- 29,915
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I thought the part where it shows Trump's tiny hand rubbing Putin's hand was high-larious.
Political Correctness
- Thread starter lbsf1
- 2,922 comments
- 175,532 views
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Nobody "chose" to make them gay. The joke was that there are romantic feelings between them. That they're both men is what makes it, incidentally, gay.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 13,890
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Trump is submitting to a gay relationship with another man and that's funny because it's shirtless Putin. But that's just me.
Trump and Putin being lovers is meaningless? Wut?
I think you're bringing a little too much of your own views of homosexuality into this. The joke totally still works regardless of the sex of the two people and purely because they're leaders of what are traditionally countries that are strongly opposed to one another. Making them lovers instead of just friends takes the satire to another level.
Because they're both men and it's hard not to if they're in a relationship? That's kind of the definition of being in a same-sex relationship with someone.
It is gay. It's man on man action. What's your point? Trump is a man. Putin is a man. To make a joke about them being in a relationship you by definition have to make them gay. Unless you make one of them a woman, and I sort of doubt that you'd take a portrayal of Trumpina much differently.
Good job it wasn't satirising them as being friends then. Why should the fact that they both happen to be men be anything more that coincidental? One cannot choose what gender their true love happens to be...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Your post-modern take on things is quite enjoyable to read but I disagree. In the end though I think it only helps Trump's cause. I see a lot of outrage in the gay community online, many major media outlets like HuffPo, Reuters, Yahoo and many others are carrying the story reporting the outrage. Some leading figures in the LGBT community that happen to be affiliated with MSM publications like Alex Griswold of the Washington Free Beacon are speaking out. Phillip Picardi, the wunderkid from Teen Vogue has slammed it and many others are calling it was it so obviously is. This outrage only fuels things like the #walkaway movement and draws people away from the hypocrisy of the left and the leftwing media. With so many other paths they could have taken for this "joke", choosing a gay one seems like an awfully large risk with a very small return.
- 13,890
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's not post-modernism. Its purely about whether the first thing you think of when you see two men is the relationship or the homosexuality. Whichever one it is implies the other, but you're likely to have a different view of cause and effect.
It's really something that could be read either way. Which way you happen to react to it really shows more about your innate reaction to men plugging men more than anything else, as it really doesn't affect the main thrust of the satire which is "Trump and Putin are behaving like a couple in a relationship".
Huh? You can see in this thread that it's annoyed people on both the left and right. I hardly think it's driving people towards one or the other. And hey, some of us think that it's quite funny and a surprisingly accurate take on an odd political relationship.
Firstly, there's not really a risk to an American political cartoonist doing this. It's their job. Charlie Hebdo took risks because they were legitimately playing with people who would kill them for it. I rather doubt that there are Americans who are quite fanatical enough to go shoot someone up for a cartoon, and I hope I'm not wrong.
Secondly, it's only in part a joke. It's political commentary, and as such there are not other ways to express the idea of Trump and Putin in a romantic relationship without either having homosexuality or gender-swapping. That is a byproduct of making that particular statement, which while obviously not literally accurate is an interesting way of viewing the strength of the ties between the two.
People in relationships tend to protect each other over all else. People will do things for their partner that they might not do for anyone else. They will pursue common goals. Often, there also tends to be one more dominant partner in a relationship, "wearing the pants" as the colloquialism goes.
I think the idea is quite deep even if you ignore completely the idea of them swapping salami. Relationships are not all about sex, you know. When you see a heterosexual couple, is the first thing you think of "oh, they're having sex"?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Again, this is just more post modernist whitewashing IMO. Where is it written that the only way they can mock or ridicule Trump/Putin is with a romantic relationship? You're starting with a false premise and reaching a false conclusion. There's no obligation on them to express Trump and Putin in a romantic relationship so therefore there are other paths they could have chosen to mock how close they appear to be or, at least, how close the MSM wants us to believe they are. They chose the gay one and apparently many in the LGBT community think it's time to stop using homosexuality and non-traditional relationships as a punch line. The pattern is quite clear among the left wing media and there are plenty of examples already of Trump/Putin mockery based on a homosexual punch line. Frankly they are a few decades behind the times.
