Vince Vaughn

I originally wrote this last night, still steamed over Dharmasatya's comments, and still not entirely sure why she got so far under my skin.  Anyway, I'm over it now. I'm also sick as a dog.  So a bit of the fight has been taken out of me anyway today.  And finally, I've come to the realization, reinforced by Duta's comment in my lats post, that I been both way too angry and way too vulgar lately.  For about the last two months or so, I'd say. And vulgar, angry rants, while cathartic to write, and often very fun too read as well, are just not a good a habit to get into.  So I'm swearing off them (pun intended) for at least the next month or so, just to break the habit. I'm also going to try and speak in normal tone of voice - ixnay with the ALL CAPS.  With that in mind, I'm re-writing this as a more considerate, thoughful piece, that should alienate fewer people, and hopefully be taken more seriously because of it. 

There's been a lot of outrage recently over a joke which appeared in the trailer of Vince Vaughn's new movie, The Dilemma.  Now... my support for LGBT Political and Social issues is unequivocal.  In that past there have been times where I've wavered, but right now, I can safety and happily say that there is no part of the "radical gay agenda" (as the Right refers to it) that I am not behind 100%.  I'll go into what that exactly means, to me, in a moment, but suffice to say, that the LGBT community has a staunch ally and supporter in this blogger.

That being said?  This joke is fine.  This joke in not homophobic.  This joke is not even harmful  In fact... I'll go so far as to say that this joke actually illustrates the very point that outrage appears to be all about in the first place!  Now, I realize that I probably have a bunch of people saying, "You just don't GET it!" All I ask is that you give me a few paragraphs to explain my point, and show you that, yes, I actually do get it.  In fact, I can absolutely empathize with you on the very issue of casual pejoratives.

Anyway, for those who have been living under a rock, here's the joke:

"Electric cars are gay. I mean, not 'homosexual' gay but 'my parents are chaperoning the dance' gay."

OK... I am in complete agreement with GLAAD, etc...  that the word "gay" should not be used as a casual pejorative.  The thing is?  The way I interpreted this joke, when I first heard it?  Is that this is exactly what the joke is saying as well!

To me, the whole point of the joke, the only way it really works, the only interpretation by which it is the least bit funny, is as an acknowledgement that we use the word “gay” to mean “bad” or “stupid” when it shouldnt' be used that way!  The very fact that they whole joke revolves around him having to make that awkward clarification, I took as evidence that, at best, this is a clumsy descriptor, and for the sake of clear communication, if nothing else, it really needs to go.

Do I really believe that he's trying to make some profound socio-political point here? Oh, heck no!  It is Vince Vaughn, after all!  But given the context as I saw it - and hey: I could be wrong! - but given that, if you can’t see beyond the mere use of the word, and find the deeper meaning here (and you don’t have to go that deep, it is Vince Vaughn after all!) then you are just being too sensitive about it!

OK.  Now I'm sure I've really gotten some people angry at this.  And your anger is justified. Too sensitive? How dare I?! (Right?) Who am I to tell you how too feel about something?  And you have a point. So assuming I haven't put you off for good, I beg that you now allow me to put down the shovel and endeavour to climb out of this hole I'm probably in.

The first obvious problem is that, not being gay, trans, etc... myself, one might say that I have no idea how hurtful these casual pejoratives really are.

Ah... but not so.

You see... There’s a synonym for the word “gay,” when it's used in this context.

“RETARDED.”

Think about it… Almost any time someone is mis-using the word “gay,” as in, “This policy is gay!” you can almost always substitute the word, “retarded” and it will mean the same thing: “This policy is retarded!”

Well, guess what?

I have two autistic sons.

And I hate that [expletive deleted] word.

And I hate to hear someone called a “Retard.”

And I hate to hear "retarded" used to mean, "something I don't agree with or don't understand."

And I HATE anything that makes fun of the mentally handicapped.

It absolutely tears my heart out.

Now... Is it the same thing? No. No it's not.  But I offer that's it's close enough for a legitimate concession that I do, in fact, have some clue what it feels like and what's going on here. I may not  know your feeling, but I'm still somewhat familiar with the feeling.  And if you say, "Well, that's not about you, it's about your kids."  Unless you have kids, and special needs kids at that? Then it's you who doesn't know what it feels like. Because I'd give anything to make it about me instead of them.

And while it's a little off topic, I'd like to offer an example of what may have been the worst time I had, "getting over" this, only as evidence that I can, in fact practice what I preach.

At one point, Drawn Together was my favorite TV show. I found it to be positively enlightened as well as completely hilarious when it came to most social issues like racism, sexism, sexuality, gender roles, religion, etc... See... They made fun of those things, using negative stereotypes not to make fun of the groups, but rather to make fun of the bigots who believed that nonsense about them! It took every stereotype and turned it around, to make the joke be on the racist / sexist / homophobe / etc... IMHO, It was brilliant. 

(Disclaimer: Serious, Evangelical Christians will NOT like ths show! They pretty much get savaged in every episode!)

But then I saw the episode, "The Other Cousin."

