If you [can't] work with gay people, you’re gonna have a difficult time in Hollywood. There’s plenty of gay people and they’re in positions above you. You’re not going to get your movie directed. I don’t have a problem with it — they’ve just turned into a mafia and demanding everyone apologize for every joke and retract every statement.
It’s turned into something that’s bigger than it is. I’ve lived in this town my whole life and never seen it like this. There’s been comedians telling jokes but no overt gay-bashing crimes. I don’t even know who’s gay and who’s not gay nine times out of ten — why do you even need to know? Your skin color and gender one can see, if one wanted to discriminate. In terms of sexual proclivities, I don’t know what someones into! You could work with someone who’s into kids — how would you know? I don’t know and I don’t care. In the book, what I say about the gay community is that someone sent me “the top 10 reasons gays should marry.” One: They’re American. Two: They pay taxes. Three through five: So they can shut the fuck up. I don’t want to be lying on my deathbed and realize gay marriage and legalization of marijuana is all I discussed the last half of my life.
१९ मे, २०१४
"My feeling about the gay community — first off, you can’t live in Hollywood and get along in this business and be in theater companies and improv companies and have issues with gay people."
Says Adam Carolla.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६ टिप्पण्या:
It seems, though, that one MUST approve, or else the mob will descend upon you, calling for your head. (See Eich.)
" Come on aboard, I promise you you won't hurt the horse
We treat him well, we feed him well.
There's lots of room for you on the bandwagon
The road may be rough, the weather may forget us
But won't we all parade around and sing our songs
A magic kingdom, open-armed"
Suddenly getting on the bandwagon means close mindedly parading around and telling any one not on the bandwagon how hateful they are.
My feelings on the gay community.
The whole gay marriage thing is a means to make us ignore the real issues affecting us and is a sideshow designed to get the liberals to state their opinion and then villify opposition to that opinion to get their way.
When, realistically gays AND the religious coudl get all they wanted if we promoted civil unions (provided of course that a state signed off on one. If not, tough noogies).
I feel the same way about devoutly religious people. You can't get far in the USA if you have a problem with their religion--And I don't. Except I also don't expect them to STFU about it either--just so long as they don't hector me about issues they have that are based on their particular scripture. And I would never make a religion joke. Most of the time I don't know what their religion is anyway (Ash Wednesday being one exception).
"I'm in a snow globe full of retards and cat shit."
- Adam Carolla on dealing with political correctness while trying to do his comedy show in Los Angeles.
Who? Who doesn't want to wear the ribbon?
His mistake here is thinking that if one redefines what it means to be married for the homosexuals, they will shut up.
They won't. Not until you approve of what they are doing and join in with them in every way possible.
They are depraved and they need approval for their depravity. They think it'll make them happy. It won't. And because it won't, they will continue to push, thinking that the next bar they set will be the bar they need to clear to make them happy.
This is how it is with anyone living in sin. We all want others to approve. Because we feel guilty for the evil that we commit and think that perhaps, if others approve, we'll stop feeling guilty.
It doesn't work like that.
You can see this almost any night on TV. A surprising number of shows have a gay sub-theme, way out of proportion to the number of gays in society. It isn't the gays as actors that I question, but rather, the incessant propaganda to portray gays (and maybe the gay lifestyle) as normal that I question. Since it is all about money, I often vote with my clicker - again, not against gay actors (more likely, I will switch from rabid progressive actors), but gay themed (and progressive themed) shows. Sometimes. Not shows that on occasion (like crime/police dramas) revolve around homosexuality, but shows that make gay sexuality and gay lifestyle the center of the show.
I should also note that I tend to do that some for NYC based shows too, since they portray a life that 95% of the country do not life, and which most would find distasteful. But, a lot of my favorite crime/police dramas are NYC based, so I deal with it.
Being openly anti-gay has joined being openly antisemitic or racist as a danger to your career in Hollywood, unless you have already brought in big revenues. Let's compare with the Hollywood Jewish presence: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywoodjew/item/mad_men_the_jews_and_hollywood_anti-semitism_20100730
Your opinions of Israel or gay marriage are not exactly the same, but some will take offense whatever you say. It has always been smarter to treat individuals with respect and not make category-based judgments -- you have to work with people, especially with people above you in the hierarchy. Hollywood and Disney are full of gays who wanted to escape their repressive backgrounds, and this has driven a lot of creativity there. In the end everything has to sell or die.
The interviewer is OBSESSED with white male (straight) privilege.
The comments are exactly what you'd expect from Salon. A bunch of people clamoring to be the lead victim of Adam's hate speech.