- 29,915
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Fixed that for ya.
👍
*[In My Hypocritical, Pro-Trump-Biased Opinion]
Edit:
Yeeeeeaaahh...
It's no surprise that other news organizations would jump at the opportunity to dig at the competition for a presumed faux pas, as a loss in market share on the part of the competition potentially translates directly into increased profits. I have no doubt that organizations with a politically conservative bent are also jumping on the bandwagon, as it's an opportunity to hit liberal media and see increased profits without them even coming from outside their base.
If a conservative outlet, say National Review, didn't catch a racial slur presented in an op-ed and was subsequently catching flak for it, you can bet their competition would be hitting it hard for the very same reason.* What's more...I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you'd be the first on the heap to present that exact argument.
*I know, I know, "if the shoe was on the other foot" and all that, but I don't play that particular card anywhere near as often as you do and, as a result, it's held up much better.
Last edited:
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
There's no obligation to ever make any joke. What's your point?
Sure. But what's a very efficient way to evoke "closeness?" Romantic involvement maybe? We've all been aware of this since we were five, saying "If you love ____ so much, why don't you marry it?"
FTFY
Good on 'em. They're free to think that, and I hope that anybody who was made aware of the LGBT community's objections paused and considered. I don't think the joke requires anti-gay sentiment in order to work, but I will personally avoid such jokes in the future if the LGBT community would prefer it. No sweat off my brow. Notice that listening to the LGBT community doesn't require that we retroactively vilify the original joke? Live and learn.
What I'm baffled about here is that you are the one championing what could be described as the "PC" stance. I never thought I'd see the day.
- 2,858
- Australia
Of course it's happening, along with every other type of discrimination that the people with the money, and the people answering to the people with the money, deem applicable.
No, of course they are, along with ugly people, really short people, really tall people, amputees, people with tourette's........ Pick your poison.
It'll turn. There'll a filmmaker that'll use it to be edgy, or to champion the cause.... or hopefully just because the trans actor was really good and the one making the call on the role didn't give a rat's about gender particulars beyond what the role required consideration for. Some other minorities will have far less hope to hold on to, unless their affliction becomes the "flavour of the month" of course.
Where are you pulling transphobic from? That's exactly the kind of ridiculous jump in logic, and/or sloppiness, and/or deliberately inflammatory language that keeps more people at odds with each other than need be. The industry for the most part is amoral, it responds to the public, with a view to servicing the bottom line. Sometimes that means being deliberately daring, often it means playing it safe. Not casting trans people is not equal to transphobia, but not casting trans people is equal to a whole lot of other "unfair" non-castings that no-one's really talking about.
What is "fair treatment" though? Is it expecting a restaurant owner employ someone to wait tables that's had half of their face blown off with a shot gun blast? I like the idea of enough of the population being mature enough for that to happen, but I think that trans actors are probably better positioned in their plight on this one. People running all sorts of businesses don't have the luxury of pandering to all the finger-wagglers out there (in here).
And if the initial backlash was say about her not being a good enough actor (which I think is absolutely the case), and not based on gender discrimination, then she probably wouldn't have felt the need to respond at all.
- 13,890
- Adelaide
- Neomone
More meaningless buzzwords please. Discussing the use of romantic relationships is neither post-modernist nor whitewashing.
Sigh.
So, if I'm a political cartoonist and my job is to draw incisive and inflammatory cartoons about relevant political issues of the day. I might well note that Trump and Putin appear to have an odd relationship for two leaders of nations that are traditionally at least somewhat distant from each other. I might note that it bears some similarities to a relationship between two lovers.
