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

[Greatoneshere]

47 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

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.

 

But they don't mean it pejoratively, so how can it be pejorative? It's meant as political commentary, not anti-gay. They are indicating that Trump is Putin's puppet in the most degrading way possible. Not because the act is degrading that they are mentioning ("taking it up the ass") but because it indicates how much Trump is under Putin's thumb in a vile way. 

 

26 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

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.

 

Again, depends on how it's being presented/used. If it's as political commentary, then no, I do not believe most "liberals" would care (in fact, most didn't when things like that would come up as political commentary during Obama's tenure). It's when it's not political commentary, then it's bad.

[Kal-El814]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

But they don't mean it pejoratively, so how can it be pejorative? It's meant as political commentary, not anti-gay. They are indicating that Trump is Putin's puppet in the most degrading way possible. Not because the act is degrading that they are mentioning ("taking it up the ass") but because it indicates how much Trump is under Putin's thumb in a vile way. 

 

They absolutely mean it pejoratively.

 

It might not be “anti-gay” in the most literal sense, but the implication is unquestionably that Trump and Putin being gay for one another is negative. Looking for nuance in this situation is giving the people slinging the remarks MUCH more credit than they deserve. The notion that Trump is so beholden to Putin that he takes it in the ass from him is unquestionably implying that Trump is weak because he lets another man fuck him.

 

It doesn’t “not count” when it’s political commentary. I don’t get that at all.

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

They absolutely mean it pejoratively.

 

It might not be “anti-gay” in the most literal sense, but the implication is unquestionably that Trump and Putin being gay for one another is negative. Looking for nuance in this situation is giving the people slinging the remarks MUCH more credit than they deserve. The notion that Trump is so beholden to Putin that he takes it in the ass from him is unquestionably implying that Trump is weak because he lets another man fuck him.

 

It doesn’t “not count” when it’s political commentary. I don’t get that at all.

 

The pejorative part is Trump being the sub to Putin's dom, the gay part is something incidental that's a given due to their both being men. 

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Jason said:

The pejorative part is Trump being the sub to Putin's dom, the gay part is something incidental that's a given due to their both being men. 

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

[Jason]

 

[CitizenVectron]

12 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

 

There's nothing wrong with being an employee and someone else being a business owner...but you can still say "man he's not the boss of you!" to someone to imply that they are being submissive to someone else and are an idiot for allowing it.

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

Holy fuck! How in the name of Jupiter's balls did I miss that thread?!

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

And where do they think the notion of sub as negative comes from?

[Kal-El814]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

There's nothing wrong with being an employee and someone else being a business owner...but you can still say "man he's not the boss of you!" to someone to imply that they are being submissive to someone else and are an idiot for allowing it.

Except “business owners” haven’t been historically discriminated against, being a business owner isn’t a personal trait, etc.

 

This is a pretty lousy apples to oranges comparison. 

 

12 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

And where do they think the notion of sub as negative comes from?

Yuuuup. 

[Greatoneshere]

54 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Again, I think this is giving the people saying this stuff far too much credit. Besides, even if you’re going to take that angle... there’s nothing negative about being a sub, either.

 

It’s a lazy fucking “criticism” all around.

 

It's lazy criticism, yeah, of course.  

 

There's nothing negative about being a sub, no one is saying that. There is something negative about being politically submissive in a situation you shouldn't be politically submissive in, and they are using a submissive act to indicate that. The act of being submissive isn't negative, but they are using it to indicate submission.

 

The act of being submissive IS negative in this context. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter how that submission is being depicted. As CitizenVectron said, you can say to someone "he's not the boss of you!" to indicate that you should stand up for yourself without the negative relational dynamic that having a boss is a bad thing. You can do both at the same time and be logically consistent. 

 

Like I said, I see the argument - using it at all negatively implicitly means it's inherently negative due to the association and since the act itself isn't negative (or shouldn't be considered to be negative) then using it negatively means it is against that act. 

 

I think there's a distinction there. 

[Kal-El814]

2 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think there's a distinction there. 

I just don’t think it’s worth making. The implication is pretty clear. 

[Greatoneshere]

14 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I just don’t think it’s worth making. The implication is pretty clear. 

 

But the distinction is inherently in there, that's why some of us who are otherwise very liberal and progressive have no problem with those signs in those pictures. I mean, I have a problem with it because it's not clever, it's (as you said) lazy criticism, but it remains criticism without negative implications for the mere act but rather it's implication of submission. The negativity comes from it's negative political truth, not the act.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

The act of being submissive IS negative in this context. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter how that submission is being depicted.

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, yeah it does and yeah it should

 

You are necessarily saying the act of being sexually submissive is negative when you use it as a metaphor for the political relationship between Trump and Putin. Think about why being sexually submissive is a presumed negative in this metaphor.

[CitizenVectron]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, yeah it does and yeah it should

 

You are necessarily saying the act of being sexually submissive is negative when you use it as a metaphor for the political relationship between Trump and Putin. Think about why being sexually submissive is a presumed negative in this metaphor.

 

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

[Greatoneshere]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Uhhhhh, yeah, yeah it does and yeah it should

 

You are necessarily saying the act of being sexually submissive is negative when you use it as a metaphor for the political relationship between Trump and Putin. Think about why being sexually submissive is a presumed negative in this metaphor.

 

Except: 

 

3 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

 

This.

 

More specifically, I'm not presuming negativity with submission, but I am presuming being submissive can be interpreted negatively, and there are contexts where submission is bad (submission is an inherently neutral concept, whether it is good or bad depends on the context). "Taking it up the ass" isn't inherently negative, but that is one potential context for negative submission, like many other contexts I could create. And there are many other contexts where submission is neutral, or good.  

[The def star]

10 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

Being a sub in a sex relationship is definitely a sign of weakness. Working in the strip club industry for almost 8 years we get a bunch of people who's fantasy is to be made to feel like shit. They want to be called "bitch", "fucker" and call their oppressor "master". That's cool if that's how they off but it's definitely a negative thing. Them knowing it's a negative thing turns them on. I agree that when most people refer to Donny as the bottom bitch is less about the gay part and more about him being the sub in the relationship. Not saying that everyone that has used it meant it that way but in my circle that's how we look at it.

[Kal-El814]

There are countless ways one could describe Putin having one over on Trump. People going to the notion that Trump is Putin’s bottom for a specific reason, not randomly, not for no reason, etc.

 

I’m honestly blown away by the mental gymnastics here.

 

25 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

"Taking it up the ass" isn't inherently negative, but that is one potential context for negative submission, like anywhere else. 

 

Again, you’re giving the people saying this way too much credit.

 

27 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

Because submission (in any context) is seen as weak by society, as someone else has power over you.

 

This isn’t “in any context.” The context is very specific. If people were saying, “Trump is submissive to Putin,” I’d agree that there’s a lack of context and that drawing a line from those words to dom/sub relationships is a stretch. Saying “Trump takes it in the ass from Putin” is really fucking specific. Looking into the literal meaning of those words and divorcing them from the context that was absolutely and deliberately intended is fishing for nuance that just isn’t there. And anyone who says stuff like, “man it must be hard for Trump to walk around with Putin’s dick in his ass,” but who DOESN’T intend for that to be suggest negative things about homosexuality should chose their words more carefully.

[CitizenVectron]

I would view "man it must be hard for Trump to walk around with Putin’s dick in his ass" as entirely about dominance (he is getting fucked by Putin without consent) and not about homosexuality.

[Kal-El814]

5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I would view "man it must be hard for Trump to walk around with Putin’s dick in his ass" as entirely about dominance (he is getting fucked by Putin without consent) and not about homosexuality.

You could split an atom with the razor you’re using to split that hair.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Oh, for Christ's sake.

[Kal-El814]

YO MY BAD

[Jason]

This is clearly the most important conversation we can be having about Trump.

[Greatoneshere]

29 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

You could split an atom with the razor you’re using to split that hair.

 

But that's entirely the point. What CitizenVectron said is clear, no? It's a distinction with a huge difference (to me, obviously) even if it seems like a tightrope, it's still a tightrope and it exists. I'm not sure why you're assuming I'm giving them "too much" credit. Why is that? They're right about Trump being submissive to Putin and their sign indicates as much and yet at the same time I see no homophobia in their actions. Like I said, I'd like a gay person's reading on this, but I see we're going in circles and we agree to disagree. That's okay! I understand yours and sblfilms' points a lot better, and that helps.  

[The def star]

44 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

There are countless ways one could describe Putin having one over on Trump. People going to the notion that Trump is Putin’s bottom for a specific reason, not randomly, not for no reason, etc.

I get your point but the reason most people always go towards a sexual reference to describe a negative situation is because it's the most personal. It's why people tell others people to suck their dick as an insult regardless if it towards a man or woman. It's why we say "fuck you". It's why we say "I got fucked" when something bad happens. No one wants to get "fucked" yet we all want to get "fucked" in a consentual way

[CastlevaniaNut18]

I just feel there are other ways to get your insults across without being homophobic or using words that are offensive to groups of people, like "retarded." 

[Greatoneshere]

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I just feel there are other ways to get your insults across without being homophobic or using words that are offensive to groups of people, like "retarded." 

 

I don't think anyone here who is reasonable would disagree with that, but they have the right to say those things and it shouldn't inherently also mean it's homophobic. It's not the way I'd express myself either, but I don't think their homophobic either is all. 

[The def star]

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I just feel there are other ways to get your insults across without being homophobic or using words that are offensive to groups of people, like "retarded." 

Taking it up the ass isn't strictly a gay thing. Girls do it too ?

[CastlevaniaNut18]

1 minute ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I don't think anyone here who is reasonable would disagree with that, but they have the right to say those things and it shouldn't inherently also mean it's homophobic. It's not the way I'd express myself either, but I don't think their homophobic either is all. 

I side with Kal and sbl on this, period. 

 

And y'all have argued for way too long on the topic.

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, The def star said:

Taking it up the ass isn't strictly a gay thing. Girls do it too ?

 

To be fair, it's pejorativeness (negative relational dynamics) is different with a female context than it is a male one, though the idea of submissiveness remains. 

[Greatoneshere]

Just now, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I side with Kal and sbl on this, period. 

 

And y'all have argued for way too long on the topic.

That's fair, I was just explaining that what you said isn't something anyone on either side of this debate would disagree with is all. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

THIS.

DISCUSSION.

IS.

OVER.

[silentbob]

31 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I just feel there are other ways to get your insults across without being homophobic or using words that are offensive to groups of people, like "retarded." 

 

[PaladinSolo]

 

[Firewithin]

 

[Jason]

22 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

 

 

NO CHAOS, WELL-OILED MACHINE