And you think society hates teenaged girls? (and not merely mocks certain behaviors?)
You see how society reacts to entertainment made for teen girls?
And you think society hates teenaged girls? (and not merely mocks certain behaviors?)
You see how society reacts to entertainment made for teen girls?
When the right complain about homophobia, you know they are trying to bullshit you completely.
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.Both are macho windbags who probably think gay equals emasculated. And there is a long and vile tradition of calling people gay to brand them with all the negative cliches attached to homosexuality.
So while the NYT probably didn't intend to attack gay people, the cartoon does evoke and exploit a history of homophobic mockery. It's a valid critique.
Yes but no one's actually using the example as actual people rather than shorthand for certain negative traits. Like no one's actually insulting children when they say Trump acts like a child.
And you think society hates teenaged girls? (and not merely mocks certain behaviors?)
Right we're not going to agree on that so *shrug*
Actually I wasn't implying not making fun of anyone I'm pro mocking everyone (that can defend themselves from mockery). You're the one who brought in the can't mock X rather than Y bit. I was merely asking why were their exceptions to this.
Also once again his hands are a physical trait. So is insulting that a problem now? The whole point of the plastic surgery thing was your "but we can insult looks that people can change!" loophole. If you wanna talk about respect you shouldn't be insulting people's looks.
The socialist fraternal kiss consisted of an embrace, combined with a series of three kisses on alternate cheeks. In rare cases, when the two leaders considered themselves exceptionally close, the kisses were given on the mouth rather than on the cheeks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just in case this isn't sarcasm, the mural and the NY times cartoon are not the same thing.
I'm airing my frustrations. What exactly did you contribute except to say my frustrations are not worth it? You know what, now I'm done donating to helping others, and questioning other things. I need to look out for myself.
I'm airing my frustrations. What exactly did you contribute except to say my frustrations are not worth it? You know what, now I'm done donating to helping others, and questioning other things. I need to look out for myself.
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.
Yup, evaluated. I got people trying to burn my house down and i don't have time to deal with unsympathetic asswipes that like to crash land a conversation i was having with another poster. You do more harm than good. Now rewriting a book with a different meaning. This one will be for Republicans.
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".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.
Yup, evaluated. I got people trying to burn my house down and i don't have time to deal with unsympathetic asswipes that like to crash land a conversation i was having with another poster. You do more harm than good. Now rewriting a book with a different meaning. This one will be for Republicans.
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 don't know about that, maybe? It felt lazy. But the NYT is a Trump ball licking rag anyways so it doesn't really matter since no one should watch or read it anyways.[/QUOTE
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".
Would it be homophobic of me to draw a cartoon of Huelen10 French-kissing Trump?
And why do you care how people look?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.
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.
I've added this post to the OP.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.
How would the unicorns and rainbows work with the joke if it was a heterosexual couple though? Those are symbols of the LGBTQ community.
Melkr_ said:
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.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.