As such, I might decide to depict this explicitly in a cartoon. After all, the only way to depict two people as lovers is actually to depict them as lovers. If I were to be depicting them as fraternity brothers, or friends, or father and son, that would have a number of different connotations that as a writer might not suit my purposes.
There is no equivalent to a romantic relationship. Your relationship with your female friends is not the same as your relationship with your wife or your mistress. Or your mother or sister. Or your cat. That's why we have different terms to describe them, and that's why the writer has chosen to use that type of relationship over another.
It is. But just because media contains a gay relationship doesn't mean that it's being used in a derogatory way. Sometimes it's just two men who like other men. It's OK for that to happen, and gay relationships aren't going to stop being a punchline until a cartoon like this can be drawn and people can not immediately think "oh, the gay".
The cartoon works just fine even when you ignore the sex of Trump and Putin. That means that the humour is not dependent on it, but your impression of gays and gay culture may enhance or detract. That's sort of inevitable. As I've said multiple times and you keep deflecting, you can't depict Trump and Putin in a romantic relationship without either homosexuality or gender swapping.
Seriously, if someone wants to make some media depicting Trump and Putin in a romantic relationship, is that simply impossible?
Sez the guy whose first thought was "it only works to ridicule or mock Trump if being gay isn't normal". As if there's something wrong with being in a gay relationship.
The leader of one country being in a romantic relationship with the leader of another (ostensibly adversarial) country is not normal. That right there is enough for the cartoon to have bite. The fact that both leaders happen to be men is incidental, unless you happen to be a massive homophobe and think that being gay is not normal, or you're so anti-Trump that you'll start screaming from the rooftops at even a jest that he might be part of a group that you're also part of.
Both views are dumb.
I disagree. I think the response from the LGBT community is moronic in this case, at least from what I've seen of it. They don't want to be associated with Donald Trump. Understandable, but that's not how it works.
Normalising LGBT behaviour means normalising the use of it in all spaces, and that includes comedy and satire. It shouldn't be used as something explicitly abnormal or bad, because that's hate speech, but at the same time it shouldn't be avoided simply because someone might be offended. Someone is always offended.
Depicting public figures in gay relationships is fine. As anyone who has read fan fiction will know. There's no sense crying about Hermione/Luna shipping just because you don't like Hermione. Or because Emma Watson isn't gay.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
Fair enough. As I said, I think the joke works just fine without assigning it homophobic undertones, so I'm not all that invested in the LGBT stance on it. I just meant to say that I personally won't make that joke, as there are plenty of other ways for me to criticize Trump's intellectual fellati -- whoops, I just about did it there. Damn, they're just easy jokes to make!
I agree with all of this. I didn't mean to suggest the jokes should be avoided, just that I personally could avoid them without much (any?) undue burden on myself. As I still don't actually see a problem with the joke in the first place, though, I won't denounce anybody who continues doing so.
- 3,207
I think you're putting way too much emotion into the term. It simply establishes negativity towards trans people. If there is bias in hollywood against trans actors, it can be termed transphobic.
Oxford defines Transphobia as: "Dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people."
If bias against trans actors is justified by the bottom line, the public criticism is more than justified. You can't say prejudice against trans actors is just part of the industry catering to consumers (ie the public), and then complain when there is backlash from the public for prejudice against trans actors.
- 2,858
- Australia
"Dislike" - if you don't get that the definition you've quoted actually damns your use of transphobic, in the context it was used, then I think I'll save myself the frustration of any further conversation. You need to take more responsibility for your words, or recognise that you don't have the maturity to think widely enough about certain topics.
It's good that you care about people that tend to have a rough time with life though. That's a lot more than I could say for a lot of people.
- 3,207
"Dislike of or prejudice". The "or" is important. It means the "dislike of" part isn't necessary for the term to correspond with the definition.