The author of the hit piece, Daniel D'Addario, looks eminently mockable. He sounds incredulous on Twitter that a gay mafia even exists.
I mostly agree with eric and Bruce Hayden. The incessant demand to have one’s lifestyle choices (no matter how poor) “celebrated” (or else!) has grown tiresome but even though I vote with my clicker like Bruce, there’s little one can do to escape it because Hollywood seems to be shoehorning it in pretty much in every scripted television show and movie and the sponsors are companies that are almost as P.C. as Hollywood when it comes to supporting liberal social causes.
I love his podcast.
What a shitty interview. It's like he's on the stand to defend himself and asked questions the interviewer seems to believe are true of Adam. Are you antigay? Do you feel an obligation to lift people up because you are straight, white and male?
The PC police, I think, listen to hear something they can complain about. Adam is "pro-gay" what ever that is, that they are good citizens. Yet when he was asked if he and his wife died would her prefer that their children be raised by a man and a woman or a gay couple, he said, "all things being equal, a man and a woman. However, if the best, most together, stable people available were gay," he would want that. They pounced. You would prefer a man and woman raise your children! That is anti-gay!!!!!!
Lizz Winstead (who is boring wind bag of victimhood), accuses Carolla of being anti-female comedian. When what he said was that there are more male comedians because men have more freedom to be funny as they are growing up and women are expected to be nice (which is why every radio show has a woman to say, "Now guys be nice!"). He never said that men are funnier. Funny is funny, it's not a gender.
Enough with the PC crap already.
What Kirsten said:
http://www.baxterbulletin.com/article/20140515/OPINION/305150009/Kirsten-Powers-Will-liberal-thought-police-come-get-you-someday-
(1) D'Addario makes great guitar strings
(2) Once upon a time I found that classically there are three ways to teach effectively, the easiest (for the teacher) being repetition. I want to make up my own mind based on facts, not because I was "taught" some activity conducted by a small fraction of people is just fine.
When NPR talks about gay or global warming issues, I change the channel (sometimes tricky as I ride a motorcycle), and the number of TV shows I deliberately do not watch keeps getting bigger. My kids were deprived and lost some cultural references because I didn't let them watch the Simpsons (didn't want them to think at a tender age that those kinds of behaviors are OK). I haven't seen an episode of Breaking Bad, have only seen a part of one episode of Sons of Anarchy, only a few minutes of one episode of South Park. When I realized the "heroes" of these shows were reprobates, I did not want to have any sympathy generated or normalization (by repetition) of the behaviors around which the shows are centered. I'm probably not consistent, but I recognize the shows I choose to watch will have some effect just by virtue of repeating the same themes.
It is odd to me when someone chooses to promote an abnormal lifestyle (as a cause) because they think they people should have the choice to be other than normal, but then decide that all choices should be considered normal. If offended because the mainstream doesn't think their lifestyle to be normal, "Offense, however, does not equate to coercion" TOWN OF GREECE v. GALLOWAY.
I clicked through to chickelit's link. Scary. I also made the mistake of clicking through to Zack Beauchamp (dictator for life) on the Avril Lavigne posts.
It makes me think that a disproportionate number of these pieces are written by children. Not earnest young adults who have strived and studied to build an educational foundation from which they can opine, but rather children who happen to have chronologically made it past 25.
He has to do it because he has a book to sell, but I can only imagine what was going through Adam Carolla's head as he fielded this child's questions.
It appears he did the best he could while staying true to himself.
jr565 (12:30): "The whole gay marriage thing is a means to make us ignore the real issues affecting us ...."
Correct. However, after Lawrence v. Texas, when it became apparent that most people no longer cared who buggered who, a new political issue was needed. Gay marriage and sodomizing the Boy Scouts became the rallying cry.
jr565 is absolutely right about civil unions being adequate to resolve the substantive issues, but it is not useful politically. Gay marriage provides a wonderful platform to attack Christianity, Christians and conservative traditionalists that is not otherwise readily available.
Sodomizing the BSA is simply not adequate. It is really no more appealing politically than defending the actions of gay priests.
Arthur: "You know who runs Hollywood, don't you?"
Phil: "The Jews?"
Arthur: "No. The gay Jews do."
Larry Sanders Show, "Putting the Gay into Litigation"
John Henry
Unknown,
I once refused to let a student attend my class while wearing a Bart Simpson T shirt that said "Underachiever and proud of it"
US Naval aviator, Annapolis grad, in an MBA program. Him an underachiever? I seriously doubt it but I will not let my classes be polluted with that kind of rot.
John Henry
In time it will be largely acceptable yet there will be the Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson types to keep the hustle going.
jr565 is absolutely right about civil unions being adequate to resolve the substantive issues, but it is not useful politically.
