"I think the European Union is a foe," Trump says ahead of Putin meeting in Helsinki

[CitizenVectron]

18 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

It is absolutely homophobic language. The root of its is misogyny, though. The insult originated from the notion that a gay man receiving anal sex is like a woman by virtue of a man penetrating him, and being penetrated by a man is a way in which a woman’s weakness is shown. If you have to perpetuate ugly narratives about innocent bystanders to make your joke, you shouldn’t make the joke.

 

It is indefensible.

 

I don't make the jokes or comments, I am just curious how people view them. I don't know that I completely agree that all usage of the word "fucked" is homophobic or misogynistic, though. If you take it down to the root level, "fuck you!" could be seen as both. But in reality the phrase has nothing to do with sex at all, and is just used to express anger. To draw a parallel, in Quebec many of the curse words are actually real words used by the Roman Catholic Church. Originally they were used to refer to Church things, like tabernacle. But now, saying "tabarnak!" just basically is like an extreme version of "fuck!" The original meaning is completely lost in the context of the insult or curse.

[skillzdadirecta]

17 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

 

I almost could see how he may have been taken out of context until I saw the full transcript.  How silly of me.

[skillzdadirecta]

11 hours ago, Reputator said:

I can't speak for the gay community, but I'm pretty sure they'd agree that Trump willingly takes it in the ass whenever he meets Putin.

He's definitely "a bottom"... using my limited knowledge of gay slang.

[Chairslinger]

5 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I almost could see how he may have been taken out of context until I saw the full transcript.  How silly of me.

 

I had the same thought process. 

 

I have found that trying to give Donald any benefit of the doubt is like taking Lucy's word that she won't move the football this time.

 

Like with everything else, they take advantage of any attempt by people to be reasonable. Sanders bold faced, gas lighting lie was said with confidence so as to convince those who don't followup on the initial back and forth.

 

Even if this administration was promoting things and issues I liked, I think I would still despise them for their dishonesty. As has been said before, it's not just that they're dishonest, they have shifted the very idea that honesty is an ideal that one should aspire to.

 

[SaysWho?]

15 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I almost could see how he may have been taken out of context until I saw the full transcript.  How silly of me.

 

I watched all three morning shows on broadcast TV and they all put it into context and also showed that he answered a question after the claim that he was ending questions. In addition to that, the ABC reporter who asked the question was on-air on GMA and said there was no confusion or loud noise; he clearly was looking at her and answered her question.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 minute ago, Chairslinger said:

 

I had the same thought process. 

 

I have found that trying to give Donald any benefit of the doubt is like taking Lucy's word that she won't move the football this time.

 

Like with everything else, they take advantage of any attempt by people to be reasonable. Sanders bold faced, gas lighting lie was said with confidence so as to convince those who don't followup on the initial back and forth.

 

Even if this administration was promoting things and issues I liked, I think I would still despise them for their dishonesty. As has been said before, it's not just that they're dishonest, they have shifted the very idea that honesty is an ideal that one should aspire to.

 

And they legit think everyone is a sucker. Trump learned all of this from Roy Cohn.

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I watched all three morning shows on broadcast TV and they all put it into context and also showed that he answered a question after the claim that he was ending questions. In addition to that, the ABC reporter who asked the question was on-air on GMA and said there was no confusion or loud noise; he clearly was looking at her and answered her question.

Sarah Sanders would resign if she had an ounce of actual integrity. "Woman of faith" my ass...

[thewhyteboar]

 

[SaysWho?]

29 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Sarah Sanders would resign if she had an ounce of actual integrity. "Woman of faith" my ass...

 

Like the Huckabee family in general, she's full of crap. Not a surprise, I guess.  

[Greatoneshere]

13 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

1) they’re not alt right

2) it’s homophobic 

 

Except it's not. Again, coding a person and coding a group of people are entirely different things. They may not be "alt right", but the tweet is still stupid either way. 

 

12 hours ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

It's something I've not really thought about, the use of "taking it up the ass" or "bending someone over" as insults. Are they homophobic? To me it seems more of a dominance thing than a gay thing (you are fucking someone, or getting fucked by them). Similar to how someone might say "man I got fucked on that deal." Is "getting fucked" homophobic because of the implication that you as a male are on the receiving end of another male? I am honestly curious if these things are widely considered homophobic. I could be wrong (and opinions can and will change over time), but I've always viewed those sayings as apart from sexuality, and to do with dominance.

 

This.

 

12 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The idea that Trump and Putin having sex together is used to emasculate both of them (particularly Trump here in the US). It's trolling Trump supporters (like the ~90% of evangelicals who support him) not just because he's a puppet or stooge, but specifically because he is that while also engaging in homosexual behavior. The implicit declaration is "your tough guy isn't tough because he's gay"

 

This.

 

11 hours ago, sblfilms said:

It is absolutely homophobic language. The root of its is misogyny, though. The insult originated from the notion that a gay man receiving anal sex is like a woman by virtue of a man penetrating him, and being penetrated by a man is a way in which a woman’s weakness is shown. If you have to perpetuate ugly narratives about innocent bystanders to make your joke, you shouldn’t make the joke.

 

It is indefensible.

 

I am asking honestly: how is it homophobic? I said this in the example with the guy who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple and shaming Sarah Huckabee Sanders by asking her to leave the restaurant. I know we disagreed there too, but there is a HUGE difference between, as I said, coding a person and coding a group of people. Any comedian will tell you that. They aren't shaming or making fun of gay people there, they are making fun of alphas vs. betas and being cucked. It's about power, not homophobia (the intent and context, not how the joke originated, which is irrelevant here).

 

I'm asking honestly because I want to understand: do you really not see a difference between insulting an individual using harsh language that doesn't implicitly insult the group the "insult came from" as may be perceived here? Legally, there are clear differences (look at libel and slander laws). Comedically, there are clear differences. In this thread, some people get the difference. Are you saying one does not exist or you just don't think there's one?

 

Because that's three examples now where you insist that it's an all or nothing proposition. Either the comments are always homophobic regardless of intent, context, and specificity of person it is being aimed at, or they are never homophobic, whether it's the alt right or progressive left. I think things are a lot more nuanced than that.

 

Also, there's a huge difference between the progressive left being "accidentally" homophobic when putting a target on Trump's back specifically (especially when the criticism is warranted with Trump and Putin) and when the alt right intentionally uses homophobia to create hate and fear and incite violence against the LGBTQIA+ community. Surely you see that difference, at least?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

As Russians describe ‘verbal agreements’ at summit, U.S. officials scramble for clarity

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

Um.. who are these people?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Um.. who are these people?

Louise Mensch is a British blogger and former Conservative Member of Parliament that absolutely no one should pay the least bit of attention to.  However, the so-called "Resistance" fawned all over her last year because she's vociferously anti-Imbecile and was one of the first to go all-in on the Russia conspiracy stuff (despite having no real evidence at the time to support it).  Here are a few of her notable hits:

 

During and after the 2016 US presidential election, Mensch's political commentary has promoted conspiracy theories about the Russian government, Donald Trump and people in Trump's circle.[91] Mensch claims she has evidence that Vladimir Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered to make room for Steve Bannon at Breitbart.[92][93][94] She has stated that the 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting was a Russian false flag operation, with Russia posing as ISIL;[84] that "Bannon and his team" were behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres; and that Russian intelligence planted Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.[4] Mensch has also accused numerous people and organizations of being Russian "shills", "moles" and "agents of influence," including founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel,[95][96] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and elements of Mossad (Israel's intelligence service).[97]

 

Mensch stated that President Obama should have responded with "precision bombing raids" and "massive cyber war" in response to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[4]

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Um.. who are these people?

 

You should take a trip down the Louise Mensch rabbit hole.  Endless comedy

 

here’s a taste

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058499/Class-A-drugs-caused-long-term-mental-damage-Tory-MP-Louise-Menschs-candid-confession.html

[skillzdadirecta]

9 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Louise Mensch is a British blogger and former Conservative Member of Parliament that absolutely no one should pay the least bit of attention to.  However, the so-called "Resistance" fawned all over her last year because she's vociferously anti-Imbecile and was one of the first to go all-in on the Russia conspiracy stuff (despite having no real evidence at the time to support it).  Here are a few of her notable hits:

 

During and after the 2016 US presidential election, Mensch's political commentary has promoted conspiracy theories about the Russian government, Donald Trump and people in Trump's circle.[91] Mensch claims she has evidence that Vladimir Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered to make room for Steve Bannon at Breitbart.[92][93][94] She has stated that the 2017 Istanbul nightclub shooting was a Russian false flag operation, with Russia posing as ISIL;[84] that "Bannon and his team" were behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres; and that Russian intelligence planted Hillary Clinton's emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop.[4] Mensch has also accused numerous people and organizations of being Russian "shills", "moles" and "agents of influence," including founder of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel,[95][96] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and elements of Mossad (Israel's intelligence service).[97]

 

Mensch stated that President Obama should have responded with "precision bombing raids" and "massive cyber war" in response to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.[4]

 

 

So she's a British Alex Jones... moving on.

[SuperSpreader]

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 minutes ago, 2user1cup said:

Jesus Christ - that's the stuff of nightmares, Time.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I am asking honestly: how is it homophobic? I said this in the example with the guy who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a gay couple and shaming Sarah Huckabee Sanders by asking her to leave the restaurant. I know we disagreed there too, but there is a HUGE difference between, as I said, coding a person and coding a group of people. Any comedian will tell you that. They aren't shaming or making fun of gay people there, they are making fun of alphas vs. betas and being cucked. It's about power, not homophobia (the intent and context, not how the joke originated, which is irrelevant here).

 

I'm asking honestly because I want to understand: do you really not see a difference between insulting an individual using harsh language that doesn't implicitly insult the group the "insult came from" as may be perceived here? Legally, there are clear differences (look at libel and slander laws). Comedically, there are clear differences. In this thread, some people get the difference. Are you saying one does not exist or you just don't think there's one?

 

Because that's three examples now where you insist that it's an all or nothing proposition. Either the comments are always homophobic regardless of intent, context, and specificity of person it is being aimed at, or they are never homophobic, whether it's the alt right or progressive left. I think things are a lot more nuanced than that.

 

Also, there's a huge difference between the progressive left being "accidentally" homophobic when putting a target on Trump's back specifically (especially when the criticism is warranted with Trump and Putin) and when the alt right intentionally uses homophobia to create hate and fear and incite violence against the LGBTQIA+ community. Surely you see that difference, at least?

 

Intent doesn’t matter in whether or not your language is homophobic or not. If I call you retarded because I think you are making a dumb argument, I don’t intend harm on those who actually are mentally challenged in some way and yet the basis of the insult is in the notion that you are a lesser person for that.

 

You clearly understand what is being

communicated when people make those Trump/Putin jokes, just go one step

further and think about why those are supposedly negative relational dynamics.

[osxmatt]

 

 

 

He wants a second meeting to start implementing what they discussed, which means he made a number of agreements this past Monday.

[Greatoneshere]

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Intent doesn’t matter in whether or not your language is homophobic or not. If I call you retarded because I think you are making a dumb argument, I don’t intend harm on those who actually are mentally challenged in some way and yet the basis of the insult is in the notion that you are a lesser person for that.

 

You clearly understand what is being communicated when people make those Trump/Putin jokes, just go one step further and think about why those are supposedly negative relational dynamics.

 

Actually, I disagree with the notion that if I call you retarded that I'm making fun of mentally challenged/mentally handicapped people.

 

I'm saying: retard also means, colloquially, that you're a stupid person, and if I'm trying to insult you, I could go that route (I personally wouldn't, but I wouldn't mind if someone in front of me did). So long as it was clear. Similarly, if I'm saying Trump "takes it up the ass" from Putin (again, not something I would say personally per se), I don't find that homophobic. I think it would be best to ask someone like @Komusha though since he could provide a better perspective on the difference between how they used it vs. how others use it.

 

I want to be clear - I understand your argument. The language is vile, so it doesn't matter how it is being applied, it seems you are saying. I disagree I think. I'm saying that semiotically the negative relational dynamic doesn't exist here due to the intent, motive, context, and the specificity of the person the language is being aimed at. That is entirely my point, that there is no negative relational dynamic when what is being called out is "taking it up the ass" not because gay men actually do that (which would be insulting and indefensible, I agree), but because it insults Trump, someone who would find that insulting, not gay men. As I said, it's about alpha vs. beta male dynamics and being cucked. It's about power, not being gay. 

 

The difference between insulting a specific person using words that can have a negative relational dynamic and those same words actually carrying that negative relational dynamic depends entirely on, as I said, context, intent, motive, etc. Just my .02 though.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think it would be best to ask someone like @Komusha though since he could provide a better perspective on the difference between how they used it vs. how others use it.

Yeeeaaahhhh...about that...

[ort]

It is homophobic... but here's the thing. It's one person with a sign. Not a spokesperson for all liberals.

 

If liberal A says mocking brunch is homophobic, and liberal B who doesn't know liberal A makes a homophobic sign, it's not a sign of hypocracy. It's two different people.

If you find one article by a liberal that says one thing, and another article by a different liberal contradicts it, it doesn't mean that all liberals are mixed up. It means those two people have different opinions.

 

I mean, this is the most obvious shit in the world and it drives me crazy. Both sides do it all the time and it's just dumb.

[Greatoneshere]

2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Yeeeaaahhhh...about that...

 

Haha, what happened?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Haha, what happened?

He kinda/sorta "rage quit" on us.

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said:

He kinda/sorta "rage quit" on us.

 

Well, Komusha did do that from time to time . . . ah well damn.

[Keyser_Soze]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Well, Komusha did do that from time to time . . . ah well damn.

 

Don't worry, there are other gay people here you can consult!

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Don't worry, there are other gay people here you can consult!

 

I figured yes lolol.  

[Firewithin]

Just now, Keyser_Soze said:

 

Don't worry, there are other gay people here you can consult!

will this be D1Ps niche?  Gay consultant agency?  PCCB was ahead of its time 

[SuperSpreader]

Dialing 1-1-GAY, hello! I need your help!

[MarSolo]

16 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

 

 

He wants a second meeting to start implementing what they discussed, which means he made a number of agreements this past Monday.

 

Seriously, he needs to quit with that “enemy of the people” shit. Because I still hold that fat piece of shit more responsible for the reporters killed a few weeks back than the guy who actually killed them.

[Kal-El814]

I think it’s certainly possible to say, “those two are gay for one another” without it being anti-gay, but the, “Trump and Putin are totally gay for one another,” is absolutely pejorative.

[skillzdadirecta]

33 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

He kinda/sorta "rage quit" on us.

He did? When and why???

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

He did? When and why???

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

49 minutes ago, ort said:

It is homophobic... but here's the thing. It's one person with a sign. Not a spokesperson for all liberals.

 

There have been many signs with the same message, the person standing next to it is very influential among establishment Democrats, and there’s also the NYT video I posted.  Nice try but Trump/Putin homophobia is rampant among the #resistance. If the same message was directed at Obama, these people would be losing their shit.