If you don't wish to continue the discussion, that's fine. But maybe your condescending comment in retreat indicates you don't quite have the maturity you think you do. Neither does being hung up on the definition of a polysemous word like Liberal, introducing whataboutisms ("ugly people, really short people, really tall people, amputees, people with tourette's", yeah sure, but I'm not arguing that other biases don't exist in hollywood, only that the criticism from trans actors (and those that back them) is reasonable, which has been my point all along) and repeatedly misrepresenting the criticism (the continued spurning of trans actors, not the casting of cis gender actors in trans roles, of which the latter is contributing to the former but isn't the point of contention itself).
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Once the PC ball is rolling it's hard to stop. I've got two more to add to my list above:
Dwayne Johnson - Sorry bud, both of those sticks are functioning, back to Jumanji for you!
Steve Carell - AFAIK you're not a cross dressing alcoholic with a traumatic brain injury. Stick to light, romantic comedy please. Stay in your box!
DJ is a tricky one. Obviously he's been held back by the colour of his skin and other actors having white privilige so maybe he get's a pass? But then again, everyone knows in Hollywood that Muscular Privilege has been a thing since Douglas Fairbanks Jr. took his shirt off to expose his manliness for all the world to see in The Thief of Baghdad (I know, Cultural Appropriation, wrong on so many levels I can't keep track!!). Does being black but having Muscular Privilege cancel each other out? I mean who would have watched an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie if he was 185 and flabby? Could he act muscular instead? Is that allowed? My head is spinning I need to sit down
. Wait, I am sitting down
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44852182
Comedian Maysoon Zayid, who apparently also works part time in the role of Hollywood Blockbuster Producer had this to say:
Former actor Stormy Toolis (no relation to Stormy Daniels) has this take on it:
This Maltesers commercial was embedded in my version of the article. Don't worry I chastised myself for almost laughing. It made it's way up from my belly to my throat but never made it out:
I could be wrong (I'm not), but the inference is pretty clear to me. Her (I'm assuming it's a her because he/she presents as a female) and her lover were engaged in sexual activity and she had a seizure but it turned out that the repetitive stroking motion was most enjoyable for him. So, did the boyfriend discuss her condition ahead of time and did he obtain her consent to continue the sexual act if she was in the midst of a sexual act but in a condition in which she was unable to signal ongoing consent? How far along were they and was consent implied? Can you imply consent and can that carry over to a condition during which you are unable to consent? If not, is this not a sexual assault? Is having a seizure during a sex act really fodder for a commercial that might appeal to small children who love candy?
Note: This could be the first time I used the BBC in support of an argument. Then again, I'm talking about political correctness and social justice so it all makes sense.
Dwayne Johnson - Sorry bud, both of those sticks are functioning, back to Jumanji for you!
Steve Carell - AFAIK you're not a cross dressing alcoholic with a traumatic brain injury. Stick to light, romantic comedy please. Stay in your box!
DJ is a tricky one. Obviously he's been held back by the colour of his skin and other actors having white privilige so maybe he get's a pass? But then again, everyone knows in Hollywood that Muscular Privilege has been a thing since Douglas Fairbanks Jr. took his shirt off to expose his manliness for all the world to see in The Thief of Baghdad (I know, Cultural Appropriation, wrong on so many levels I can't keep track!!). Does being black but having Muscular Privilege cancel each other out? I mean who would have watched an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie if he was 185 and flabby? Could he act muscular instead? Is that allowed? My head is spinning I need to sit down
. Wait, I am sitting down.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44852182
The Rock has already issued the standard, copy/paste apology that isn't an apology to try and appease the pc crowd but some aren't having it:
Comedian Maysoon Zayid, who apparently also works part time in the role of Hollywood Blockbuster Producer had this to say:
She's literally offended by The Rock's acting. (He has a name, isn't it disrespectful to not use his real name in this context - he's billed as Dwayne Johnson isn't he?)
