I considered it unfit for network TV because it's so crudely sexual, but I've seen others denouncing it as homophobic. It didn't strike me that way. I saw it as just the usual disparagement implied toward the person who is getting penetrated in a blow job, the assumption being that this is a sexual act in which one person is serving and subordinated and the other is dominating and getting all the benefit. I think that is more blow-job-o-phobic than homophobic. The person getting disparaged could be another male or could be a female.
But in this particular application of the insult, the giver of the blow job, Trump, is male, so there was an opportunity to portray Colbert's joke as homophobic. The pro-Trump Daily Caller cleverly rested its accusation on a tweet by the non-pro-Trump Glenn Greenwald in "Gay Journalist Accuses Colbert Of Homophobia." Greenwald had tweeted "Homophobia for the right cause, with the right targets, it good homophobia, apparently." Vox — decidedly not pro-Trump — didn't like it either: "Stephen Colbert tried to insult Donald Trump. He made a homophobic comment instead."
This morning, I'm seeing in Newsweek that a #FireColbert movement has sprung up:
The overnight outrage was stoked, in part, by Mike Cernovich, once branded by The New Yorker "the meme mastermind of the alt-right." On Tuesday evening, Cernovich tweeted to his 258,000 followers an exchange Colbert had with an audience member last summer. The exchange took place during a question-and-answer session that was not broadcast as part of The Late Show.Here's the clip. The question is what question would Colbert like to ask Trump, and Colbert's answer is "What does Vladimir Putin's dick taste like?"
I don't buy the homophobia characterization. If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes.
But I can see why it seems to be great fun to go big with this and try to score a firing. I understand the lust on right to take out somebody on the left. It's a game of revenge.
What I hate about Colbert's jokes is the disparagement of sexuality, the old-fashioned shame, the sexist idea that the person doing the penetrating is humiliating the other. It's at least as sexist as it is homophobic, and Colbert — for all his efforts at seeming jauntily modern — is dragging along the despicable baggage of the past.
पोस्ट्स
१४२ टिप्पण्या:
Just a deranged old man who lost his temper and let his gay sex fantasies come out in public. Poor guy.
Colbert's wife and children must be so proud. "What did you do at work yesterday, daddy?"
"I said the president's mouth was a cock holster."
The parallel is not O'Reilly. It's Curt Schilling.
It's just fun to watch a leftist get the same idiotic treatment that they dole out to those on the right. Turn about is fair play.
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
Unhinged and unfunny.
It's cool to be crude.
Even if you buy into the idea that this is supposed to be humor, one of the fundamental rules about humor is that there has to be an element of truth. And there's absolutely no truth in this. Trump has done more to stand up to Putin in his first 100 days than Obama ever did in eight years. (Hey, Stephen! Remember that whole hot mike "Tell Vladimir" thing? Whose mouth is really Putin's cock holster?)
"But I can see why it seems to be great fun to go big with this and try to score a firing. I understand the lust on right to take out somebody on the left. It's a game of revenge."
No. That's not how the right works. The left works on destroying with any means available: lies, ridicule, guns, gas chambers, whatever. The goal is power at any price.
The right works on actually trying to make arguments. It's not a game.
The line - I won't call it a joke - is only "homophobic" in the same sense that NPR's Terry Gross and similar outlets are "racist" for exclusively portraying a permanently Antebellum South where the only reference available for the noble Negro has is slavery.
That is, it's the quintessential "liberal's burden", equally hypocritical an condescending.
Just as, for liberals, blacks can be condescendingly loved and curated as historical zoo animals, so too can gays - except when "teabagger" or "cock holster" become more useful tools to some higher purpose, in this case savaging Trump.
I've never watched Colbert and never will. I'd like to see a list of his advertisers. By continuing to advertise on his show, they're endorsing what he said. I'd rather not spend my money at any of his advertisers.
The joke isn't funny. Despicable baggage of the past is fine material but it's got to work.
Which one of you queers is going to suck my dick?
Presumably on entering a Texas bar.
A Wheeler Walker song title.
"I think that is more blow-job-o-phobic than homophobic. The person getting disparaged could be another male or could be a female."
So once again, phallophobia rears its ugly head.
I'd doubt the right wants to fire Colbert. It's not our thing.
The idea is be interesting.
I'm not sure this was homophobic, but I am sure that if Hillary had won, and if anyone had so spoken of her publicly, that person would have been ridden out of town on a rail, tarred, feathered, and so forth. It would have been called sexist.
Certainly, when applied to a male, the remark relies on the normal heterosexual recoil of disgust to achieve a lot of its effect. Therefore I won't take the stance that it is NOT homophobic.
Obviously it WAS excruciatingly bad judgment. I don't see how one can defend Colbert's remark, but I am glad that the government doesn't have the power to censor it. I would expect, however, that the public will exert some influence.
It's homophobic because everything is homophobic. It's like racism.
The gay mafia.
The gays have gone from amusing to anti-American and amusing.
""I think that is more blow-job-o-phobic than homophobic. The person getting disparaged could be another male or could be a female."
So once again, phallophobia rears its ugly head.
No no no don't confuse phallophobia with blow job phobia.
Everyone teases the Catholic Church for it's teaching against oral sex, but the reality is that everyone knows it isn't an act of mutual sharing and emotion. Colbert highlights this. He should know he's a practicing Catholic, which makes his remarks so embarrassing.
Nothing wrong with a man's penis, it just doesn't belong in another person's mouth or anus. That's all.
"What I hate about Colbert's jokes is the disparagement of sexuality, the old-fashioned shame, the sexist idea that the person doing the penetrating is humiliating the other. It's at least as sexist as it is homophobic, and Colbert — for all his efforts at seeming jauntily modern — is dragging along the despicable baggage of the past."
Althouse, what you call "the despicable baggage of the past" is the rather obvious evolutionary theorem that promiscuity increases a male's reproductive chances, but decreases a female's. Is it at least conceivable -- not utterly beyond the pale of reasonable conjecture -- that 2 billion years of evolution knows more about sex than a Professor of Womyn's Studies? Christ, the gum under the folding chair seats knows more about sex than a Professor of Womyn's Studies.
Seriously, same man, same joke, same network. Would the network allow Colbert to still be on the air if he said this about Obama?
so there was an opportunity to portray Colbert's joke as homophobic
So there are two standards.
CBS must be very proud of him.
"What I hate about Colbert's jokes is the disparagement of sexuality, the old-fashioned shame, the sexist idea that the person doing the penetrating is humiliating the other. It's at least as sexist as it is homophobic, and Colbert — for all his efforts at seeming jauntily modern — is dragging along the despicable baggage of the past."
Yes.
Moreover, it sneers at the notion that the President of the United States should try to forge a working alliance with the head of Russia, and reinforces the notion that only a weak (passive or "feminine") President would do so, whereas a "manly" President would and should only deal with Russia from a confrontational stance, dictating terms and barking threats to have his way. This is incredibly stupid and dangerous.
AA: I considered it unfit for network TV because it's so crudely sexual, but I've seen others denouncing it as homophobic. It didn't strike me that way.
Me either. But it is entertaining watching goodthinkers fall afoul of the PC Inquisition. You can never be pure enough, folks, and the wrathful pious are never sated.
But I think it's a bootless enterprise to try to regulate insults, period. You know, like "it's insulting to women to insult men by calling them pussies...". Well, whatever. Good luck with that.
So now "cocksucker" is supposed to be off limits. Nope, sorry, "cocksucker" is le mot juste when you want to insult somebody for being a slimy sycophant, no getting around that.
At the proper place and time, of course. I agree most television shows aren't the place for such usage.
"Everyone teases the Catholic Church for it's teaching against oral sex, but the reality is that everyone knows it isn't an act of mutual sharing and emotion."
Sez who?
"Nothing wrong with a man's penis, it just doesn't belong in another person's mouth or anus. That's all."
Sez who??!!!
Althouse--Right before the q and a clip, that should be Colbert's answer, not Trump's answer.
Just one more example of the coarsening of our culture. You cannot avoid pornography even if you want to. Yes, the comment is pornographic and was a personal attack that was intentionally widely disseminated. Colbert, who is a Catholic, should be ashamed of himself, but he's probably managed to rationalize his actions to himself. I really never watched him (I watch very little TV) and formerly I did not have an opinion of him. Now, I will never watch him. By the way, I'm not a prude - I just try to avoid this kind of stuff so as not to become jaded.
with the head of Russia
No pun intended I'm sure.
I think the joke isn't funny. There's some shock value to it -- but as noted upthread, if this were said about Obama or Hillary, and there's just as much evidence that it's true for them as it is for Trump, what would the result be?
The problem is that the studio audience is a bunch of Democratic nitwits.
Ratings ploy. Calculated ratings ploy.
Note the lack of "concerned" advertisers, by the way.
You don't get concerned advertisers because the thousands of complaints to advertisers come from ten guys with computers, and they're lefties into censorship as activism.
I don't buy the homophobia characterization.
And I, for one, don't much care what you are buying.
If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes.
@Althouse, the notion that Colbert or any other late night comedian would make a joke about Hillary Clinton performing oral sex on Putin or anyone else is ridiculous on its face. Do you not pay much attention to politics?
I understand the lust on right to take out somebody on the left. It's a game of revenge.
So you're trying to say that Trump voters grumble a little, but otherwise would be okay with Colbert's "joke" except for O'Reilly's firing? That's pretty much what you wrote in your headline, isn't it? Maybe you need another cup of coffee to get your neurons firing this early in the morning.
You were and are a mother. Do you not remember using the phrase "enough is enough"?
Buy whatever you feel like and sell whatever you feel like; I for one do not intend to watch CBS while he's employed by them. Can anyone out there tell me who sponsors Colbert's show so I can boycott them, too?
MaxedOutMama said...
"Certainly, when applied to a male, the remark relies on the normal heterosexual recoil of disgust to achieve a lot of its effect. Therefore I won't take the stance that it is NOT homophobic."
Eh, Mama, not that I disagree, but didn't you get the memo? That "normal heterosexual recoil of disgust" *is* homophobia. That's what they're talking about. The revulsion biologically normal people feel when we are made to think about what homosexuals do is precisely what the Left wants to demand we cease to feel. You *will* think about homosexual sex, and you *will* see nothing wrong with it. It's exactly like what heterosexuals do. Which is why it is cruel and oppressive to deny the sanction of marriage to their promiscuous rutting.
Obviously, the Left couldn't care less about whether homosexuals are able to find happiness in the intrinsically heterosexual institution of marriage. Their concern is to destroy the institution, and all other traditional institutions, and to terrorize normal people. As Orwell made clear in 1984, you are not truly obedient until you are willing to affirm what you know to be a lie. Then they have broken you. And above all, they want to break you. The cocksuckers.
AA writes:
"I understand the lust on right to take out somebody on the left. It's a game of revenge."
This is Incorrect. It's not about revenge, but about having one reasonable standard. If a late-night comedian made a similar "joke" about Obama, he would be pilloried and excoriated as a racist, homophobe, and then fired. See Curt Schilling at ESPN.
I would like a University where Anne Coulter and Milo Yanopoulis can speak as freely as Angela Davis and Noam Chomsky.
I would like a Late night tv show where Colbert can call his political opponent, "a cocksucker," but his opponent could do the same.
But in the real world, we all know "political correctness" and its self-appointed enforcers skew only one way.
Every women's advice column that gave sex tips to women, and most sex education today in public schools.
Robert Cook said...
"Nothing wrong with a man's penis, it just doesn't belong in another person's mouth or anus. That's all."
"Sez who??!!!"
Good point, Cookie. We have eliminated revealed religion as a source of social norms. What does that leave? Biology might suggest that there is a purpose to sex, and that purpose is not served by such insertions, but so what? Man is the measure of all things, and man likes to get his dick into tight, wet spaces. If it feels good, do it! And yes, that does include studying Marx, and sticking your head up your ass.
Colbert is supposedly a practicing Catholic. I wonder what his priest thinks of his joke.
"Althouse--Right before the q and a clip, that should be Colbert's answer, not Trump's answer."
Thanks. Fixed.
So we all agree, Colbert is a cock sucker?
"I saw it as just the usual disparagement implied by toward the person on the receiving end of a blow job"
That seems backwards. You can give a blow job or you can get a blow job. Colbert's comment disparages the giver, not the person getting (receiving) the blow job.
Despicable baggage carried by a despicable person.
"Every women's advice column that gave sex tips to women, and most sex education today in public schools."
Oh, so you're being ironic, given that these are sources of outmoded and archaic notions of behavior.
"If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes."
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
Wait, hold on a second. Stop. Stop right there. Whoa.
You read Newsweek?
What I'm always amazed by, is the left's ability to completely forget the last 8 years of the Obama/Putin limbo tag-team and puke something like Colbert just did.
"If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes."
Yes, he still would have joked about Trump. For one thing, not even Putin would holster it in any part of Hillary. The very idea is absurd.
Renee: He should know he's a practicing Catholic, which makes his remarks so embarrassing.
Professional lady: Colbert, who is a Catholic, should be ashamed of himself...
BDNYC: Colbert is supposedly a practicing Catholic. I wonder what his priest thinks of his joke.
Do people make ever make such observations about anybody but Roman Catholics? Idly curious here. Substitute any other faith or denomination for "Catholic" in the statements above - is that something you ever hear?
Maybe occasional vague comments along the lines of "harrumph, and he (or, more likely, some nebulous "they") calls himself a Christian!....", but otherwise, doesn't seem common.
Surely there are other people in public life who step in it who are practicing Methodists, observant Jews, devout Baptists, whose holy men and "faith communities" would frown on the behavior in question? But I don't think I've ever heard, "And him, a Methodist!".
Reminds me of when some non-Catholic neighborhood lady would catch a group of us Catholic school kids getting up to the usual childhood mischief, and express shock that us Catholic school kids were being bad, as if that were unusual, and implying the existence of some disciplinary doom to which public school kids were not subject. Then a threat to tell on us to the nuns, with her pronouncing the word "nuns" in tones usually reserved for a Python saying "Inquisition". (We just snickered and ran away.)
Or maybe this is just selective observation on my part.
"If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes."
-- I'm curious if a right-leaning comedian had made that sort of joke about Clinton, if he'd have been called misogynistic.
Come on, now. If Colbert had said this about President Hillary (which he never would've in a million years) it would mean something completely different. There'd have been a rape connotation. The outrage would've been instant and correct. But the orange guy...meh.
Also: I don't think the joke is homophobic. But I know had someone on the right crossed that line, they'd be hit with that particular hammer, so while I won't use it against Colbert, it is kind of his own fault for choosing to play by rules that would let him get hit this way.
Matthew Sablan said...
"If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes."
-- I'm curious if a right-leaning comedian had made that sort of joke about Clinton, if he'd have been called misogynistic.
Any right-leaning comic would be called misogynistic anyway.
Bottom line, you can say bad things about Republicans that you can't say about Democrats and we all know that.
Big Mike wrote: @Althouse, the notion that Colbert or any other late night comedian would make a joke about Hillary Clinton performing oral sex on Putin or anyone else is ridiculous on its face. Do you not pay much attention to politics?
Well, she's always claimed to loathe politics but pretended to be savvy anyways. It is astonishing that she can't see through Colbert's ugly partisanship. My guess is that a friend or a family member respects Colbert.
He should know he's a practicing Catholic
Hmmmm.
No, it is homophobic. The joke wouldn't have worked had he made it about Hillary Clinton. And even if it had, it would have worked because it insulted Clinton by implying she was a whore. The sexual nature of the remark is the to put it in legal terms the gravamen of the insult. And that is insulting to a straight woman because it implies she is a whore. Why is it insulting to a man? Because it implies he is gay.
What about that joke appealed to Colbert and caused him to find it to be so insulting? The answer is that it implies that Trump is gay. Why would Colbert find that insulting if he didn't consider calling another man gay to be an insult?
Anyone who has ever ventured into the fever swamps of the internet knows that the male leftists favorite go to insult of conservatives is the homophobic slur. In the same way many men who claim to be feminists do so as a way to compensate for and excuse their own misogyny, a good number if not most straight male leftists harbor deep insecurities about their sexuality and real hatred and dislike of homosexuals. For them nothing is more hurtful than to imply that a man is gay. But they can't say this aloud or ever imply that about a fellow leftist. But being a leftist for them at least makes it okay to say about someone on the right.Colbert like most leftist straight men has a lot of issues with his sexuality and a deep seeded dislike of gays.
Mr. Wu has a name for Colbert.
""I saw it as just the usual disparagement implied by toward the person on the receiving end of a blow job" That seems backwards. You can give a blow job or you can get a blow job. Colbert's comment disparages the giver, not the person getting (receiving) the blow job."
I see the ambiguity and changed the wording.
I'm thinking of the "giver" of the blow job as being in the "receptacle" role.
But I don't like "give" either. If you want to speak in a non-blow-job-o-phobia way, I don't think you should say give and receive at all. You should get something more positive, something that has both participants liking what they are doing. But I'm not going to stretch toward positivity. I just want to be neutrally descriptive, so I'm going to use the word "penetrate" as it relates to both participants — one is penetrating and the other is getting penetrated. Or is that too penile?
What I hate about Colbert's jokes is the disparagement of sexuality, the old-fashioned shame, the sexist idea that the person doing the penetrating is humiliating the other. It's at least as sexist as it is homophobic,
It really is all about women, all of the time.
One man uses a male homosexual insult against another man, and somehow it is about women........
Pathology, we're living in a sick society.
"I have never seen America so angry -- and I've been around for a while."
https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/02/colbert-trump-and-the-roots-of-liberalprogressive-rage/
People aren't bored with gratuitous crudity yet?
Ann Althouse,
Suppose Russia were lead by a woman rather than a man. Would the joke have worked if Colbert had made the same remark about Trump giving her oral sex? I don't think so. The idea of a straight man giving a woman oral just isn't insulting, because men being sexually easy isn't the same insult as it is to say the same about a woman. The joke that Colbert only "worked" and was insult in Colbert's mind because it implied not only that Trump was submissive to Putin but that he was gay. If the gay part wasn't the insult, then saying that Trump was on his knees giving oral sex to say Theresa May would come across as just as insulting. And I don't think it does.
Kind of ironic considering Colbert spent years sucking John Stewart's cock on the Daily Show. And the same week it's revealed that Colbert's twee crush, Bathhouse Barry, "considered gayness". And Barry let Putin fuck Ukraine up the ass.
Maybe the despicable baggage of the future as well...
As hard as people have been trying to change social norms on homosexuality, it doesn't seem to really dent the foundations of human behavior and sexuality.
Notice how "woke" pundits revert so quickly, at the slightest excuse, to behavior and speech that is considered homophobic and misogynistic by today's standards.
As a dog returns to its vomit...
The smell of Revenge is in the air. Calling Emily Thorne!
Old Hickory II should challenge what's his name to a duel, with Trump to bring Mad Dog Mattis as his second.
"Notice how "woke" pundits revert so quickly, at the slightest excuse, to behavior and speech that is considered homophobic and misogynistic by today's standards."
-- Only against approved targets. You'll see lots of "beat Ivanka/Sarah Palin/Ann Coulter" from the angry left, but they'll immediately realize how "problematic" it is to imagine violence on someone who isn't an approved target.
Now, the idea that Hillary would perform oral sex on a MAN?!?! That is fucking hi-larious!
"If you want to speak in a non-blow-job-o-phobia way, I don't think you should say give and receive at all. You should get something more positive, something that has both participants liking what they are doing."
I don't want to stretch toward positivity either, which is why I won't suggest "whoever's gobbling that whangus."
How about: I saw it as just the usual disparagement implied toward cocksuckers.
How about: I saw it as just the usual disparagement implied toward cocksuckers.
Exactly Bob. And that is a disparagement aimed at gay men. Calling a woman a cock sucker is just another way of calling her a whore. The cocksucking part really has nothing to do with it. It is about her doing any sex act with lots of men. Calling a man a cocksucker is calling him gay. That is the insult.
John: The argument the left always uses when it uses gay shaming against the right is, "We don't think it is an insult, but they do, so we use it to show how homophobic they do." Essentially, the argument is, "I was being ironic." I expect Colbert to seek that refuge soon enough, or to go with Stewart's classic: "I'm a comedian! Don't be so serious, by the way, seriously, Republicans suck. Wait! Comedian again; no responsibility for what I say or do!"
If Colbert really wanted to know about Putin's cock he should have asked Bathhouse Barry.
I would boycott See BS but I haven't watched it for over tens years. Who advertises on Colbert so I can boycott them.
"Would the joke have worked if Colbert had made the same remark about Trump giving her oral sex? I don't think so." Exactly. The "disparagement of sexuality" is the least of it.
But of course no actual homophobia is involved: if gay slurs are used for prog purposes, it's all good. Anything goes against Trump. For that matter, anything goes in the culture war, period. The transvaluation of values continues.
Matthew Sablan,
That is what they will say no doubt. And they say the same thing when leftist men are caught calling conservative women whores. In the same way I think those men are deeply misogynistic and use their leftism as an excuse and rationalization to be that way towards conservative women, I think Colbert and the other leftists who toss out homophobic slurs towards conservative men are deeply confused about their sexuality and harbor real dislike and hatred towards gays.
If there ever was a nasty closet case, it would be Colbert. Jesus look at the guy.
"Only against approved targets."
But Matthew, it seems like they need those approved targets, as an outlet.
as an example, the target list is quite flexible -- it quickly grows to include anyone who steps out of an increasingly narrow line.
The revolution eats its own, because the revolution needs to eat, and eventually, only its own are left.
as an example, the target list is quite flexible -- it quickly grows to include anyone who steps out of an increasingly narrow line.
Or when it is politically convenient to do so. If and when this country ever has a large enough Muslim population to make it politically necessary for the left to turn on gays, the gays are in for a rude surprise as they are told to go back in the closet in the name of tolerance.
Colbert is a dick. Does that make CBS a holster?
Colbert is a dick. Does that make CBS a holster?
At least Colbert didn't slur Trump as a member of Man's Country.
From what I've read, Colbert has been very public about his Catholicism - therefore, it's reasonable to think that he knows the rules.
If there ever was a nasty closet case, it would be Colbert. Jesus look at the guy.
5/3/17, 8:56 AM
Yeah. He could be the poster boy for low T.
Of course there's double standard. Just look at the things Democrats got away with saying about Sarah Palin. But the double standard is a media standard. It's not the standard Colbert will be held to in the minds of most Americans. The double standard is not helping Democrats win.
Let Colbert be Colbert. He went outrageous and he'll deal with the consequences, if any. Personally, I think his joke will hurt him and Democrats in general more than it will hurt Trump.
The alternative is to join the Democrats in evolving a world where people can't make jokes.
Fuck that.
Without getting into the elaborate nuances of oral sex and homophobia, can't we all just agree that the term "cock holster" is crude. If Colbert had described Assad as Putin's cock holster, he would have been criticized for being out of bounds for using language unsuitable for broadcast television. What is it about Trump that invites insults that could not with decency be used against Assad?.......I agree that Trump can be crude and insulting but this is several orders of magnitude worse than anything Trump has ever said.
Colbert ain't gonna get fired, he will receive just a light tap on the wrist, a couple of finger wags and one tsp-tsk tsk's.
The hard prog left and the MSM will NEVER let its own be eaten for simple profanity or homophobia..its just not the way
Marxists operate at THIS time.
I don't see it as homophobic either. It's just crude. Makes me wonder what kind of talk Colbert does in the locker room. A man that says that stuff on air or in front of an audience probably says worse stuff in private. Makes me think he's probably made the same kind of cracks about women that Trump did. I bet most of his private sneers are sexual in nature. It's his mindset.
It's the old "Double standard? Impossible..we have no standards"
One was "she said, he said", Colbert's was saying it on television.
Colbert should be fired just for being a disgusting pig, apologies to pigs. A public forum like a TV show is no place for obscenity.
Every single historical case I can think of when someone was publicly gay baited or slammed with homophobic/transphobic slurs - J Edgar Hoover (all posthumous lies), Joe McCarthy (whose wife was gorgeous), Roy Cohn, etc etc etc. Has been perpetrated by the Left against the Right.
Every. Single. One.
The left devouring itself? What's not to like?
Of course, Colbert's wife might feel a bit denigrated by that term.
The worst thing about Colbert's monologue is that it wasn't funny, whatsoever. It was just a temper tantrum. It's past time to switch over to Kimmel.
I could care less that he said it, as I would NEVER lower myself to watch his childish show, but the hypocrisy is what pisses me off. If a Republican (since there aren't any on late night TV, I will use Glenn Beck) had said this on his show about Obama when he went to a baseball game with Castro in Cuba, ALL HELL WOULD HAVE BROKEN OUT!!!
Qwinn,
The Left hated gays for most of the 20th Century. Being gay was considered unnatural and deviant by the left. Some of the worst oppressors of gays have been communist and leftist regimes. The left didn't decide being gay was okay until it figured out that embracing gays was a way to attack the right and breakdown American society.
Evelyn: Look Stevie, I just don't feel right doing that anymore.
Stevie: Wha..Something I said?
Angel-Dyne,
"Do people make ever make such observations about anybody but Roman Catholics? Idly curious here. Substitute any other faith or denomination for "Catholic" in the statements above - is that something you ever hear?
"
Funny, Ange, I had just been thinking "Is that so? Then thank God he's not Jewish," because the Jews are often (or are attempted to be) blamed, or implicated, when one of them, like Jon Stewart, does something objectionable. Very annoying for Catholics too, no doubt. And just as the Jews appear to have dedicated, enduring enemies, there are always these Jack Chick types like tradguy who never miss a shot to take a shot at you papist mackerel-snappers.
"Do people make ever make such observations about anybody but Roman Catholics? Idly curious here. Substitute any other faith or denomination for "Catholic" in the statements above - is that something you ever hear"
From the outside, two aspects of Roman Catholicism make treating adherents of such different, esp in terms of hypocrisy. One is Confession, and the other is the top down nature of the religion. One man (at a time) is the ultimate person determining whether someone is Roman Catholic or not. The only other mainstream religion that I can think of, off the top of my head, that is so top down, is Mormonism (and, yes, hypocrisy is also a common complaint by Gentiles living around LDS). One of the most moving scenes in The Godfather was when Michael Corleone was standing up in church as godfather to his sister's kid, as his people started their revenge, which ended up including that kid's father. It was the scenes, switching back and forth between the executions that Micael had ordered, and his promises in church, that was so dramatic.
So, you have Nancy Pelosi (and many other left wing women) claiming to be Catholic, while strongly backing abortion, which the church has declared to be a sin. And, you have the former husband of a good friend of mine telling her that she should forgive him because he went to Confessional every Wednesday for the ten years of his cheating on her. And, then she is the one who got in trouble with her church because of the divorce. Two kids out of wedlock (or all of Michael Corleone's ordered executions) are excusable through Confession, but somehow divorcing the person who commits these sins is somehow the bad one. (As she said, she can forgive, but never forget (esp with the bastard children now part of the family), nor trust - that every time their spouse goes to the office, they aren't in bed with another woman).
It is supposed bright line of what a Roman Catholic must believe that really opens Roman Catholicism to the charge of hypocrisy. Most others have a much fuzzier definition of faith. You can sit in the pews next to someone with the opposite views on, say, abortion or gay marriage, and neither is really violating the tenets of their faith. In the Protestant world, you are Methodist because you attend a Methodist church, and, presumably are comfortable with their theology. But you could switch to Congregational next week because you like their minister and congregation better. And, as far as I can tell, Islam and Judaism are similar. What makes Roman Catholicism such an inviting target of claims of hypocrisy is the combination of a bright line test of faith, combined with a mechanism (Confession) to address the inflexibility of that bright line, that appears to outsiders to almost encourage hypocrisy.
Keep in mind Alinsky's fourth rule (Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules). By claiming to be a devout Roman Catholic, Cobert has admitted to a certain, very strict, book of rules. Much stricter probably than if he were Protestant. Everyone loves to point out hypocrisy, and now, with Obama and Crooked Hillary being Alinsky devotees, publicly shaming hypocrisy is now an acceptable political strategy.
(You don't have to remind me that I don't truly understand Roman Catholicism, it's tenets, and it's practices, because, no doubt, I don't. I wasn't talking about the faith from the inside, but mostly how it is seen from the outside).
Jupiter said...
Althouse, what you call "the despicable baggage of the past" is the rather obvious evolutionary theorem that promiscuity increases a male's reproductive chances, but decreases a female's.
"Blank Slate good, genetics bad."
Colbert makes an obviously inappropriate disparaging statement about President Trump and crickets,
Someone makes an innocuous statement about President Obama or Queen Hillary and the left performs verbal gymnastics to make said statement racist or sexist and therefore deserving of riots, protests, firings, etc.
This double standard is how you get more Trump.
Stevie: Oh come on, Evelyn. That had nothing to do with you. You..you're..you're my love glove.
It sounds as though you may have been trained as a lawyer -- not that there's anything wrong with that.
Colbert' insult is of a piece with Alec Baldwin's when he recently called an antagonist a "cocksucking faggot." It's the go-to insult for Catholic-school bullies.
Cobert wasn't really aiming at homophobia here, but rather was crudely talking about the dark underside of male sexuality. It is well known that submissive males often get raped in prison by the more dominant males, and that being the rapist is a dominant display. This power dynamic is a good part of why adolescent males tend to be so homophobic. And we see something comparable in parts of the Muslim world, even today, where raping of young boys by adult males is not seen as homosexual. Little different from what the Greeks were doing 2500 years ago.
What I understood Cobert to be saying is that Trump, being the submissive, was allowing Putin to show his dominance sexually. It was intentionally done very crudely, as an insult, because that is what his audience wanted, the vision of either Trump giving Putin a BJ, or allowing him to butt fuck him. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, and everything to do with male dominance. And, after 8 years of publicly pandering to a beta male in the White House (who may actually be gay), where this sort of thing was considered beyond the pale, there is not a lot of tolerance among much of the Anerican public for this sort of public crudity.
Jupiter asserts: is the rather obvious evolutionary theorem that promiscuity increases a male's reproductive chances, but decreases a female's.
How so, Jupiter? Are you implying that female cats & dogs hook up with only one male when in heat?
From:craig.minassian@clintonglobalinitiative.org
To: john.podesta@gmail.com, jpodesta@americaporgress.org
Date: 2013-04-10 14:29
Subject: CGI U - The Colbert Report Special Episodes
John,
I hope you got a chance to see the The Colbert Report's two special episodes i had them do about CGI U[Clinton Global Initiative] that we taped in St. Louis this weekend. This is the link to last nights with a sketch about commitments and the monologue and WJC interview aired Monday. Hope you enjoy and looking forward to your feedback. Next will be your Colbert appearance!
-Craig
http://t.colbertnation.com/
I worked for 20 years for Bill Paley's CBS, in which Colbert would have lasted about a femtosecond after that remark, however it was intended. Please do not confuse the organization currently carrying the trademark with "CBS" as we knew it.
In any case, Trump gets the last laugh. He's been called worse things by better people. But he's still POTUS and Colbert is still a comic. Or at least he plays one on television.
I don't recall anyone on yesterday's thread calling for Colbert to be fired. I think most of us prefer to see the MSM self-destruct.
The left legislated homosexual marriage and has made a big deal out of "homophobia" but their greatest insult is to label someone a homosexual.
And the guy who goes around calling everyone a queer often turns out to be a closet gay blade.
Evelyn: Shit, Stevie. Get away from me.
Stevie: Hey..I've got a funny. (singing) You've lost..that gluuuvingg feeling. Whoah-oh that gluuuving feeling..
"Every single historical case I can think of when someone was publicly gay baited or slammed with homophobic/transphobic slurs -
J Edgar Hoover (all posthumous lies)"
How do you know they were lies?
"Joe McCarthy (whose wife was gorgeous)"
Never heard any allegations about McCarthy being gay, only that he was a drunk.
"Roy Cohn, etc etc etc. Has been perpetrated by the Left against the Right."
Cohn was definitely gay, but I never heard much in the way of slurs against him for this...only that he was, in general, a scumbag.
Colbert like most leftist straight men has a lot of issues with his sexuality and a deep seeded dislike of gays.
5/3/17, 8:30 AM
Prove it.
"I've seen others denouncing it as homophobic."
This is now a thing among normal human beings? As I'm not a leftist, accusations of "homophobia" and other violations of leftist taboos are meaningless to me. I am not bound by the proscriptions of a religion I do not subscribe to, let alone those of a toxic death cult.
It is not necessary to spend an time and effort addressing this non-issue. The only reason to bring up a non-issue like "homophobia" is to attack the left for failing to live up to their own rules. Yet that isn't what was done here. Instead great effort was spent to explain away this obvious breach of leftist etiquette. /facepalm
In short, I do not care that Colbert insulted homosexuals in his rant because insulting them is not wrong. But this is beside the point.
What Colbert said was crude, but that also is not terribly important. What matters is that his statement was a bold and blatant lie. Accusations that Trump was somehow in cahoots with Putin to "steal" the election from Clinton are completely unfounded. Efforts to find evidence to back up these claims have all failed. Trump's actions towards Putin since being elected also belie the claim that they are somehow conspirators.
Colbert lied to the American people and tried to fool as many as he could into believing that a sitting president is violating his oath of office and cooperating with one of our enemies.
Ann Althouse said...I don't buy the homophobia characterization. If Colbert had wanted to joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes.
Uh...no. It's tough not to just say "Bullshit!" to that, Professor.
I mean, the Right gave President Obama a lot of grief for "sucking up to terrorist regimes" and apologizing for America around the globe, right? I do not remember a single mainstream rightwing pundit ever phrasing that criticism in terms of Obama sucking some dictator's cock, and I think we all know had any such statement been made it would have been the end of the dam world. Hillary Clinton? Give me a break--the howls of sexism and shrieks for the head of whoever dared to make such an attack would have been immediate and deafening.
I don't think you really believe Colbert "could have" used exactly the same jokes against Hillary Clinton, ma'am. It's unbelievable, in fact.
On the other topic, thankfully, it's simple: whatever women do is empowering.
Giving a blowjob (being the one penetrated during the act) is something some women sometimes choose to do. As such it's an empowering act.
Some women sometimes choose not to give blowjobs (not to be penetrated in that way). Their choice to not engage in that action is empowering, too.
If the left believes the Russians stole Hil's victory..after her famous Russian "reset"..she would then be better described as taking it, without consent, in a different orifice.
I mean, the Right gave President Obama a lot of grief for "sucking up to terrorist regimes" and apologizing for America around the globe, right? I do not remember a single mainstream rightwing pundit ever phrasing that criticism in terms of Obama sucking some dictator's cock, and I think we all know had any such statement been made it would have been the end of the dam world. Hillary Clinton? Give me a break--the howls of sexism and shrieks for the head of whoever dared to make such an attack would have been immediate and deafening.
Was Obama's 'more flexible' remark a sexual innuendo aimed at Putin? Just how flexible was he intending to be?
Bad LT,
Colbert's actions and casual use of calling someone gay as an insult proves it. IF he didn't have issues with his sexuality and a deep dislike of gays, he wouldn't think calling someone gay was an insult.
"IF he didn't have issues with his sexuality and a deep dislike of gays, he wouldn't think calling someone gay was an insult. "
Two different issues..though they can certainly co-exist.
Is someone who makes racist comments secretly living a la Rachel Dolezal?
Serious question: Has Ann Coulter opined yet, on a national boycott of Stephen Colbert?
There is bound to be the "state action" distinction, between "CBS advertisers" (a purely private matter unconnected to First Amendment concerns) and "a campus event of the University of California" (triggering First Amendment concerns as part of state action).
So yeah, if people want to boycott over speech and decorum, that's okay. Still; "decorum" is an awfully ironic concept in connection with Donald Trump.
But I don't like secondary boycotts, for all the reasons that lawprof Bradley Smith outlined:
http://volokh.com/2012/05/03/secondary-boycotts-and-the-breakdown-of-civil-society/
joke about Hillary Clinton's coziness with Putin, he could have used exactly the same jokes
Thus transgender. Specifically disparaging the feminine. I think it's known as a "Lewinsky" in the urban jungle, by other names on the transgender spectrum, and as an opportunity by chauvinists to claim "1 in 5" during a baby trial.
Walter,
Someone making racist comments doesn't like black people. Just like someone using gay as an insult likely doesn't like gays. The difference is that people generally don't like black people for reasons that have nothing to do with some secret desire to be one. People, especially men, who dislike rather than just not approve of gay people generally are that way because they have real unresolved issues about their sexuality and are compensating. Colbert fits that description perfectly.
Is Jesse Watters back from vacation yet?
So..with race, negative statements reveal dislike.
With sexuality, statements reveal dislike...and "unresolved issues".
Seems like weak "proof"
Ann: I think that is more blow-job-o-phobic than homophobic.
This statement is technically accurate. However, if this has been someone on the right the accusation of "homophobia" would have been leveled immediately. If that is going to be the rule, then the rule applies to everyone. If they don't want to play by that rule, I'm all for its dismissal. If the rule only applies to one side, then make it plain in the tyranny.
What I hate about Colbert's jokes is the disparagement of sexuality, the old-fashioned shame, the sexist idea that the person doing the penetrating is humiliating the other.
The thing about blow jobs is they are very one-sided affairs. The person getting one gets the enjoyment and the person giving gets the work. While it can be part of an equal relationship, it is also the go-to act for groupies to show their willingness to "sacrifice" for the target of their affection, and for unequal power relationships for a showing of dominance. There's also the matter that once the task is completed, the recipient may not be able to perform for the short-term, which indicates no reciprocity. If you want to show a relationship where one gets and the other does not, there's not really a better choice in the arsenal of basic sex acts without breaking out the whips.
I think the "unresolved issues" bit is used because it is hard to disprove and plays on the "dislike".
It reminds me of the schoolyard defense "I know you are but what am I?"
"People, especially men, who dislike rather than just not approve of gay people generally are that way because they have real unresolved issues about their sexuality and are compensating."
I've heard that for forever, but is it actually true? Perhaps if you are talking about a guy who is obsessed with what gays do and gay bashes constantly.
But does every straight guy who finds the idea of fucking another man disgusting secretly want to have sex with men? What if they just find it disgusting? I can think of many varieties of sex that I would never want to participate in myself and find revolting, like "water sports" or bestiality for instance. I'm damn sure that's not because I have a secret desire to actually engage in those practices.
Exhiled,
Clearly your unresolved issues with extreme kinks will require therapy to rectify.
What's worse, though is the realization what N.N.'s incessant anti-abortion rants prove.
everyone knows it isn't an act of mutual sharing and emotion
speak for yourself, sister
Wouldn't it be wonderful to show Colbert's clips to his Sunday school class? I'm sure his priest is very proud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert#Personal_life
Good for you, pants ;)
However, a "cock holster" reads as pretty inactive..lacking pleasure...utilitarian.
Colbert has unresolved issues regarding gun accessories.
Exile on mainstreet, I find fucking other men disgusting. But I find a lot of things disgusting. That doesn't mean I have some pathological dislike of anyone who disagrees. Even though I find the idea of sex with a man disgusting, I don't consider those who disagree to be inferior such that being associated with them is an insult. Colbert does apparently. And that is likely because he is a closet case. He might not be, but I doubt it.
tola'at sfarim said...
Is Jesse Watters back from vacation yet?
I think that vacation lasted from a Tuesday, to the following Monday. And yes, he is back. He has been back all this week.
It is a pretty good comparo, isn't it? (Actually, the way that it isn't a good comparison is the explicit sexuality of Colbert versus the whatever it was that Watters did*, which was far from sexually explicit.)
*I saw it live, and I find it difficult to articulate what was offensive at all, about Jesse Watters' comment.
And all the folks using terms like "Libtard" etc are closet liberals...
Walter,
It is a simple point but one you seem to be unable to grasp. Just because people who have an over the top hatred of gays are often gays themselves who can't deal with that fact doesn't mean everyone who hates anything does so because they really like it. Somethings really are different than other things and not every analogy works.
Are you too dense to understand that or have you run out of arguments and are too immature to admit it and instead keep making the same stupid and nonresponsive point?
Well John,
Seems as we go along, you are moving further away from "proof".
That's good.
I stopped watching CBS Late Show with... when Letterman started running the statutory rape jokes about Willow Palin.
Good to know that it's not homophobic if I say that Obama really got it up the ass from the Iranian mullahs.
Earlier commenter spoke of a "rule" of comedy (something about an element of "truth"), so I gotta step in here and say that any comedy that has rules ceases to be comedy. Sorry. The folks on the left have of late been attempting to hobble comedy with all kinds of rules-- punching up, punching down, truth, who can be mocked, who can't be mocked, etc. One might think that they'll be happy with comedy once they've ironed out all the rules, but it really never ends. What they want is the end of comedy.
And "cocksucker" is a great swear word because it's got all those "K-sounds" in it. Any association with homosexuality vanished long ago and only those vicious, slashing K-sounds remain.
As with the smart and principled liberals who stood up for Ann Coulter's right to speak at Cal Berkeley, I am seeing smart and principled conservatives now lining up in opposition to any Fire Colbert campaign. Mark Steyn on Fox; people losing their livelihoods for a joke is what they did in the old Warsaw Pact nations during the Cold War.
Brian,
If you want the phonetic release without the offensiveness, there's "Pucktucker!".
Oh wait..
> Obviously, the Left couldn't care less about whether homosexuals are able to find happiness in the intrinsically heterosexual institution of marriage. Their concern is to destroy the institution, and all other traditional institutions, and to terrorize normal people. As Orwell made clear in 1984, you are not truly obedient until you are willing to affirm what you know to be a lie. Then they have broken you. And above all, they want to break you. The cocksuckers.
Jupiter, that is the clearest explanation of the gay marriage / tans-bathroom movement I've seen. Tt explains why Obama employed the wedge issue during the autocratic "phone and pen" phase of his terms: he thought it was a WINNER!
But now the Reps found a "better" troll: they brought a knife, and we brought a gun. Makes me want to watch "High Plains Drifter".
How will the Left up the ante once it leaves the "Resistance" phase? What's next for identity politics, class envy, and climate change crowd?
I have a phobia of the words "homophobic" and "homophobia," because the transgressions or alleged transgressions typically have nothing to do with being scared of gays or gaiety.
It's the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the crack that's offensive, not its crude vulgarity. At least one or two of the funniest comedians in the world are routinely crudely vulgar. Presumably, a Puritan won't let a routinely crudely vulgar comedian off the hook for vulgarly, invidiously, politically incorrectly referring to genitals or sex if he's funny and honest. But what, again, is the big virtue and selling point of Puritanism?
Earlier commenter spoke of a "rule" of comedy (something about an element of "truth"), so I gotta step in here and say that any comedy that has rules ceases to be comedy.
OK, I need to clarify. First, what I actually said was "...one of the fundamental rules about humor is that there has to be an element of truth." Not comedy, but humor. The distinction is important.
Second, the part I need to clarify is that I did not mean a "rule" as in a set of standards that humorists need to adhere to, but a "rule" as in the ways you can tell what is humor and what isn't. Kind of like the "rule" for telling the difference between a monkey and an ape: If it has a tail, it's a monkey. If it doesn't have a tail, it's an ape. If there is no element of truth, then it's not humor. (Not to say that Colbert doesn't think he's telling some fundamental truth about Trump. But whether one should humor the ravings of a delusional person is another discussion.)
John said...
Bad LT,
Colbert's actions and casual use of calling someone gay as an insult proves it. IF he didn't have issues with his sexuality and a deep dislike of gays, he wouldn't think calling someone gay was an insult.
5/3/17, 12:01 PM
Excuse me John (JH?), I guess I was oblique. Prove that Colbert is a straight man. I don't believe it.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा