fabric of this nation that people like you fail to see it. So continue to pat yourself on the back and bleat on about how funny gay people are and how they should be made fun of, but that is just good-natured fun and has nothing to do with disdain and fear of gay people.

  • Fancylad||

    Fuck off you mendacious ideologue. You're quoting a lot of GLAAD agitprop horseshit.

    Why did so many straight people fight tooth and nail against gay being allowed to marry.
    Because it isn't marriage. I don't give a shit if two guys want to play house, but we all knew as soon as it was state recognized, people would be legally compelled to play along, a sure enough they were.

    The rhetoric was always about how the gays would bring down human civilization if we allowed them to marry.
    "Bake my cake asshole! Quit your Oscar gig! Hand in your Heisman!"

    You have legislatures saying how gay people are worse than terrorists (Google it).
    I did. I saw several state senators and assemblymen back in the nineties and early oughts bitching. That's it. No legislatures. Fuck you're dishonest.

    Dana Rochrabacher saying that it's OK to refuse to sell homes to gay people.
    He actually said "Every homeowner should be able to make a decision not to sell their home to someone (if) they don't agree with their lifestyle." And he's right. You should be able to refuse to sell your home to anyone for any reason.
    You do understand you're on a libertarian website, right?

  • Fancylad||

    For that matter just look at the case of the ten year old boy in California who was killed by his parents for saying he likes boys.
    He was killed by his mother's gang member boyfriend you lying sack of shit, who had been abusing him for quite a while. Not his parents.
    Also; "The investigators declined to discuss a potential motive but did tell reporters that homophobia "has not come up in our investigation as a motivation at this time.""

    Why is it that when gay people are roughly 7% of the population gay children make up 35% of homeless youth.
    Gay people aren't even 1.5% of the population, but whatever. Homeless youth sell their asses to pedophiles for food and drug money. They're practicing homosexual behavior because they're homeless, not homeless because they're gay.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    It's noteworthy that the left is addressing homophobia within the African-American community

    The left isn't even capable of keeping young black males from shooting each other at 100x the rate of the rest of the population; the idea that they can somehow eradicate widespread, violent hostility towards homosexuals in that population is beyond absurd.

    What the left is really doing is just more posturing.

  • Cloudbuster||

    But when Sarah Jeong was found to have tweeted constantly about how much she hated white people, this was questionably described as satire, and nothing happened: She got to keep her new gig at The New York Times.

    I for one was glad that Jeong survived an attempted social media assassination, because there ought to be some understanding that human beings are more than their worst moments on Twitter.

    Well, if she's doing it constantly, it's not just her worst moments, is it?

  • ||

    If I recall correctly, the Sarah Jeong apologists made it seem like it was only 2 or 3 tweets that were justifiable in response to the constant stream of harassment she was enduring. But if you looked a little deeper, you could easily see it was far more than a few tweets.

    Whether or not it truly was satire, I do agree with the author of this article-- The NY Times did good by not holding her accountable for her worst moments. It's too bad we can't hold everyone by the same standard. Look, it's not that hard-- I'm fine with looking into what people posted in the past and calling out bad moments, but then if something does comes up, we should use that as an opportunity to engage the person and find out whether the person holds some toxic views, whether they were just venting, whether they were just a dumb kid, etc.

    The thing about this particular guy is it seems like he had issues and has successfully worked through them, to the benefit of society. That should be a pretty good indicator that the Oscars host job is a good fit for him.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Come on. It only depends on the intersectional priorities on any particular socre card.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    I'd say you're right about Hart, but wrong about Jeong and the NYT. He seems to have done the reflection and growth, they did not. The problem is that the people like Jeong and those letting her off the hook is that they refuse to deal with reality instead of some useful narrative or fiction. Their enemies are to have their actions as framed in the worst possible light held up as truth now while they are to be given every benefit of the doubt, positive framing or "to be sure" false equivalence.

    They chose the arena and the weapons they should live by the rules they demand of others.

  • ||

    Well, I would prefer almost everyone be left off the hook for stupid shit they wrote on Twitter 5 years ago, unless they were particularly egregious. Because people have the capacity to change for one thing, and for another, it's just words.

    But you are right of course, about the nature of ideological warfare and it's warriors.

  • wreckinball||

    You're forgetting its OK to denigrate certain folks. And Sarah was not even attempting humor. But its Ok based on who her target was.. Has there been a social lynching of someone who attacked straight white males? I don't recall but looking for an example if one exists.

    For example, comparing Trump to an Orangutan is perfectly Ok. He's orange and I guess the point is he's dumb. But have crazy Roseanne compare Valerie Jarrett to an actress on the planet of the apes its off the rails bad somehow? First off she does look like the Planet of the Apes chick. Second, who knew that Valerie was black. I didn't. She looks about as black as Obama looks white and both are mixed race. And third who cares get over it.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Yeah. Sarah Jeong's words were much worse than the types of things Kevin Hart or Roseanna Barr said, but since she wasn't targeting a specifically labeled "victim" group, she was never forced to confront how problematic the rhetoric was. And then she writes it off as being snarky.

    Maybe it was just snark, and people say dumb and offensive things on the internet, I just wish there had been some more evidence that she realized that painting such broad swaths of people with a single brush is wrong. Identity politics is definitely not for those who recognize nuance.

  • Anomalous||

    Yeah, when they're all equally bad, there is no worst.

  • E Blackadder||

    Why no link to the allegedly offensive tweets so that we can judge whether they are truly espouse hatred of same-sex couples, or are merely "homophobic" in the same way Mel Brooks' "Silent Movie" is.

  • E Blackadder||

    That should be, "whether they truly espouse..."

  • Jerryskids||

    A phobia isn't a hatred of something, it's an irrational fear of something. Which makes it odd that Hart would have agreed to host the Oscars in the first place if he's homophobic since there's probably going to be more than a few gay people there. Like Indiana Jones agreeing to be the special guest of a herpetology convention.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Homophobia" like all the other non clinical terms that get "phobia" stuck on the end of them is a case of a Newspeak propaganda word. It is explicitly intended to make some thoughts unthinkable by attaching the stigma of a mental disease to them. It does not have a real meaning beyond that intention.

  • ThomasD||

    Exactly, and knee jerk jerk Suave plays right along.

    Libertarian my ass.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, if a person doesn't like gays, but has no rational basis for his/her dislike of gays, then how would you describe that person?

    I frankly think "homophobe" is a perfectly apt term.

    And if the homophobes don't like being called homophobes, then perhaps they should either (1) stop being homophobes, or (2) come up with a RATIONAL basis for why they don't like gays.

  • wreckinball||

    Except its incorrect use of English. No one is afraid of homos

  • Moo Cow||

    Unless they kill one. Then they use fear of a blow job as their defence.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Well, if a person doesn't like gays, but has no rational basis for his/her dislike of gays, then how would you describe that person?

    Antigay.

    See, that was simple.

    And if the homophobes don't like being called homophobes, then perhaps they should either (1) stop being homophobes, or (2) come up with a RATIONAL basis for why they don't like gays.

    Antigay folks no more need to come up witih "rational basis" for disliking us homosexuals than I need to come up with a "rational basis" for disliking fluorescent lighting, mullets, or pot smokers.

    It's a free society: we are free to dislike and even hate each other for any reason, or no reason at all.

  • ||

    "It's a free society: we are free to dislike and even hate each other for any reason, or no reason at all."

    Man, I love you for saying this. ...But not in the gay way!

    But seriously, people should be allowed to dislike or even hate each other, as long as it doesn't come to violence and discrimination. And that means from time to time people should be able to make fun of other races/orientations, even publicly.

    Pretending we all have to love each other is like taking an abstinence approach to drugs or teenage sex. It would be nice if reality worked that way, but it doesn't, and pretending it does doesn't really help all that much.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's a free society: we are free to dislike and even hate each other for any reason, or no reason at all.

    Yes you are, and I am also free to point out how a hatred for certain classes of people seems to have a very flimsy basis.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Yes you are, and I am also free to point out how a hatred for certain classes of people seems to have a very flimsy basis.

    Love, compassion, affection, and altruism also "have a very flimsy [rational] basis". In fact, very little of what people do day-in and day-out has any articulable basis at all. That's because humans operate overwhelmingly based on subconscious preferences and judgments. People who think otherwise just engage in post-hoc rationalizations.

  • Dillinger||

    problem w/mullets?

  • Benitacanova||

    Didn't they used to be gay bashers? I so miss bashing...

  • Rock Lobster||

    Rational Exuberance indeed. This dude gets it!

  • Mickey Rat||

    "Dislike" and "fear" are not not synonymous words, and "phobia" is a mental disorder. The term begs the question of whether the person's dislike of homosexuality is irrational.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    The term begs the question of whether the person's dislike of homosexuality is irrational.

    Most choices and preferences people have are irrational; most of the time, rationality is not a useful measure of the value of a preference.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "The term begs the question of whether the person's dislike of homosexuality is irrational."