Former actor Stormy Toolis (no relation to Stormy Daniels) has this take on it:
By commercial pressure I assume she means the pressure to turn a profit. I know, it's horrible for people risking $10's or 100's of millions on turning a potential profit to be so focused on hiring people who might have a good chance of putting people in the seats but it's something we must work towards changing. Perhaps we should declare Hollywood a Non-Profit Zone?
This Maltesers commercial was embedded in my version of the article. Don't worry I chastised myself for almost laughing. It made it's way up from my belly to my throat but never made it out:
I could be wrong (I'm not), but the inference is pretty clear to me. Her (I'm assuming it's a her because he/she presents as a female) and her lover were engaged in sexual activity and she had a seizure but it turned out that the repetitive stroking motion was most enjoyable for him. So, did the boyfriend discuss her condition ahead of time and did he obtain her consent to continue the sexual act if she was in the midst of a sexual act but in a condition in which she was unable to signal ongoing consent? How far along were they and was consent implied? Can you imply consent and can that carry over to a condition during which you are unable to consent? If not, is this not a sexual assault? Is having a seizure during a sex act really fodder for a commercial that might appeal to small children who love candy?
Note: This could be the first time I used the BBC in support of an argument. Then again, I'm talking about political correctness and social justice so it all makes sense.
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I dont believe Dwayne Johnson is black, at all. Pretty sure he's just polynesian.
That said. Are the studios giving a damn about any negative PC press? I doubt it. A few fat mouths on twitter wont amount to much when Johnson helps pull in millions of dollars for the money. I'd even bet money that those trying to blast the movie now will willingly pay to see, if only to get back on Twitter and release more built up prepubescent rage. Honestly. Even if the movie used an actual disabled person, it probably wouldnt have been the right skin tone, or the appropriate spectrum of said disability, etc. People that are gonna be butt hurt, are gonna be butt hurt, no matter the accommodation.
That said. Are the studios giving a damn about any negative PC press? I doubt it. A few fat mouths on twitter wont amount to much when Johnson helps pull in millions of dollars for the money. I'd even bet money that those trying to blast the movie now will willingly pay to see, if only to get back on Twitter and release more built up prepubescent rage. Honestly. Even if the movie used an actual disabled person, it probably wouldnt have been the right skin tone, or the appropriate spectrum of said disability, etc. People that are gonna be butt hurt, are gonna be butt hurt, no matter the accommodation.
- 29,915
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
"Shame, Arnold! Pretending to get pregnant when there are countless women who want to and should be able to, but due to one issue or another are unable to!"
There's a part of me that wonders if @Johnnypenso got his GTP account hacked and someone who doesn't like him is posting this BS as him to motivate others to completely disregard everything he says. Someone should probably look into that.
- 24,627
- Anoka, MN
He is half black. His dad was a black Canadian (Rocky Johnson).
- 13,890
- Adelaide
- Neomone
There's also the issue that a lot of the big name actors are big names because they're legitimately very good at their jobs. In an entertainment medium where most of the stuff is fictional it would seem important to have people who are able to fill their roles well rather than people who fill boxes on a diversity checklist.
I'm not sure it's sensible to want a world where only actors who resemble the characters in real life may play them. That sounds incredibly limiting to people who are good actors.
- 5,588
- Dahlonega, GA
- ryzno
How cute, you think he's been hacked cause he posts things you disagree with.
"Shame, Arnold! Pretending to get pregnant when there are countless women who want to and should be able to, but due to one issue or another are unable to!"
There's a part of me that wonders if @Johnnypenso got his GTP account hacked and someone who doesn't like him is posting this BS as him to motivate others to completely disregard everything he says. Someone should probably look into that.
I've seen it all from you now lololol.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
That graph is AMAZING!
- 29,915
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Right? I wish I could take credit for it. Actually I think I first saw it on GTP, but wouldn't begin to know how to find out whether it's been posted or not.
- 17,215
- United Kingdom
- 12,389
- Betelgeuse
- Beeblebrox_237
.