Alas, some of the SoCons won't even allow that. They amended the Texas constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions. (And it was so poorly drafted that the wording can be read as banning all marriages.)
CWJ has it right. It's not just gays, as some of us have not joined the armies of the righteous; it's the whole tedious, fear-based PC mafia that seeks to enforce the infantilization of our culture. Once the pomos decided that Reason was the product of the oppressor while male European culture, they could only offer Emotion as a basis for social relationships. The great thing for them is that you can't argue with an emotion! Emotion always wins if it gets to set the agenda. Adulthood used to be about preventing that by setting and enforcing boundaries.
The whole global warming/climate change "debate" is a perfect exemplar of the flight from Reason. Science no longer means the continuous overthrow of previous paradigms by meticulous research; it's now whatever produces the political results I want. And if you disagree first I'll throw a tantrum then I'll try to throw you out.
The result has been the downward lurching of social standards. The children are indeed in charge of the school; it's A. S. Neill's Summerhill fantasy writ large.
What is of interest to me is what will happen once we fully reap the whirlwind. Who will save the children then?
Bruce - I agree with you on TV shows- it is shown way way more gays than in general population. So I use the remote to go to another show.
And I do that here too when Althouse posts too often and too much [imo] about gay marriage etc
Sounds like the restaurant biz, only WAY more stuck up. If you're a cook who can't deal with queers, then face it; your food is not going to reach the table. We figured this shit out decades ago.
This too will pass. But not for a while yet. It's a fashion statement. Fashion changes.
I'm on board with gay acceptance...whatever. I just don't go the extra step of endorsement. If Hollywood is so gay-centric, where are all the R-rated gay love-making movies? Why can't Hollywood come up with just one movie, replete with the sex they are so willing to make public, that fill theaters on summer weekends? Anyone want to guess?
I support gay rights and gay marriage from a libertarian perspective: That is, I'm not gay myself, I just think those who are gay should be free to be who they are. So I'm disappointed when gays, including some of my gay friends, want to use their political/social power to bash people who disagree with them. It was wrong when/where the people who had the power used it to bash gays and pro-gays. It's just as wrong when the gays and pro-gays use their power to bash those who disagree with them.
Or is it "who buggers whom?" (3:04)
Edmund wrote:
Alas, some of the SoCons won't even allow that. They amended the Texas constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and civil unions. (And it was so poorly drafted that the wording can be read as banning all marriages.)
If the socons won't allow it then it's tough noogies for the gays in those states. Just as it's tough noogies for polygamists now in 50 states. The state doesn't want it, the state doens't have to have it.
I offered the idea of a civil union as a compromise. But I wouldn't argue that it should be forced on every state. Some states don't want marriage to be anything but traditinional. And that's ok by me.
For the states that would want a civil union, that's ok by me too. I think it could cut the whole debate off at the knees for most people since both sides get what they want out of the deal.
And I think, if threatening the description of traditional marriage is taken off the table a lot of religious people will say "I don't really give a crap what they do".
As far as the whole pc, punish people for believing the wrong thing goes, I grew up as a liberal where you were allowed to say what you wanted to say. Because you were being transgressive.
Listen to comics like Richard Pryor, George Carlin etc. I guess they were liberals. They weren't on tippy toes talking about offending delicate flowers. If you were offended, f*ck off.
Libs need to recognize that their views were the transgressive ones. And can be again.
If they are transgressive they musn't speak their minds.
Libs these days are all about telling other side variations of "Shut up". Check your privilege. The debate is settled. etc. etc. When its abortion, you can't have an opinion if you don't have uterus. When it's Iraq, if you don't go to war then you can't have an opinion. Screw you you facists.
where are all the R-rated gay love-making movies?
Brokeback Mountain.
Would anyone mind if I swore off Hollywood forever ?
God, what a cesspool !
Plus, as we've recently learned, Hollywood is one big pedophile ring.
And they lecture us about anything?
Marriage has become pretty damned unfashionable among heteros, and it surprises me no end that gays should so passionately assert their right to it.
I don't really care any more if gays get married. I did at one time, but slowly came to realize it wasn't skinning my nose. Go ahead gays, get married. It's your funeral.
I believe the whole issue is one of gays demanding validation. Marriage will "prove" they're not weird. Once this whole gay marriage crusade is old hat, they will abandon marriage in droves like the heteros, only worse.
I don't go to the movies, only watch reruns of certain shows, and prefer the silly and sweet of the Robertsons, Little Couple, and the Duggars.
Hollywood can screw off and unfortunately, as Fen remarked, they do just that, with boys.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा