You see how society reacts to entertainment made for teen girls?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
REUTERS: New York Times Under Fire For 'Homophobic' Cartoon Of Trump And Putin
- Thread starter Redhead On Moped
- Start date
You see how society reacts to entertainment made for teen girls?
The only entertainment I see a really negative backlash too is romance and to be honest adult flicks aimed at women get it too. That said if I missed another I'd be glad for a clarification.
Thank you for explaining why this might be considered homophobic as I wasn't seeing it. If you take the history of using 'gay' as a derogatory term, I can see it.
However, most of these jokes are trying to show how close these two people are. Hand holding (in the west), kissing and sex are usually forms of endearment that show how close someone is to another. Most people won't just kiss someone, so there is going to be a relationship there that is more than just friendliness. Showing these two having sex, which is usually considered the closest to people can get isn't always meant to say 'Ha, their gay' but to say 'These two are so close that they have a sexual relationship' something that is usually reserved for the one person you are closest to.
I'm having a hard time coming up with another way to depict how to show the closeness that these two seem to have. Hand holding could be construed as a romantic relationship. Rubbing feet could possibly be construed as romantic. These two appear a lot closer than just golf buddies, phone calls are made to everyone.
What is another way to depict a relationship that appears a lot closer than one should have with another world leader that can't be misconstrued a homosexual?
So I skimmed that and see their points about the overreaction to trash being trash just because it's aimed at teenaged girls.
And the reaction to twilight was really overblown. It was a horribly written romance but I've read some that were pretty bad in male YA novels and they didn't get that level of venom. That said they also weren't as popular.
I generally stay away from insulting people's looks because it's a low bar and in many cases people don't have control over what they look like. Since it's ingrained in human nature I won't condemn people for doing so, with exceptions like insulting women for being overweight or making fun of a trans woman for looking like a dude.
Do you know why those exceptions exist? Because society treats these people like shit on a regular basis. Mocking people who are denigrated by society does far more damage than mocking a rich fat white guy who had plastic surgery. Kinda like how teen girls are overwhelmingly more ridiculed than teen boys or how gay love is a joke compared to straight love.
Going back to your plastic surgery thing, most people can't afford that shit and the people who can generally aren't as affected by ridicule as others.
I don't really get it? I thought the point of the cartoon is to say that Trump is in love with Putin and that explains his over the top adoration of him and lack of criticism with respect to Russia.
I do wonder though, if the leader of Russia were a woman, would this same cartoon have been made?
I do wonder though, if the leader of Russia were a woman, would this same cartoon have been made?
like others not sure how that was homophobic. Im sure Putin would love to hold baby carrots while on his bear mount.
This is not gay in any way.
Do some of you learn nothing in school?
The Brezhnev(soviet union)/Honecker(east germany) kiss.
This isn't mocking that two heads of state are gay but is used to show how extremely close their relationship is.
And imo that's exactly what the ny times was trying to convey.
It is homophobic, whether intentionally done so, or not.
Also, I don't give two shits what the right thinks about this, as they have zero ground to stand on when it comes to this subject.
Also, I don't give two shits what the right thinks about this, as they have zero ground to stand on when it comes to this subject.
So that's why you have those exceptions for you. Well now I know. I don't agree with them but I see your reasoning.
But we're talking about *Trump* remember? He can afford plastic surgery. Like this entire discussion wasn't about some nameless figure it was about him. I'm not discussing most people. I was asking why bad tans and hair were okay for insults but not other parts of Trump's looks that were changeable.
Edit 2: This is actually my fault because I combined speaking of Trump with generalities so my apologies. For a clarification what I meant was: If someone is in a position that they can afford plastic surgery and they don't are their looks fair game for personal insults?
Last edited:
The point is though, that the punchline is not "they are gay" but "they are lovers". The focus is not on the sexual orientation, but on the specific pairing.
Just in case this isn't sarcasm, the mural and the NY times cartoon are not the same thing.
This is not gay in any way.
Do some of you learn nothing in school?
The Brezhnev(soviet union)/Honecker(east germany) kiss.
This isn't mocking that two heads of state are gay but is used to show how extremely close their relationship is.
And imo that's exactly what the ny times was trying to convey.
This is not gay in any way.
Do some of you learn nothing in school?
The Brezhnev(soviet union)/Honecker(east germany) kiss.
This isn't mocking that two heads of state are gay but is used to show how extremely close their relationship is.