    Anyone even attempting to have that discussion in public will see their life destroyed by progtards.

    Another reason to cleanse America of progtards.

  • ||

    And if the homophobes don't like being called homophobes, then perhaps they should either (1) stop being homophobes, or (2) come up with a RATIONAL basis for why they don't like gays.

    No they don't. If homophobia is a thing, it's a condition not an action. You might as well be saying that Kevin Hart needs to provide a rational basis for being black. Moreover, if he didn't have a reason to be afraid before, he does now. Too bad that would be rational and render him something other than phobic.

    Personally, I've always preferred the 'vexed' suffix. That's assuming the 'pro-homo' stance isn't just dumb. This is why I've hated the gay rights movement from the get go. The wanton conflation of state of being with state of action selectively in one's or a victim's favor. Not all victims are to be believed out of hand and, even if victims are to be believed out of hand, not all victims or angry mobs arrive at just punishments by virtue of their victimization or mob status.

  • ThomasD||

    "... has no rational basis.."

    Since when do aesthetics have, much less require a rational basis?

    Phobias are irrational fears. Not irrational dislikes. This was clearly explained already, yet you persist in displaying your obtuse idiocy.

  • ||

    Sort of related, It makes me cringe when people slap -aholic onto words in the same way to connote overfondness for something. Like Workaholic. Really? You're addicted to Workahol? What is that like? You ever black out on Workahol and beat your wife? Because I have done that with Scotch*.

    *Not really, and my apologies to Bob Sagat's bit from Half Baked...

  • Dillinger||

    Homer: "I'm a rage-oholic. I'm addicted to rage-ohol!"

  • Rob Misek||

    Is homosexuality a choice or a disorder?

    There are plenty of examples of people switching their sexual orientations.

    Anything that inhibits or interferes with a normal function or established system is a disorder. Mating, the pairing of members of the opposite sex to reproduce and raise children is our normal function and established system.

    Being distressed by the sexuality you were assigned at birth is the criteria for the diagnosis of the mental disorder gender dysphoria.

    Recognition of the facts and reality demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science is the prerequisite for rationality, not a disorder called homophobia.

    It appears that the truly disordered want to paint everyone with that brush.

  • apedad||

    There are also billions of examples of people who didn't switch their sexual orientation - so I'm not sure what your point is.

  • ThomasD||

    "so I'm not sure what your point is."

    Yeah. You are.

    But, just to make it explicit, his point is that all aspects of sexuality - from desires to acts - are subject to free will.

    ie. it's a choice

  • Jerryskids||

    There's a theory that homosexuality serves a certain biological purpose in that homosexual men serve the role of sheepdogs who can be trusted not to eat the sheep, much the same as the eunuchs in the sultan's palace. No word on what role the sheep who like to eat other sheep play in this theory.

    Of course, there's also a theory within the deaf community that cochlear implants for babies are an abomination because it's an attempt to "fix" something that's not broken and being deaf is perfectly normal and natural and any well-adjusted deaf person has no wish to be able to hear.

    I haven't heard of any theoretical analog in the blind community or the diabetic community or the quadriplegic community explaining why being blind or diabetic or paralyzed serves some biological role so maybe that's just some self-justifying bullshit they made up.

  • Rob Misek||

    Those without the disorder know what you're missing.

    You probably have issues with that. Sucks to be you.

    Calling me intolerant and trying to persecute me, because I make the distinction, is your fools errand.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Calling me intolerant and trying to persecute me, because I make the distinction, is your fools errand.

    Who is "persecuting" you? And you're not "intolerant", you're simply confused.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    There's a theory that homosexuality serves a certain biological purpose

    You don't need such elaborate theories. Through most of history, most homosexuals simply married and had kids like everybody else; marriage just wasn't closely linked enough to sexual attraction to matter. There was no significant selection pressure against homosexuality.

    The only reason this has even become a question is because in the 20th century, it became economically feasible and even desirable not to marry and have kids. That allowed many homosexuals to follow their preferences.

  • retiredfire||

    For the thousands of years that procreation was nothing but animal attraction and not associated with a cultural norm, like marriage, someone born homosexual wouldn't have had that urge and the gene would have died out.
    Homosexuality being a mental illness, however, that could arise at any time in one's life, such as after procreating, is the only way that gene could continue to exist beyond that time period.
    Homosexuality wasn't removed from the list of mental illnesses because of some scientific breakthrough, but for nothing but political reasons.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Homosexuality wasn't removed from the list of mental illnesses because of some scientific breakthrough, but for nothing but political reasons.

    Let's say it actually were an illness. That would merely place homosexuals in the same category as deaf people. As a result, homosexuality would cease to be a moral issue entirely, and homosexuals would be free to choose not to get treatment and to act in accordance with their condition, just like many deaf people choose not to get cochlear implants and interact primarily with other deaf people through signing.

    So, if you like, feel free to consider homosexuality a "mental illness". That merely obligates you to show the same kind of respect and tolerance towards homosexuals as you would towards anybody else with an illness.

  • Rock Lobster||

    "Through most of history, most homosexuals simply married and had kids like everybody else..."

    And then there's true bi-sexuality, where a person is genuinely attracted to members of both sexes, is probably a good deal more prevalent than currently thought, and finds a good fit in this model. It doesn't make sense that someone would commit to, live intimately with, and have children with someone of the opposite sex unless there was some degree of physical attraction there.

    But bi-sexuality doesn't fit neatly into the either/or binary construct of the culture wars and is not as trendy or as useful a political weapon as transgenderism. Additionally, having achieved a degree of peaceful stability, most bisexuals in this position find no advantage in social justice warrioring. In fact, other than their sexuality, many are quite conventional and tend to the libertarian side of conservatism. In short, they are discreet.

  • ||

    Neither. It simply is.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Is homosexuality a choice or a disorder?

    WHO CARES?

    If, for the sake of argument, homosexuality really is a "disorder", then what do you plan to do about it? Throw them all in mental institutions?

    This is like the same situation with transgendered individuals. EVEN IF you think that they are all suffering from a mental disorder of gender dysphoria, unless your plan is to force them into getting the "help" that you think that they need, it doesn't matter what you think of them. They are going to be who they are going to be, and if they decide to get the "help" that you think they need, then they will. If they don't, then it's none of your business anyway.

  • JesseAz||

    If, no I don't believe it is, a disorder, you don't pass special protections forcing others to participate in the disorder. We don't force people to cheer anorexic people to lose weight.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is forcing you to cheer on anyone.

    Go ahead and condemn gays and transgendered all you want. You have every right to do so. And yes I believe that ought to extend to cake bakers and florists.

    What you are complaining about, is how others may react to your condemnations. YOU don't get to force others to choose NOT to let your condemnations pass by unremarked upon.

    If you say "god hates fags" and then I choose not to associate with you because of that, then both of us are exercising our liberties as we see fit. I don't get to force you to stop hating gays, and you don't get to force me to associate with homophobes against my will, or to force me to not exercise my speech rights how I see fit. THAT is the proper libertarian response.

  • JesseAz||

    When the trans movement is seeking to end the employment of biologists or feminists for making the factual claim about DNA markers, yes they are forcing it when they force a religious Baker to violate and taint their beliefs in religious sacraments to celebrate something they find abhorrent, news they are asking to be forced to cheer on. When they seek to end the employment of a CEO at Mozilla for daring to donate to a political cause, years they are forcing participation in their beliefs.

    For someone who constantly yells NAP you sure cheer on its violations in this realm.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    When the trans movement is seeking to end the employment of biologists or feminists for making the factual claim about DNA markers, yes they are forcing it

    The "trans movement" does not have the power to force anyone to employ or not employ anyone who is not in their direct employ.

    Should a member of "the trans movement" have the legal ability to exercise free speech rights to advocate that anyone he/she wishes be hired or fired?

  • JesseAz||

    Jesus christ jeff. This is why I can't discuss things with you. You're too fucking stupid. If I don't agree with someone and don't want to associate with them I stop talking to them, ie an ignore function. What I don't do is follow that person to work to try and get them fired. Mozilla users aren't associating with the CEO. Most workers are not either. But the protestors actively tried causing him harm by getting him fired. Twitter activists don't simply hit block or unfollow, they seek to end the other persons access completely. They are aggressive actions beyond individual interactions. Do you not understand this? Or are you now admitting you don't believe in the NAP except for when you don't have an intelligent argument to offer?

  • Rob Misek||

    When ones position is obviously wrong, they tend to ignore and deny the obvious.

    Are they stupid or willfully ignorant?

    Of course they want you to tolerate their strategy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    There is no aggression involved in any of these cases for which invoking the NAP would be appropriate. Aggression here involves violating someone's right. Was anyone's rights violated?

    And so give us what you think ought to happen here. Someone says something that you find is offensive on Twitter, and so what should be the maximum that you should *have the legal right* to do?

  • Rob Misek||

    Free speech

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You have free speech.
    So do your opponents.

    You have the right to say "god hates fags".
    I have the right to say "I think you should be fired".

    See how that works?

  • Rob Misek||

    Yes, you're inciting someone to violate my right to free speech by persecuting me for it.

    You're a fucking coward.

    See how that works.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your right to free speech does not confer upon you immunity from consequences of that speech.

  • Rob Misek||

    Then it isn't free.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It is free from *punishment from the state*.

    What exactly do you expect? To be able to say what you want, and also to be able to prevent me from responding how I wish to respond? That violates MY right to free speech.

  • Rob Misek||

    Persecuting someone, like firing them, is not speech.

    It is coercion.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So you're free to publicly say whatever you want, but I'm not free to publicly say "if I have to work with this guy, I'll quit"?

    That's your argument?

  • retiredfire||

    If I fire someone because they are a homosexual, or gender dysphoric, I can be sued and, if it is carried as far as the SJWs want, criminally punished.
    Do I have the same freedom to counter those, who fire me for having an opinion that they disagree with, such as that one's gender is that which is reflected in their genetic makeup.
    My freedom of speech is severely limited in this environment.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Person A should have the right to say whatever he/she wants and associate with whomever he/she wants.

    Person B should have the right to say whatever he/she wants and associate with whomever he/she wants as a response to Person A's choice of speech and associations.

    So if Person A says "I hate gays" and Person B says "I think you should be fired", both should be protected speech.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No Jesse, he doesn't p. Jeffy is that much of a moron, and worse. So much so that I usually just denigrate him. He has no real arguments, and largely just pollutes a thread by shitposting. Kind of like a younger, dumber Hihn.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Except he can actually articulate a point, unlike Hihn or yourself. Who left the door open for all these bigoted cousin-fuckers to wander in? This place ain't what she used to be....

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "No one is forcing you to cheer on anyone."

    Yeah, actually progtards are doing that now. Maybe you should stay out of these discussions and let the adults talk Little Jeffy.

  • Rob Misek||

    Who cares?

    Apparently not only the faggots.

    Get over it. Disorders aren't tolerated.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    So what is your plan for "not tolerating" the supposed disorder of homosexuality?

  • Rob Misek||

    Simply recognizing and communicating the truth about the disorder and defending my right to do so while exposing the criminals that would deny anyone that right.

    It isn't a right if you can be persecuted for exercising it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No one is infringing on your right to say "god hates fags". For heaven's sake SCOTUS even said you have the right to say it even at a military funeral.

    So your plan is to just walk around and say "god hates fags". Okay, fine. No one cares.

  • Rob Misek||

    Science and logic demonstrates the truth of what faggots are.

    In the shithole you belong in, truth and justice don't matter.

  • retiredfire||

    If I say that at work, I can be fired, and the courts - AKA government - will back up the firing.
    That's my right of free speech being taken.

  • ||

    So what is your plan for "not tolerating" the supposed disorder of homosexuality?

    You should know, it comes from the same playbook of brutality as the left's plan for wrong-thinkers.

  • Rob Misek||

    My playbook is to value and speak the truth demonstrated with the evidence of logic and science.

    What's yours and what makes you believe it to be true?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    My playbook is to value and speak the truth demonstrated with the evidence of logic and science.

    So far, you aren't doing too well. After all, you are still confusing homosexuality and transsexuality, two phenomena that have nothing to do with one another other than that they share the suffix "-sexuality".

  • retiredfire||

    They are both forms of delusion, with respect to their sexuality.
    Homosexuals with the delusion that they are physically attracted to the same sex and gender dysphorics in that they think their sex is different from their physical makeup.
    Delusions, that are acted upon, are mental disorders.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Homosexuals with the delusion that they are physically attracted to the same sex

    "A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even in the presence of superior evidence to the contrary" So you are saying that homosexuals are actually attracted to the opposite sex, they simply have convinced themselves that they are not? Sorry, that makes no sense. People can certainly delude themselves about who or what they are attracted to. Usually, that takes the form of repressed homosexuality (perhaps you suffer from that), although I suppose repressed heterosexuality is also theoretically possible.

    Delusions, that are acted upon, are mental disorders.

    Well, if homosexuality is, in fact, a "mental disorder", several things follow from that. First, having a disorder isn't a moral issue, so you must consider homosexuality not immoral then. Second, whether to receive treatment for a disorder is up to the patient, so homosexuals have a right not to get treated. Third, it would mean that homosexuality would fall under existing non-discrimination laws for medical conditions.

    In other words, if you really want to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder, you are entirely giving up on the social conservative cultural and policy objectives. Good for you!

  • Rob Misek||

    For someone so obsessed with using the word morality in your comments, it's ironic that you don't know it's meaning.

    Morality is concerned with right behaviour.

    Many disorders are observed as "wrong behaviour". You'll need to blame the medical community for this. Fill your boots.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Many disorders are observed as "wrong behaviour". You'll need to blame the medical community for this. Fill your boots.

    Tourette's syndrome causes people to swear uncontrollably ("wrong behavior"). Because the behavior is caused by a medical condition, we don't hold people morally responsible for it. Same with homosexual behavior: if it is caused by a medical condition, you can't hold people morally responsible for it.

    It's your right to judge the behavior of your fellow citizens to be immoral (not that anybody cares). It's simply logically inconsistent for you to describe a behavior both as the consequence of a medical condition and simultaneously call it immoral.

  • ||

    WHO CARES?

    Anybody hell bent on classifying others as rational or irrational should be able to withstand this test. Fundamentally, it boils down to an undoing of 'I think. Therefore, I am.' If you, by and large, don't exist or only exist as a simple object acted on by outside forces, what obligation do others, who think of themselves as existing, have to treat you distinctly from your expectations?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay perhaps I didn't make my point clear. So here is an example.

    Suppose you say "I hate the gays and think they are all sexual deviants". Fine. You have every right to believe that and say that. But those are only words. From a practical point of view, gays might find your words offensive, but you don't intend on *doing* anything, so it doesn't matter.

    But then suppose you say "I hate the gays and think they are all sexual deviants, and therefore I want to throw them all in cages", then that becomes a lot more problematic, but only because of the force you want to initiate on them. Your personal viewpoint on the purported sexual deviancy of gays STILL doesn't matter.

    Believe whatever you want about gays or anyone else, I don't give a shit. It's only when certain people propose *actions* that represent an initiation of force against said group that it *may* become a problem.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm curious when "thoughts" become "actions" to you.

    Let's say my boss is an asshole, and constantly says "I hate the gays and think they are all sexual deviants". We agree this is covered under Freedom of Speech.

    But what if I finally have enough and say "I quit, because of the things you say." Is that permissible? Or is that one of the "actions" that's an "initiation of force" that's a problem?

    What if I say "I quit, because of the things you say" and post my resignition letter for everyone in the company to see? Is that permissible? Or is that one of the "actions" that's an "initiation of force" that's a problem?

    What if I post my resignation letter publicly on Twitter or Facebook or some other social media?

    And what point does me exercising my Freedom of Association (in quitting) and Freedom of Speech (telling people why I quit) become problematic "initiation of force"?

    Is that dependent on other people? If no one else cares, is it still a problem? If other co-workers say "hey, this is fucked up" and similarly quit, does that make it a problem? If clients say "hey, this is fucked up" and take their business elsewhere, does that make it a problem?

    You say it's the "initiation of force" that's problematic, but in these cases the "force" is usually a consequence of enough people agreeing that the offended person is right. How do you stop that without also muzzling people's speech?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I see no problem with any of your hypotheticals.

    Initiation of force would be when your rights are taken away. Physical violence against you, for example. Defamation of your character. (Truth is not defamation though!)

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "If, for the sake of argument, homosexuality really is a "disorder", then what do you plan to do about it?"

    It will be interesting to see what happens when a biological cure for homosexuality is imvented.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It will be interesting to see what happens when a biological cure for homosexuality is imvented.


    I'm not worried. We're talking decades and decades away, and most likely it'll be a gene-editing artificial-womb thing. And even after those are invented and refined to the point where you can control your kid's sexuality, until it becomes cheap enough that it's used by the masses and not just the rich, it wont' be able to wipe out gay people.

    So we're talking about a distant future in which procreation is already separated from sex. So two prospective parents can be two men, two women, a man and a woman, three women and a donkey, whatever really, as it's all a matter of editing and machines.

    That's the tech angle.

    On the social acceptance angle, I have no reason to fret that we'll backslide. Pretty much everywhere in the world has the same patter: get rid of sodomy laws, and eventually folks come around on the topic. Sure, there's fits and starts, but the trajectory is the same.

    So by the time we've firmly disconnected children from their parent's sexual activity, it sure seems like having a gay kid won't be an issue anymore. If anything, folks will prefer bi kids as that means they'll have a better chance of finding their "soul mate" or whatever.

    So I'm chill with the future.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I consider all of that completely unrealistic. If parents can screen out whatever. Ales a kid turn out gay, they will al sot all do it. No matter what they tell you to your face. For so many reason, not including that most parents eventualy want grandchildren.

    Sure maybe some shrill progressives won't want it, but they really are just a shreikimg minority anyway.

  • EscherEnigma||

    For so many reason, not including that most parents eventualy want grandchildren.


    Correct. Not including that. As I pointed out, by the time this tech hits, and is widely available that it's practical to eradicate gay people using it, reproduction will already be separated from sex such that having a gay kid will be irrelevant to having grandkids.

  • Rob Misek||

    You seem to be unaware of the real relationship between parent and child.

    This is the common sense, known for millennia, that I expect you will ignore and deny.

    Life is a continuum. It doesn't begin with conception. Instead the living egg and sperm from only one male and one female, representing their living histories with DNA, combine at conception forming a new individual. This relationship cannot be faked or replaced.

    Knowingly denying anyone this relationship is abuse.

    I'm confident that people won't knowingly advocate abuse.

  • Nardz||

    "This is like the same situation with transgendered individuals. EVEN IF you think that they are all suffering from a mental disorder of gender dysphoria, unless your plan is to force them into getting the "help" that you think that they need, it doesn't matter what you think of them. They are going to be who they are going to be, and if they decide to get the "help" that you think they need, then they will. If they don't, then it's none of your business anyway."

    Color-blindness is also a disorder.
    Shall we refuse to call red "red" or blue "blue" to accommodate people with that disorder?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You may choose to do whatever you wish. Call red "polka-dot" for all I care.

    No one cares about your opinions of others.

    It is only a problem if you want to start throwing color-blind people into cages.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    This is like the same situation with transgendered individuals. EVEN IF you think that they are all suffering from a mental disorder of gender dysphoria

    No, it's not the same situation.

    Homosexuals do not generally consider themselves to be ill, so they don't seek treatment or surgical modification; that's why it doesn't matter whether other people classify homosexuality as an illness or not.

    Transgendered individuals do consider themselves to be ill, and they seek both costly and dangerous, irreversible medical treatments.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Being distressed by the sexuality you were assigned at birth is the criteria for the diagnosis of the mental disorder gender dysphoria.

    Being distressed by the sex you were assigned at birth is gender dysphoria; it's a disorder because it causes serious problem for the individual regardless of social environment, and because it is treated with medical interventions, including surgery. People suffering from gender dysphoria are often still attracted to the opposite of their genetic sex even after their sex change.

    People aren't assigned sexuality at birth. It's hard to argue that homosexuality is a "disorder". Homosexuality doesn't cause any problems per se: most homosexuals don't desire to change their sexual orientation, don't seek medical treatment, and function perfectly well within society, even tending to have higher incomes.

    Recognition of the facts and reality demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science is the prerequisite for rationality, not a disorder called homophobia.

    You can be anti-gay for whatever reason you like, including that it simply creeps you out; it's a free country. But in discussions, you'd fare better if you at least got your facts straight.

    In this case, you have simply become a victim of leftist propaganda; leftists, for some reason, tried to lump together homosexuality and transsexuality, even though the two have little to do with one another.

  • Rob Misek||

    Male and female are the only two sexes and yes they are assigned (by DNA) at conception in humans.

    This is a fact.

  • Rob Misek||

    Show me a female with a Y chromosome and I'll show you a disorder.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Male and female are the only two sexes and yes they are assigned (by DNA) at conception in humans. This is a fact.

    I agree completely. That is a fact.

    Your problem is that you confuse sex (male/female) with sexuality (who people want to sleep with).

  • Rob Misek||

    "(who people want to sleep with)."

    You are describing a choice. As a choice, homosexuality is not protected from criticism.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    You are describing a choice.

    Yes, in the same way that lactose intolerant people choose not to drink milk because it gives them gas. What difference does it make?

    As a choice, homosexuality is not protected from criticism.

    You can criticize whatever you want. Heck, as long as you are nonviolent, you can hate whoever you want. It's a free country.

    All I did was point out that you are confused on some facts. Homosexuals have no problem with their birth-assigned sex, and homosexuals can and do procreate just fine (with members of the opposite sex). Many homosexuals don't even have sex. And unlike transsexuals, homosexuals are not sick for the simple reason that they don't seek medical treatment.

    Those facts don't need to affect your feelings or moral judgment about homosexuality or homosexuals either way, but if you want to rationally justify your dislike of homosexuality, you have to start from actual facts or you simply make a fool of yourself.

    Personally, I would recommend you don't bother with rational justifications: it's fine to simply not like certain groups of people just because that's what you feel. If you really want to reflect on something, reflect on why you are so obsessed with homosexuality in the first place, because in the grand scheme of things, it makes very little difference to anybody other than homosexuals.

  • Rob Misek||

    "Personally, I would recommend you don't bother with rational justifications:"

    That's because it's not your playbook.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    That's because it's not your playbook.

    No, it's because it's not in your playbook. You know nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals. You confuse transsexuality with homosexuality, you falsely assume that homosexuals don't procreate in opposite-sex marriages, etc. Your dislike of homosexuality is obviously not rooted in a rational understanding. And that's fine.

    The question you should perhaps ask yourself, however, is why you are so obsessed with homosexuality in the first place.

  • wreckinball||

    Who cares. If you are a libertarian then you don't care who people have sex with. I don't. The whole marriage thing is overblown in that government really shouldn't define folks living arrangements. The Gov't should be out of the marriage business which means yes polygamy is also OK. Oh the horror an handful of nutty folks want to live in threesomes or foursomes. Who cares.

    How consenting adults want to live is up to them.

    If we left it at that all would be well. But we haven't left it at that. You must bake the cake. You must not only be a live and let live guy you must embrace all the correct lifestyles or else.

    The thought police and the SJW lynch mob disgusts me. I'm not a boycott type of person but I have been trying when possible to buycott the boycotted and boycott the boycotters.

  • James Pollock||

    "You must bake the cake."

    Hold on.
    To the nearest 100, how many cakes have you been required to bake?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The aberrant attraction would be the disorder where sexuality is concerned.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    If 1% of the population has garlic ice cream as their favorite flavor, that is "aberrant", but that doesn't make it a "disorder".

    And if "choosing not to procreate" is a disorder in your and Rob's definition, then heterosexuals are suffering from it in much greater numbers than homosexuals.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    An outlier palette and one's primary sexual attraction are not comparable things. Amd we're talking about sexual attraction, and not "choosing not to procreate". These all sound like things designed to trivialize the discussion, as if a 180 degree deviation from normal sexual attraction isn't somehow significant. When it is.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    These all sound like things designed to trivialize the discussion, as if a 180 degree deviation from normal sexual attraction isn't somehow significant. When it is.

    In mammals, sex is binary, but sexual orientation is not. A 6'2" woman, and a man with an IQ of 70, and a Kinsey 6 are all normal and expected, if infrequent, outcomes of human genetics and development.

    These really are trivial matters, unless you yourself have some kind of kinky obsession with tall women, stupid men, or homosexuals.

  • James Pollock||

    " ' Male and female are the only two sexes and yes they are assigned (by DNA) at conception in humans. This is a fact.'

    I agree completely. That is a fact."

    This is not a fact. Some people are born Intersex, and some with genetic components of both male and female (i.e. 47XXY)

    Nobody with access to Google should get this wrong.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    This is not a fact. Some people are born Intersex, and some with genetic components of both male and female (i.e. 47XXY)

    All human males have "genetic components of both male and female". Individuals with 47,XXY carry an identifiable genetic abnormality leading to identifiable pathologies, foremost sterility; they do not define a new sex or a transition between male and female, since they cannot function as either male or female. In fact, there has never been a documented case of any human who can function as both male and female.

  • Benitacanova||

    No one is assigning anything. It's an observation.

  • Rob Misek||

    It is the observed truth, demonstrated by the evidence of logic and science. It is not merely belief.

    It is the best we can ever do.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Anything that inhibits or interferes with a normal function or established system is a disorder. Mating, the pairing of members of the opposite sex to reproduce and raise children is our normal function and established system.

    Sorry, but that's objectively wrong. Mating in humans doesn't require heterosexual orientation; homosexuals are fertile and have procreated and married widely throughout history. In fact, that's what Christian conservatives advocate: a society in which homosexual men and women are forced to marry through social pressure and conventions.

  • Rob Misek||

    Not acting as homosexuals they don't prostrate.

    Being hypocrites maybe. Narcissists who don't care about the children growing up with their biological parents who represent their living genetic continuation of life.

  • Rob Misek||

    Procreate

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Not acting as homosexuals they don't [procreate]. Being hypocrites maybe. Narcissists who don't care about the children growing up with their biological parents who represent their living genetic continuation of life.

    I'm sorry, you keep showing your ignorance. No, I'm not talking about same-sex marriages. I'm saying that historically, most homosexual men and women would join in heterosexual marriages, procreate, and raise their kids together in their opposite-sex marriage. There is nothing wrong with that: marriages can be rooted in lust, but they can also be rooted in partnership, friendship, and economic considerations. Since the 20th century, lots of people believe that the primary basis for marriage is lust, which is probably why so many marriages fail.

    These days, large numbers of heterosexuals choose not to procreate or marry; and, conversely, many homosexuals choose to marry into opposite-sex marriages because they want to have children and consider the sex secondary.

  • EscherEnigma||

    […] and, conversely, many homosexuals choose to marry into opposite-sex marriages because they want to have children and consider the sex secondary.

    Wot?

    Not in America. You do find people who married thinking they were straight, who later come out as gay after having kids but this tends to end the marriage. Folks who know they're gay and marry straight anyway are pretty rare.

    What you're increasingly seeing is gay couples that decide, as gay couples, to have kids, either through adoption, surrogacy (gay men) or sperm donor (lesbians).

    But intentionally bearded marriages are, in America, pretty rare these days.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Historically, people simply accepted that they had a mix of homosexual and heterosexual attraction; they also accepted that opposite-sex marriage was the social norm and necessity; and they tried to reconcile those two facts as best they could. They didn't view this as a "beard marriage". "Coming out" refers to adopting a social identity that historically didn't even exist.

    My point is that homosexual orientation is not automatically incompatible with heterosexual marriage or procreation, as Rob Misek seems to believe. That it has become so in 21st century America is the result of changing social conditions and the creation of a separate gay social identity.

    Furthermore, if you're concerned with procreation and families, the fact that homosexuals have largely stopped procreating in stable opposite-sex marriages in 21st century America is peanuts compared to the large number of heterosexuals who have done so.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Historically, sure.

    I am explicitly objecting to your use of the present tense.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I am explicitly objecting to your use of the present tense

    The statement homosexual orientation is not automatically incompatible with heterosexual marriage or procreation is both historically and currently accurate everywhere; it is social circumstances combined with homosexual orientation that lead to lack of procreation by homosexuals. But the same social circumstances also lead to lack of procreation by heterosexuals.

    Now, as to your other statement:

    You do find people who married thinking they were straight, who later come out as gay after having kids but this tends to end the marriage. Folks who know they're gay and marry straight anyway are pretty rare.

    How would you know? People who have homosexual preferences but are in stable opposite-sex marriages never show up on any statistics, even in the US.

    And across the globe (Islamic world, Catholic countries, Asian countries), people who have homosexual preferences certainly are found in stable opposite-sex marriages, even if they engage in homosexual intercourse outside of marriage. That alone justifies the use of the "present tense", since that's still the cultural norm across the globe, even if it isn't in progressive upper middle class US society.

  • mtrueman||

    "Is homosexuality a choice or a disorder?"

    The word homosexual refers to certain acts, not people, according to Gore Vidal. Our obsession with classifying and categorizing people on the basis of how they prefer to enjoy themselves is the problem here.

  • Rob Misek||

    As a choice, homosexuality is not protected from criticism.

    That's why faggots will never admit that it's their choice.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    What makes you think us faggots care whether people like you criticize us? Criticize all you want, and we'll take it for all its worth (which isn't much in your case).

  • Rob Misek||

    It's pretty obvious that faggots couldn't take Hart's criticism.

    Admit that you're behaviour is a choice and the issue goes away,

    Or maintain that you're a poor persecuted retard and the issue goes away.

    Keep insisting that your disorder is normal, and the truth evidenced by logic and science will be shared proving your error over and over again.

    I'm ok with any of them.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Admit that you're behaviour is a choice and the issue goes away,

    Of course, homosexual behavior is a choice. What is there to "admit"? What difference does that make?

    Keep insisting that your disorder is normal, and the truth evidenced by logic and science will be shared proving your error over and over again.

    I'm still waiting for any "logic and science" from you.

  • Mcgoo95||

    It's pretty obvious he received no education past the sixth grade at this point.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Rob Misek is a closet homosexual who is trying hard to prove to himself that he is straight.

  • mtrueman||

    Whether to engage in homosexual acts is a matter of choice. But one cannot argue for ( or choose) taste or inclination.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Homosexuality ismthe sexual attraction.p, not the actions. The actions are a choice.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah, it refers to both.

    If you don't like the way the word is used, blame straight people. There really aren't enough gay people to move the needle on this.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I blame Obama.

    Seriously though, I could probably construct a supportable argument laying the blame for much of this bullshit at his feet.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Only if it involves time travel. And I'd be very interested in a "supportable argument" that involves time travel.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Hart must be punished for his past blasphemies against the Cult of Homophilia. An auto de fe is not enough, a symbolic self-immolation is required.

    Gunn was taken out because the social justice inquisitors could not ignore sex crimes, Jeong survived because being racist against white people is not a heresy against the social justice faith.

  • mlwjr||

    Oh get over yourself. There is no cult of homophobia. Most gays just go on about thier Iife just like everyone else. They really don't care about this shit

  • Mickey Rat||

    The people enforcing this are social justice types. That is not equivalent to "most gays".

  • ThomasD||

    Never mind that the OP posited a cult of homophilia.

    Because that which is not prohibited is mandatory.

  • Rock Lobster||

    "Never mind that the OP posited a cult of homophilia."

    Which is subdivision of SJW identity politics, and like its supporting theory of "intersectionality," is nothing but a lie told in the pursuit of power. Gays, like everyone else, are individuals with a variety of varying viewpoints and experience. Some are undoubtedly on board with the SJW idiocy. Many (and probably most) have more common sense.

  • JesseAz||

    And yet enough are loud enough to force Twitter to give them special protections, attack tenure of biology professors for nbn understanding DNA markers and sex, etc.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    You're confusing homosexuals and transsexuals.

  • Nardz||

    "There is no cult of homophobia. Most gays just go on about thier Iife just like everyone else. They really don't care about this shit"

    Most gays do just go about their life like everyone else. I remember a coworker talking about going o the festival over the weekend. I asked how the Pride parade was. He looked at me confused, and said he was talking about some parts and crafts thing in Kennessaw. Didn't even know it was gay pride weekend in ATL.
    But there absolutely is a cult of homophilia - it's a core tenet of progressivism. It is not about the allowance/tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality, but about the promotion of homosexuality.
    When homosexuality ceases to be an individual condition and instead becomes a collective, and popular, identity is historically a sign of a civilization in decline. I think there is definite correlation, and some causation, but not directly attributable to gays themselves. Rather, it is the (often heterosexual) popularizers, fetishizers, and promoters of homosexuality that lead.

  • damikesc||

    Kevin Hart dodged a fucking bullet there.

  • ThomasD||

    Well, he is a short fucker.

  • damikesc||

    Most of the people I saw on Twitter demanding penance from Hart were journalists at generally left-of-center publications

    Trump criticizing them is fascism. Them criticizing Kevin Hart is double plusgood think.

    I for one was glad that Jeong survived an attempted social media assassination, because there ought to be some understanding that human beings are more than their worst moments on Twitter.

    It's also why the Right went after James Gunn. Retaliation is a tactic. Not always good or nice...but a double standard undeniably exists.

    For what it's worth, Hart's tweets—like Gunn's, Roseanne's, and yes, Jeong's—were bad.

    Oh dears, he tweeted things Robby disapproves of. BURN THE HERETIC!!!

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No more progressives.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Can we please PLEASE try to remember that offensive is a subjective term.

  • ThomasD||

    We go through this every time.

    The left forces their subjective opinion down everyone else's throat and Rico minces.

    The left become accountable to their own standards and Rico thinks it is an immoral abomination.

  • damikesc||

    This. Precisely this.

    It's why I STILL have no problem with Hollywood actors getting smeared by #MeToo. You idiots have been condemning the country for measures less than this for well over a decade...while sitting there and enabling the horrendous bullshit that went on in Hollywood the entire time.

    They sat there and pretended that women in the real world are treated anywhere near like the pieces of meat that Hollywood treats them as.

    So, they are now being hanged on their own patards. Good. Serves all of the fuckers right.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Progressives eating their own is always a good thing. The only problem is that people are conditioned to complain, and wrong their hands about progtards instead of doing the smart thing and showing them the door, or else.

    It will be the death of freedom that no one will actually stop them.

  • James Pollock||

    "The only problem is that people are conditioned to complain, and wrong their hands about progtards instead of doing the smart thing and showing them the door, or else."

    And when you show them your else, they start tweeting "#MeToo".

  • wreckinball||

    It sucks to be a comedian these days.

    Watch some shows form the 60s and 70s. Most could never be broadcast today . All in the Family, MASH, the Jeffersons no way.

    But they were funny. SNL was funny back in the day.

  • ||

    I'll disagree about All in the Family. That show was intentionally "offensive", or more accurately, it was a truthful reflection of a typical viewpoint of Archie's generation, in direct contrast to Meathead's generation. And it constantly contextualized Archie within the world around him. Remember, George Jefferson was as racist as Archie was. And again, intentionally.

    It's why a show like Atlanta works so well today.

  • wreckinball||

    Jefferson was a character on All in the Family and black people cannot be racist. Archie was also portrayed as a grumpy old man but still a good guy in the end. No way that is allowed. So no it couldn't be shown today.

    Jefferson, no, black people cannot be racist.

    MASH, Klinger, nope

  • James Pollock||

    "So no it couldn't be shown today."

    It's on everyday, on the Sundance channel. They run promos for it on other channels and everything. M*A*S*H, too.

  • wreckinball||

    God the fence sitter is back. Yes they all are on reruns. I'm talking about a new show.

    being only slightly smarter than Tony or Chem Jeff still makes you a dumb fuck.

  • James Pollock||

    Ah, So when you said "this old show could never be shown today", you meant a show that exists only in your imagination was the one that could not be shown today.

    "being only slightly smarter than Tony or Chem Jeff still makes you a dumb fuck."

    Still leaves you a distant fourth place.

    What is your obsession with fences? Did one spurn your sexual advances, or something?

  • wreckinball||

    No I mean you are still clueless dude. I mean seriously you think everyone doesn't know the old shows are on re-runs. Gee thanks for pointing out the fucking obvious. Its almost the same thing right?

    Since Tony and Jeff are sleepy your're the dumb ass of the day. Congratulations

  • James Pollock||

    "I mean seriously you think everyone doesn't know the old shows are on re-runs."

    You're the one who said they couldn't air today. How is that somehow my fault?

    "Since Tony and Jeff are sleepy your're the dumb ass of the day."

    Given your poor grasp of facts, I'll hold off celebrating until I hear it directly from the selection committee.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    There was an episode where Archie and George ended up bonding because each was afraid their future grandchild might resemble the other's race and nstead of their own. They bonded over this while having beers. No one learned a lesson, and both characters were largely decent men.

    No way that would even stand with the left today.

    Let's just get rid of the left.

  • wreckinball||

    More recently Seinfeld, nope

  • ThomasD||

    "... it was a truthful reflection of a typical viewpoint..."

    No it wasn't. Archie Bunker was an overblown stereotype taken straight out of minstrel shows. But iIt was also bigoted and mean spirited.

    Unlike Hee Haw - the other popular minstrel show of the time - which traffic in all sorts of stereotypes, but did so in a genial manner.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    He was meant to be that, but as the show aired, they found that a lot of their audience heavily identified with him. So he got dialed back a little bit to keep him well-rounded rather than just an old man yelling at the clouds.

  • James Pollock||

    " So he got dialed back a little bit to keep him well-rounded"

    Well, they had to. The show was originally about how all the different personalities of the characters fit in the same house, and by the end, all the other original actors had left the show. Rob Reiner, Sally Strothers, Jean Stapleton... they all left. Even Danielle Brisebois, brought in the change the character of the show, left.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Kevin Hart was accused not only of homophobia, but also racism* (against himself?) for his role in Get Hard. The snooty, sanctimonious prick of a film critic bases his assumptions on his assertion that objecting to being raped is homophobic, as if prison rape is some part of LGBTQ+ culture that must be protected from such hateful bigotry as objecting to being raped? What the fuck sort of nonsense is that? It's equating prison rape with free, consensual, private relationships just to signal some smirky, "woke" rightthink which manages to always ignore it's own self-negating, disturbing, stupid ideology.

    *please use an ad blocker when clicking that link

  • wreckinball||

    The LGBTQ+ gets crazier as you go down the alphabet string.

  • Rob Misek||

    There are males, females and the disordered.

    When they run out of letters to designate their disorder, they'll add numbers or symbols.

  • Rob Misek||

    All those ooor persecuted €£%# people.

  • ThomasD||

    I am Lazy Eight.

  • wreckinball||

    You can't make fun of any special victim group. When comedy was actually funny the beauty of it was that everyone got made fun of. And everyone laughed.

    Now apparently you can only make political jokes, almost none of which are funny. We have the preacher supposed comedians like Colbert. Was he actually a comedian at one time?

  • ||

    To be fair, you can really only make political jokes against the GOP. Make fun of anyone on the left and take your chances with your employment.

  • wreckinball||

    You would be immediately unemployed. But there is also the possibility of just being funny. Jay Leno was funny. he would throw out a political joke or two but he actually had other material.

  • James Pollock||

    "Was he actually a comedian at one time?"

    Until he took over the Late Show, no. He was a comic actor.

  • mtrueman||

    "Was he actually a comedian at one time?"

    I believe he started out as a writer for other comics.

  • JesseAz||

    Read article to see if reason could resist a false equivalency and not bring up an example of "they did it too" Republicans... reason failed again.

  • ThomasD||

    Rico doesn't write so much as fill in the template.

  • wreckinball||

    Its hard to imagine someone saying "Don Rickles said something offensive and he must be fired". That is what he did. Be offensive. And he was funny.

    What a bunch of wimps.

  • James Pollock||

    Meh. Rickles' performance persona was well-known. Nobody went to one of his shows and got suprised. See also: Andrew Dice Clay.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    It became an honor to be insulted by Rickles at one of his shows.

  • Dillinger||

    ^this

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Rickles was a gem. Not too many people around like him any more.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    So who can possibly host this self congratulatory and increasingly irrelevant awards show? Any ideas?

    A college student with SJW creds, who hasn't had much opportunity* to commit an unpardonable sin but has devoted themselves to calling out the faults of others?

    A member of ANTIFA?

    A [non human] primate?

    Any of the above could work and just male it all about politics and Trump.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    *but be sure to check their yearbooks for cryptic and maybe rapey sounding quotes

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Ellen is coming back. Mark my words.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Where did she go?

  • JesseAz||

    The real question is who cares. A bunch of self absorbed people I think very little of giving each other awards for shit I don't care about for movies that probably sucked. Get off my lawn.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, Hart has tried to avoid being political in his act. He dodged the biggest bullet in his life not hosting this monstrosity.

  • ||

    Maybe the Inanimate Carbon Rod isn't doing anything that weekend. Oh wait, no, too phallo-centric.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The one that saved Homer when he was an astronaut?

  • Dillinger||

    shorter list: who cares?

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Comparing (Jeong), a "serious" person who wants a position at a "serious" publication, to a comedian like Barr or Hart or even a comedic director like Gunn is idiotic. Had Jeong said those things about a non-white race, we wouldn't be reading a lengthy defense of her.

    Regardless, I find it frustrating how Robby has to first point out how the woke mob's victim is bad before actually condemning the mob. He did something similar with Jesse Kelly, whom I find annoying but whom I also value as an unrelenting critic of the woke crowd.

  • Ragnarredbeard||

    As predicted, they'll eat their own. Delicious!

  • Matthew Chalice||

    Eh. Hart's never been a loudmouth when it comes to politics.

    I'm personally hoping they turn on Ellen or Lena Dunham or someone like that.

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Lena is done, she covered for a rapist. The hypocrisy from the progressive crowd never ceases to amaze me. They hate themselves, but refuse to be accountable, so they shout at the rest of the world, begging for woke forgiveness

  • Matthew Chalice||

    She isn't done. She was just hired to direct a movie about...the Syrian Civil War.

    When I say I want her finished, I mean I want her to be done like Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    But if they did resort to little sister molesting Dunham, because there isn't anyone else, can you just imagine the ratings tank [as if it isn't bad enough already]?

    Personally I haven't watched this nonsense for decades [and then only because of a girl friend or some such I wanted to impress for all of the wrong reasons...].

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I hope she goes on location and runs afoul of some local gents, suffering s brutal violation in the process. Which would serve her right for molestimg her single digit age sister.

  • Benitacanova||

    He's done his share of Trump bashing. I think they have mandatory quotas to fill in hollyweird.

  • wreckinball||

    Another annoyance is the attachment of the word "phobe" to any special victim group that can't be joked about or even criticized.

    Homophobic. No one is homophobic and nothing Kevin Hart said relates to a fear of homo's.

    Should we call those who vehemently disagree with evangelicals evangiphobic?

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Kevin Hart is part of the social justice mob and crowd and the beneficiary of minority status within that crowd; his nomination as Oscar host shows that. The Oscars themselves are a highly political event, mostly concerned with bashing Trump these days. Holding people accountable based on their own standards is not "lynching".

    (Oh, and Roseanne didn't say anything "horrible" about Valerie Jarrett. Jarrett may identify as "black", but she looks as white as my grandmother. It's absurd to claim white-on-black racism when the supposed target of the racism isn't even known to be black.)

  • 68W58||

    Related: 6'3" 250 transgender male to female athlete dominating for Australia in the world team handball championships.

    http://mobile.twitter.com/CAPS.....6461457408

    Now, this is self-evidently absurd, but let a comedian (or pretty much anyone else) make mockery of it and he or she would have the outrage mob howling for blood. At some point we have to make people see the naked sovereign in our midst.

  • James Pollock||

    The crowd of people interested in team handball wouldn't fill a phone booth, if there were still phone booths.

  • 68W58||

    I'm sure this nonsense will stay restricted to sports no one cares about and not end up making a mockery of all of women's sports then.

  • James Pollock||

    Didn't seem to bother track & field at the Olympic level. Hard to say there's a women's sport people REALLY care about, beyond the athletes who are involved and their immediate circles.

    But team handball?

  • 68W58||

    I personally enjoy watching the local high school girls play basketball. But when boys start playing on girls teams that will be the end of that.

  • James Pollock||

    I don't much care what floats your boat.

  • 68W58||

    So your argument went from "nobody cares" to "what you care about doesn't matter". I appreciate the consistency.

  • James Pollock||

    My argument went from "nobody cares about team handball" to "nobody cares about team handball", and you somehow find this inconsistent.

    You have a thing for watching young women play basketball, but not young men, and you think that this is relevant to a discussion of team handball, a topic you chose not to address at all, probably because nobody cares about team handball.

  • mtrueman||

    "But team handball?"

    How about women's curling? Search the internet to learn about how South Korea's 'Garlic Girls' sparked a curling craze that took the nation.

  • wreckinball||

    Last two years the winner of the CT women's 100M and 200M dashes was a dude pretending to be a female. Last year 1-2 finishers in both events were dudes.

    I ran those races in HS. I was mediocre but good enough to qualify for districts which was the qualifier for states. You had to be very good to qualify for states so I did come close a couple of times but didn't make it.

    Easily would have won states in both women's races all 3 years I ran. If more guys do this and its seems to be spreading in CT pretty soon no actual women will be the winners. What prevents it becoming more widespread is stigma. You will or at least WOULD back in my day NEVER live it down if you pretended to be a chick and competed in the women's races. Really laughingstock.

    So why have women's sports if you let guys compete?

  • Ryan (formally HFTO)||

    Leftists are hate filled cannibals. They don't deserve Kevin Hart

  • Anomalous||

    This seems like as good a strategy as any for getting out of hosting the Oscars.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Sigh, no surprise. To the politcally earnest, especially SJWs, nothing is funny. Ever.

  • CGN||

    Earth Skeptic is 100% correct. Historically, the worse people, Hitler, Stalin, etc., had ZERO sense of humor, and while lack of humor was not why they did their dirty deeds, it is a good indicator of people who want to foreclose others' freedoms: you know, like SJW's and liberals!

  • James Pollock||

    "while lack of humor was not why they did their dirty deeds, it is a good indicator of people who want to foreclose others' freedoms"

    I can think of at least one person who VERY publicly can't see anything funny in Saturday Night Live's portrayal of President Trump.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Fairly to laugh at very poorly done humor doesn't make one humorless.

  • wreckinball||

    I think making fun of straight white guys is still considered funny.

  • James Pollock||

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Not to the true SJ Warrior, since the evils we generate are No Laughing Matter.

  • CGN||

    Hmmm.....so screw free speech, huh? People forget that even RUDE speech is free speech. Why don't we advocate for the jailing of those who posted insulting or even threatening comments on Trump? Answer: We conservative and libertarian minded people think more of free speech than some little wallflower's whining about the "hurt" free speech caused them. Grow the F up, folks, criticism is a fact of life, and no amount of SJW whining about it will change that.

  • James Pollock||

    "Hmmm.....so screw free speech, huh?"

    What, exactly, does "free speech" mean to you? If you are thinking in legal terms, there's no free speech issue here, since the government was never involved.

    "Why don't we advocate for the jailing of those who posted insulting or even threatening comments on Trump?"

    Why don't you ask Kathy Griffin about this?
    Have you forgotten Mr. Trump's interested in "revisiting" libel laws?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Yes, Mr. Trump is interesting in making it easier for people libeled by the media to seek recompense.

    Right now, the media can ruin a person's life and be free from liability by placing a correction in a tiny box at the back of the paper to offset the weeks of front page headlines.

  • James Pollock||

    "Right now, the media can ruin a person's life and be free from liability by placing a correction in a tiny box"

    You might want to run that by legal before you rely on it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You're skipping over the fact that for the most part they "ruin a person's life" by directly quoting them.

  • ThomasD||

    " If you are thinking in legal terms..."

    I see no specific reason in his statements to think that he is. So why seek to limit the argument in that fashion?

    And, before you respond please note that he said "we do not advocate for the jailing of..."

    Which tends to indicate that he is not restricting consideration to state action.

  • James Pollock||

    "I see no specific reason in his statements to think that he is"

    Nor did I. What's the part right before the part you quoted say?

  • retiredfire||

    But the government is involved.
    What if Hart sued for wrongful termination, would a court - the government - side with him?
    What about if the 0scars fired him because they thought he was a homosexual? How would a court react to that?
    So, even if not precisely connected, government does get involved.

  • James Pollock||

    So, this is a situation in which the government is not involved, but what if the government was involved? OK.

    I think you'd have a hard time proving wrongful termination, in the sense that Hart resigned. And it's tough to prove you were wrongfully terminated if you quit.

    As to your second question, California is one of the states that does protect sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws. But if they fired him because they thought he was gay, it's not a free speech case, it's an unlawful-discrimination case.

  • EscherEnigma||

    There's no free speech issue here, and no one calling for anyone to be jailed.

    This is about Freedom of Association, specifically the freedom for people that have been offended by the Free Speech of another to disassociate from that person.

  • retiredfire||

    It is more than "disassociating", it is taking away a paycheck.
    Would it be OK - just disassociating - if he was fired for being suspected of being a homosexual?
    Once governmental protections are enacted, any decision in that arena becomes a government-supported one.

  • James Pollock||

    "Once governmental protections are enacted, any decision in that arena becomes a government-supported one."

    That's a silly argument. If government sets a minimum wage for lawful employment (and they have), does that mean that the government has taken a position on every wage dispute? If I make $100/hour, and I ask my boss for a raise, and she doesn't give it to me, so I quit in protest, will the government file a minimum-wage violation case on my behalf?

    "It is more than 'disassociating', it is taking away a paycheck"

    More correctly, it is walking away from a paycheck.

    Let me give you a different hypothetical:
    My boss wants me to say "Happy Holidays" to all the customers, but I say "Merry Christmas" instead. They tell me I could get fired for continuing, but I do it anyway, and it turns out they weren't bluffing.
    If I try to file a lawsuit claiming they infringed my freedom of speech OR my freedom of religion, I'm going to lose... because I was fired for failing to carry out my assigned duties as directed.

  • Still Curmudgeoned (Nunya)||

    How is this whole thing not racist if we also recognize that the black community is extremely socially conservative?

  • wreckinball||

    We don't. We pretend its not so. Only white Christians are anti-homo

  • James Pollock||

    Like a lot of other things, it mostly seems to break urban/rural. Probably because a lot of gay people pack up and leave the rural areas, to got to the urban places which have more fab people like themselves.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    But-but rap has always been so LGBT friendly!

  • James Pollock||

    They let white people rap now.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZmkKL27z1w

  • EscherEnigma||

    It would be racist if people were saying "I don't want him as the host, he's black, so you know he's homophobic".
    But people aren't publicly considering his race, they are explicitly considering his past behavior. You know, judging someone by their moral character, not their skin color.

    It is, of course, possible that some or all of the people that dug this up and brought attention to his past behavior were doing it for racist motivations ("I don't want a black host, so I'm going to find dirt on him") but that's a much more nuanced allegation then you are making here, and requires more evidence then you are presenting here.

    To summarize: Hart is explicitly being judged, not for the color of his skin, but his on-record past behavior.

  • Duelles||

    Perpetual outrage incontinence. A life style!!!

  • Longtobefree||

    The Oscars are just another left wing political event, and it is not surprising that they insist on doctrinal purity.
    Does Vegas have line on how much lower the rating will go?

  • Tony||

    He who dies with the most indignation wins.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Or you could just die. There's a bottle of drain cleaner in your home just waiting for you.

  • Dillinger||

    funny.

  • JonFrum||

    " there ought to be some understanding that human beings are more than their worst moments on Twitter. "

    When your worst moments are words you say proudly and stand by, that 'people shouldn't be judged by their worst moments' thing rings hollow. Some people are just assholes, and it's OK to say so. The ambitious Sarah Jeong was busy scoring identity politics brownie points, so whether she 'believed' her words, she certainly meant them.

    Let her keep her NY Times job - they belong together. It's always better to know who and where your enemies are.

  • James Pollock||

    Would the Academy be as worried about homophobic messaging, past or present, if the audience for their program wasn't notoriously laden with gay people?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Probably not. Tailor to your audience, yo.

  • CDRSchafer||

    They can hire De Niro to lead the crowd in "Fuck Trump" chants for two hours and there'd be the same chance I'd watch it as if they hired anyone else.

  • James Pollock||

    TWO hours? You're not very familiar with the televised Oscars show, are you?

  • ThomasD||

    Careful, I heard they are still looking for a comedian.

  • James Pollock||

    I'm available, and have no embarrassing Twitter history.

  • MayneDeWayne||

    We will only be celebrating diversity of race today, not thought.
    Yes sir, master sir.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You know diversity of thought is just cover for racism, sexism, homophobia, meritocracy....right?

  • MayneDeWayne||

    Hillary? Is that you?

  • Azathoth!!||

    For comparison, the previous notable social media pile-on—which targeted Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn

    Gunn? What about Kavanaugh? There have been scores of metoo witchburnings since Gunn.

    You're just ignoring them because they're leftist on leftist mostly, with a few leftist on non-leftist and the very rare left and non-leftist on leftist.

  • Echospinner||

    Kevin Hart pointed out that the joke is on him, as is all good comedy. His best bit is his ostrich story which is worth a Google if anyone has not seen it. He is making fun of himself the entire time.

    The joke has apparently fallen flat in some circles. That is a risk in comedy and why it is such a rare talent and difficult art. It is the most human of art forms.

    MASH was brought up. Klinger was a joke on the absurdity of war and army life. Klinger was the sanest of the bunch. His goal was to get out of the madness and go home. It is a play on catch-22. No matter how looney you act you cannot by definition be nuts if you want to leave. He is not a coward, he is exceptional in his vital job. He rushes in to move the wounded, he secures vital supplies, he takes the X-rays and is an important member of the surgical team.

    All In The Family. Carrol O'Conner, Jean Stapleton, Sherman Hemsley, they had the chops to pull it off. Most of the jokes are not as funny today because the times have changed. Much braver than say, Andy Griffith show which had great talent for a sitcom but just avoided the issues by having no black people...in North Carolina...there is a joke in there somewhere.

    All great comedy lies in the ability of the comedian to expose themselves and open the door to our inner selves without offending the audience. Perhaps that is why we lose them faster than rock stars.

  • Dillinger||

    >>>the times have changed

    wonder if instant access to outrage would have toppled Carroll O'Connor.

  • mtrueman||

    "Perhaps that is why we lose them faster than rock stars."

    Comedians start to take themselves seriously. Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Jim Carrrey and others all moved inexorably into serious dramatic roles. It never goes the other way. Robert De Niro has done some very comic parts through the years but it's impossible to imagine him as a standup comic as Hanks started out.

    And what is it with comedians and film? I saw a tribute to the career of Martin Short, very talented in mimickry, physical comedy and verbal wit. He's also a song and dance man. But his Hollywood output is abysmal. Same with Peter Sellers. Extremely gifted, but aside from a few exceptions, his film work is hideous.

  • James Pollock||

    Robin Williams was trained as a dramatic actor. Comedy was a side gig.

  • Echospinner||

    Ok but movies are not stand up.

    You cannot take away what Martin Short has done.

    Three Amigos, Father of the Bride, we could go on. He is one of the most successful actors still going.

  • Dillinger||

    navee tuxahdo

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Peter Sellers filmwork hideous? The Pink Panther franchise? Being There? Dr. Strangelove? Classics.

  • mtrueman||

    One mustn't forget Dr Stranglelove and a handful of British films from a little earlier. But after that there was a lot of chaff. I'd argue that his best work was for radio. Martin Short did his best on TV. Perhaps movies are more of a director's medium.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    When I think of how a cop should conduct himself I try to imagine how Andy Taylor would handle things.

  • Echospinner||

    Andy Taylor was awesome. He could play that simple guitar country song on the porch and make you want to be there.

    He never carried a gun. He did not need one.

    Early on when the show got going he had Don Knotts. They worked together for years. Andy was the straight man in the comedy duo.

  • Dillinger||

    big man when cheating on wife, not big man when faced w/p.c.

    >>>after social media sleuths dug up his homophobic tweets from a decade ago

    sleuths. by now anybody who is anybody has had their tweets farmed for ammunition.

  • DWB||

    Gays are less tolerant than those they complained about?

    Wake me when there is mass gay uprising calling for an end to this mess in their name.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Wake me when there is mass gay uprising calling for an end to this mess in their name.

    Has there been a mass uprising by Christians conservatives against the authoritarianism at the hand of Christian politicians? Have Christians spoken about against religious anti-discrimination laws? Government funding of religious institutions? Of course not. People may disagree with a policy on principle, but they won't actually rise up against it unless it causes them harm.

    While I politically disagree with "LGBT activists" and oppose anti-discrimination laws, their actions don't affect me much either way. I care more about lowering taxes and cutting regulations.

  • ThomasD||

    So you agree that teh gehys are as closed minded and intolerant as Christian conservatives?

    Well played.

  • James Pollock||

    Neither group likes to be disrespected and/or belittled. I think you'll find other groups that also fit this profile, if you look hard enough.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    So you agree that teh gehys are as closed minded and intolerant as Christian conservatives?

    Is that the extent of your reading comprehension? Are you really so dumb that you attribute a lack of a mass uprising to "closed mindedness"?

    If the Christian conservative angle confuses you, let me give you a another example: I think the mortgage interest deduction is b.s. and bad for the country. However, I'm not going to organize an uprising against it because it doesn't hurt me much.

    People don't organize mass uprisings against laws that don't hurt them significantly. Just a simple fact about politics.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Does this mean Reason and libertarians/Libertarians are now on-board with Europe's "right to be forgotten" laws?

    Or are y'all just against people remembering things and saying "uh, yeah. Because of their prior actions, I don't like this current action"?

    Either way, it seems y'all are taking an increasingly tangled view of Freedom of Speech.

  • Benitacanova||

    It would have been a hilarious if he'd said "I apologize to any fags or dykes I may have offended in the past..."

  • DWB||

    "Has there been a mass uprising by Christians conservatives against the authoritarianism at the hand of Christian politicians? Have Christians spoken about against religious anti-discrimination laws? Government funding of religious institutions?"

    Yes. Christians are all over the board on those issues and make it known. HORRIBLE things have been done by and in the name of homosexuals and THEY are now the bullies.

    10 of millions of people ARE affected and you not caring does not change the truth.

  • James Pollock||

    " HORRIBLE things have been done by and in the name of homosexuals and THEY are now the bullies."

    Eh? You can't say anti-gay things in public any more, because most of the public doesn't want to hear it? Oh, those meanies! Those... horrible BULLIES!

  • DWB||

    Thanks James -- I will submit my days planned speech for your approval

  • James Pollock||

    No need. We have agents everywhere... if you say it to someone, anyone, the Central Committe of Oppressing You will get notified.

  • Echospinner||

    How are 10 million plus affected?

    Just asking because gay has been around since recorded history.

  • zombietimeshare||

    Ah, liberals eating their own. Bon appetit.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    First they came for Al Franken and I said nothing...

  • Rockabilly||

    Comrades !!!!

    The Purge is on!!!

    Next we have Jimmy Kimmel, he of elite white privileges.

    Here is all the evidence Central Committee needs.

    Jimmy Kimmel in Blackface

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wse5lgIDxM

  • XM||

    I don't understand Robby's position on Sarah Jeong. If a man was sentenced to spend 5 years in jail for smoking pot while a neighborhood creep got 6 months community service for peeping into a woman's bathroom, my first reaction wouldn't be "well at least one of them wasn't overcharged by a crooked criminal justice system".

    The mob is an issue, but their power derives from like minded people in important places who actually have what it takes to carry out their wishes or just plain set their own standards. The NYT liked Sarah Jeong for the prototypical "new face" progressive that she is - Asian, liberal, feminist. So they made exceptions for her for bad mouthing white people, who isn't part of the protected class.

    Kevin Hart, who was obviously selected for his race (to diversify that snow white Hollywood crowd) made gay jokes, so he was not afforded the many nuanced defense of his sins that were showered upon Jeong.

  • James Pollock||

    Different audiences have different sensitivities. You probably don't get fired from hosting the Oscars for saying mean things about penguins, but you do get fired from hosting the Oscars for saying mean things about gay people, because gay people are a substantial element of the audience for the Oscars telecast. You might get a similar disinvitation from hosting the annual NRA event if you say mean things about AR-15 owners.

  • Echospinner||

    "Who was obviously selected for his race"

    And you do not understand why you are the problem.

  • last liberal||

    Surely the Academy can find a comedian who never told a joke to host their show.

  • CE||

    Meanwhile Paris is burning down and no coverage on Reason?

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    Not that I give a rat's ass about the GOP -- they can go screw their sisters for all I care -- but this is how they can drive a wedge between black voters and the Democratic Party. If you spend much time around everyday black folks, they ain't quite woke to SJW standards.

  • Trigger Warning||

    If it's a choice, it's a fabulous choice!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online