Half an hour of jokes at the expense of the mentally handicapped. And what's more?  Just a short while after my first born son was diagnosed with Autism. To say that it "hit close to home?" Is a vast understatement. So again... I think I've earned the right to say that I do have some idea what that kind of thing feels like.

And you are still absolutely welcome to disagree with me. Hey: Maybe I shouldn't have let it go.  That's certainly a legitimate point of debate.  Maybe I should have written Comedy Central, boycotted the sponsors, took to the Internet... I did when Michale Savage spouted his Autism Denial nonsense! But I chose to put that aside and keep watching.  And the rest of the series? Was absolute genius.
Am I "over it?" No, not really.

I do own all three seasons of the show in DVD, so they managed to get some money out of me.

But I still can't watch that one episode.

Now what was the point of telling you all that? Well , it brings me to the other half of what I hope will get me to at least the top of the hole, if not out of it.  As a philosophical point, I truly believe that you can joke about anything. Carlin felt the same way, and I agree with him.  It all depends on how you construct the joke.

What's the overall point? Whats the message? What the exaggeration?

For example, my problem with "The Other Cousin" was that the jokes were not about tolerance or understanding or of the challenges the handicapped face in our society, nor were they mocking society for it's stereotypes.  (THAT was the "Terms of Endearment" episode.) The jokes in "The Other Cousin" were just poking fun.  There simply was no context that would make them remotely acceptable.

And just as further roof that I'm not just being too sensitive myself, and thus being hypocritical, as proof that I CAN laugh a little at what life with autism throws at you, there are comics that I read - Clear Blue Water, On the Spectrum, Joey, just to name a few - that use Autism as a source of humor, but do it in an acceptable way.  I'm just pointing that out as further evidence that I am capable in seeing humor even in things that "hit close to home." Again: It all depends on how the joke is constructed.  What the point is.

In the case of the Vaughn joke? As I said, the only way it works, at all, is as an acknowledgement that we use this word, "gay," in ways that we shouldn't.  The message could be stronger, or clearer, fine, (again, it's Vince Vaughn - he's not trying to change the world here) but that still is the only message I see in it.

So what's the point?  What am I trying to say here? Why do I think it's important to let this slide, the same way I let the word "retarded" slide when someone uses it the same way?

Simple: Politics, pragmatism and priority. 

When we get too hung up on trying to control people's language, and trying to go that route to change their thinking? They instinctively pull back.  And it become very easy for our political opponents to simply call, "PC Police!" and, in that one instant, snag up all the moderates who we might have otherwise persuaded to join on far more important, substantive issues.  That doesn't make it right, but it sure does make it easy.

For me? I let the word "retarded" slide so I will be taken that much more seriously on issues like Autism Denial, or Autism Insurance Reform. Give the choice between having people take autism seriously and having my sons' therapy covered by insurance -or- having people stop using the word "retarded" (the same way they use "gay")?  Shoot... if it would help me win on the big issues? I'd start calling things "retarded!"  And you know what? Because of the largely Right Wing canard of "PC POLICE" or "THOUGHT POLICE," we're really not going to get both.  There is no doubt in my mind that we lose traction on the big issues when we let ourselves get hung up on the small ones

So.. . what's in for the LGBT community?  What do I think are the big issues? Those important ones that I claimed to be a strong supporter of?  How about:

Gay Marriage in all 50 states, and at the Federal level?
Company Benefits for Same Sex partners?
Regular Insurance Coverage for GRS?
Hate Crime Legislation?
Equal Employment Opportunities / Anti-Discrimination Policies?
Equal Rights for Adoption?
Striking Down Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

The list goes on and on.  And I am totally with you, 100%, on all of these.  And if I've missed one of the other heavy hitters?  Try me! I'm sure you'll find that we see eye to eye on it as well.  Because I just don't see the "radical gay agenda" as anything but a no-brainer.  Just a group of people who want to be treated the same as everybody else.  (Or course, I might point out how lousy everybody else gets treated, but that's only to say that you might want to aim a little higher, actually! LOL)

And while you can argue that we won't win on the big issues if we don't change how people think about us, I disagree.  I guarantee that you will lose on every single one of these big issues if you keep sweating the small stuff.  And honestly? I think that's a tragedy.  I think these issue are far too important to jeopardize over a lousy Vince Vaughn joke, from a movie that no one would even see if there wasn't such a controversy around it.

Seriously.  Do you know how many people will go see this movie now, for no other reason that this controversy?  (Not to mention that most of them won't see what the big deal was all about?)

Don't believe me? Well, let me ask you a question.

Who is Roger Mapplethorpe?

Unless your a Photographic Art History buff, the only reason you know the answer to that is, back in 1989, some Christian Fundamentalist group got wind of some his work that was going on display in Cincinnati of all places - that great bastion of popular culture and social significance.  It was a small showing, in a small city.  Just par for the course in an obscure art museum, trying to make a meager income attracting a handful of tourists.  But once the controversy took hold? It became a National story! It was huge! Suddenly Mappelthorpe's work is being shown in New York and Chicago!  Everyone wanted to see what all the fuss was about!  The Christian protesters did more to further Mappelthorpe's career that the Art Community had done!

It's true what they say: There is no such thing as bad publicity.

By getting hung up about the Vince Vaugh joke?  You are only helping Vince Vaughn. And you are only hurting GLAAD's and the LGBT community's credibility with moderate people who might otherwise be inclined to support you.

So, for the sake of the "radical gay agenda?"

Let. It.Go.

Some people just make me sick...

I wrote something on Friday, posted it, and then took it down a few minutes later. I’m going to repost it here, as it was originally written, but I want to talk about some of the things that were driving it, other than me just being in a foul, pissed-off mood. Which I was, but… there’s more to it. And remember that all this came, at the time, on the heels of that fucking Phelps piece that I wrote, that I ‘m over NOW (mainly because of what I had writtenTHIS, even though I took it down), but which I was still bitter about come Friday morning when I woke up to THIS, on the radio.

“Petrol Bombs.” Sweet Jumpin’ Jesus Christ! I realize that these are the same people who started WWI and were so vicious in WWII that even the Nazi’s had to tell them to take it easy (not to oversimplify or generalize, mind you, LOL) but come fucking on! If your manhood is so threatened by homosexuality that you feel the need to throw flaming gasoline at people, then either you have some serious problems, or you’re gay yourself and well aware that your "FRIENDS" have some serious problems.

And that was followed up by a story about the same neanderthalism going on in New York. And later that day I caught wind of the remarks made by Carl Paladino, the closest thing we have to an outright thug in politics, now that Kwame Kilpatrick’s no longer in office. And the final tipping point, for me anyway, came when he had the audacity to suggest that someone owed HIM an apology over the remarks!

(I got your apology right here, Carl. And just to show you what a decent guy I am, I’ll let you know: It’ll be coming in high, from the right.)

Oh. My. God. We owe HIM an apology. Apparently because the folks at the church suggested he make the remarks. (1) I doubt that. If they DID suggest anything, I’m sure that what he SAID was not the precise wording they had in mind. (2) Even if they DID, does he repeat EVERYTHING some idiot suggests you do? That would certainly explain a lot, but it doesn’t strike me as being in his character. And I am completely fed up with the Conservative lie that teaching children TOLERANCE somehow serves to “brainwash” them or (infinitely more absurd) “recruit” them. Especially coming from an asshole that just got finished saying “I have nothing against homosexuals.” Yeah… except that you can’t abide spreading a message of TOLERANCE. Which means that you’re just fine continuing to let the LGBT community suffer ostracism, isolation, discrimination, abuse and outright violence. It's very simple folks: We’re all HUMAN. The LGBT community asks nothing more than to be treated LIKE HUMAN BEINGS. (At this point, I might remind them how utterly shitty most human beings actually treat each other; and that they may want to aim a BIT higher…) But a refusal to teach tolerance, and refusal to actually DO something to reverse the trends of abuse and violence, is an indication of nothing more than your feelings that these people are somehow LESS THAN human.  "Governor for all people." That's eay when you consider some people to be less than that.

You know who I think are sub-human? People who think that way.

So while the original post was just inspired by this one asshole, it seems like each passing day I’d get another reminder just how shitty we really do treat each other.
So with that in mind, I’ve decided to repost what I did in Friday. Here it is, as it was:

-----------------------------------------------------------------
You know, some people just make me sick. But go ahead and sign it, for all the good it'll do.



I usually get a pretty good response to my "Person A , Person B" / "Liberal vs. Conservative Resoning" analogies, so here's a pretty blunt one for you:


Person A is homosexual, or does not live their life according to the gender they were assigned at birth.


Person B feels threatened by this person's mere existance in some way and kicks the ever-loving shit out of them over it.


The Conservative sees this reaction as evidence that something therefore must be wrong with person A.


The Liberal sees this reaction as proof that there is something seriously wrong with person B.




Now... If you're Conservative, and you have a problem with this analogy? Look around you. Becuase the anti-LGBT discrimination, biggotry and violence sure as hell ain't coming from Liberals! Those white-trash, fire-and-brimstone, charlatanical pious frauds and the thousands of fainting sheep they're brainwahsing? That's your voting block. If you don't like that reality? Then CHANGE it. (Yeah, only problem is... CHANGE really isn't in a Conservative's nature, is it?)


And if you're Conservative and you DON'T have a problem with this analogy? Then my friend, YOU have some some serious problems.


.
.
.

(exhale)

There. I've used my powers for good and have made ammends for that hideous Phelps piece from the other day.

This house...
...is clean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
LOL. A little bit over the top at the end, but what can I say? At the time it felt cathartic. LOL
But there it is. And should any of the regular Conservative commenters take issue with this (okie, I’m thinking of you), the sad fact is that THIS is why “Conservatism” has become. This is what it means now. I didn’t DO THAT, and nobody asked your opinon about it either, but THAT’S the reality as I see it. One Political School of Thought seeks to move us out of the darkness, out of the jungle. The other? The only other one that has a voice at the moment? Seeks to move us back in. 

(But... I’m going to use that email of yours in a future post, so we debate the details then, if you’d like to.)

Either way. ;)