And imo that's exactly what the ny times was trying to convey.
I dont even care if the nyt tried to convey this
*Golf claps*
Your post is the weirdest fun fact ive learnt in a while
I am offended that you would label me as a harasser over my post.
Alright. If that's how you feel I can't convince you otherwise.
I don't care how you make fun of Trump's looks. He's the easiest asshole on earth to make fun of. I just wish people wouldn't use gay men or other marginalized people as a way to attack him.
This is not gay in any way.
Do some of you learn nothing in school?
The Brezhnev(soviet union)/Honecker(east germany) kiss.
This isn't mocking that two heads of state are gay but is used to show how extremely close their relationship is.
And imo that's exactly what the ny times was trying to convey.
If they suck face for long enough, do the liver spots from the left dude's face eventually transfer to the guy on the right?
I'm aware of that. But the poster i quoted said that this depiction of Putin and Trump is homophobic.
It isn't.
And i think the ny times piece isn't either.
You went on a rant about how you were mistreated inside of a thread about LGBTQ folks discussing what is and isn't damaging to their community.
Perhaps my light ribbing will make you take a step back and realize that this is not about your persecution.
Haha holy shit. If you're cutting off donations because internet people made you angry you should really evaluate why you donated in the first place.
It is but lowest hanging fruit will get the most snags. Plus simple insults are easier to repeat and drill into the intended target and will get under the skin more easily.
That's fair.
Many people are going to see the joke and many people are going to perceive it in different ways, which means the joke has done its objective regardless.
User Banned (1 Week): Defense of homophobic slurs and continued inflammatory derailment
. sorry
Last edited:
Are you calling me or Badman asswipes? I think we both technically qualify.
I'd also like to know if your burning fence is somehow tied to this topic.
I can only imagine two reasons for people still defending this unfunny (and yes, homophobic) bullshit:
1) a desperate attempt to maintain their self-conception of wokeness despite engaging in this crap themselves
2) a lingering need to defend the NYT in the face of Trump saying mean things about them 2 years ago - despite the NYT becoming a cesspit of right wing political editorial that undermines any good reporting it does elsewhere
A reminder that you're defending a paper that regularly hires and publishes Iraq war boosters, Israel apologists, fascist sympathisers, and climate change deniers. Fuck them.
1) a desperate attempt to maintain their self-conception of wokeness despite engaging in this crap themselves
2) a lingering need to defend the NYT in the face of Trump saying mean things about them 2 years ago - despite the NYT becoming a cesspit of right wing political editorial that undermines any good reporting it does elsewhere
A reminder that you're defending a paper that regularly hires and publishes Iraq war boosters, Israel apologists, fascist sympathisers, and climate change deniers. Fuck them.
Your earlier post reads like you think the cartoon was referencing the socialist fraternal kiss; regardless of whether you think the cartoon is homophobic, it undeniably depicts a romantic relationship. The description from the NYT's twitter is "Donald Trump's not-so-secret admiration for Vladimir Putin plays out in a teenager's bedroom, where the fantasies of this forbidden romance come to life".
For real though I wanna level with you. Take a break from the forums. Nothing good comes from angry or frustrated posting. I've been there and it's honestly better to just leave the computer and do something else. And really, if you donated to good causes, that was a good thing to do and you should continue to do so if you can. Sorry for piling.
I'm actually offended, if anything I'm a dickwipe.
The NYT is comprised of a multi gendered staff, which does not imply homophobia but compliance and a consensual relationship to an immoral monster.
Would it be homophobic of me to draw a cartoon of Huelen10 French-kissing Trump?
Cos that's all I get from this thread. The cartoon is not homophobic. It's "phobic" of two enemies (regardless of their gender identities) in love with each other, which is supposed to be bad.
Cos that's all I get from this thread. The cartoon is not homophobic. It's "phobic" of two enemies (regardless of their gender identities) in love with each other, which is supposed to be bad.
I quoted someone who quoted the putin trump fraternal kiss and said that it was homophobic.
I quoted the person to explain that the putin/trump fraternal kiss picture isn't homophobic because of its history. I even inserted the picture so that others can understand what i'm saying.
Time to get back on topic, Skelepuzzle BADMAN Brewha you're derailing the thread with this. Please stop this discussion, and especially the hostility. This is about the NYT's comic, not you.
I don't think it's homophobic but the discussion is interesting. You do see a lot of hypocritical bile spewed about Trump from the left; body shaming and insults about his appearance. Aside from being low hanging fruit it's kinda bringing you down to the level of the picks on the right.
And why do you care how people look?
Ah yes the tone police has arrived on their high horses to look down on us lowlife leftist scum making fun of people who put babies in camps. It's good y'all mofos have your priorities figured out!
Optics optics above all.
Ok so here's a general response to this not being homophobic.
It's not homophobic by the standards of what's perceived as homophobia by a lot straight people, but it's still shitty for many gay people.
When you think homophobic, you might think it's about directly attacking gay people or having an obvious agenda of attacking gay people. By that standard this comic certainly isn't homophobic.
What it does do, is it uses the viewer's implicit reaction of men kissing, tweaking nipples, ect. as a way to cause a reaction in the viewer. This reaction is a trigger of disgust or tension in some form. This is derived from a society that still hasn't fully accepted the acts of love between two men as completely normal.
So when I say "man this shit is fucked", I'm not saying that because I think the cartoon is trying to bring us back to the 1950's; I'm saying that it perpetuates a shitty stigma that gay men and women still have to deal with on a daily basis. So no, it's not homophobic, it's just shitty. And I'd appreciate it if people took that into account before saying that lefties get offended by literally everything or any other excuse to invalidate criticism. It's fine if you aren't personally offended by the comic, but at least acknowledge why people might think that it's shitty.
It's not homophobic by the standards of what's perceived as homophobia by a lot straight people, but it's still shitty for many gay people.
When you think homophobic, you might think it's about directly attacking gay people or having an obvious agenda of attacking gay people. By that standard this comic certainly isn't homophobic.
What it does do, is it uses the viewer's implicit reaction of men kissing, tweaking nipples, ect. as a way to cause a reaction in the viewer. This reaction is a trigger of disgust or tension in some form. This is derived from a society that still hasn't fully accepted the acts of love between two men as completely normal.
So when I say "man this shit is fucked", I'm not saying that because I think the cartoon is trying to bring us back to the 1950's; I'm saying that it perpetuates a shitty stigma that gay men and women still have to deal with on a daily basis. So no, it's not homophobic, it's just shitty. And I'd appreciate it if people took that into account before saying that lefties get offended by literally everything or any other excuse to invalidate criticism. It's fine if you aren't personally offended by the comic, but at least acknowledge why people might think that it's shitty.
The joke is about his relationship being a teenage crush, not about it being gay. But the author leaves this too ambiguous.
Some people will see it homophobically as "lol, it's funny 'cos they're gay", but you could make the same criticism about the Brezhnev kiss parody mural. I'm guessing more people understand the context of teenage crushes than know the context of the Brezhnev kiss.
Since we're in "death of the author" territory, the author probably should've made the teenager crush thing more obvious given the history of homosexuality being treated as a punchline in homophobic jokes. It's fast to eat to see it as making fun of homosexuals or treating homosexuality as a thing to be ashamed of.
Some people will see it homophobically as "lol, it's funny 'cos they're gay", but you could make the same criticism about the Brezhnev kiss parody mural. I'm guessing more people understand the context of teenage crushes than know the context of the Brezhnev kiss.
Since we're in "death of the author" territory, the author probably should've made the teenager crush thing more obvious given the history of homosexuality being treated as a punchline in homophobic jokes. It's fast to eat to see it as making fun of homosexuals or treating homosexuality as a thing to be ashamed of.
OP
OP
Melkr_ said:
Is it? Trump's compliments, his praises, his deflections for Putin are not only constant and unflappable, they have this starry-eyed quality to them. He wants to be liked by Putin. He wants to do deals with Putin. He wants to be Putin. It's already almost romantic-like. Apply only a little satire and you have Trump making out with Putin.
Last edited:
Yeah, I get that, but you then said "This isn't mocking that two heads of state are gay but is used to show how extremely close their relationship is. And imo that's exactly what the ny times was trying to convey." You go from explaining how a mural was depicting a diplomatic gesture, not a romantic one, to saying that a cartoon that its own publisher describes as portraying a romantic relationship was trying to portray the same thing. It's fine if you don't believe there are homophobic aspects to either item (I mean I don't agree so maybe not "fine", but you know), it's just that your explanation for one doesn't neatly apply to the other, and in your earlier post that what it reads like you're doing.
Last edited:
