GLAAD mad at Gene Shalit

[kirottu]

Here is a picture of Gene Shalit.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ooh, BABY! Come to daddy... yeah. MmmMMmmmMmm.

[julianw]

But seriously, if you don't think genetics have a bit to do with it, why do you think people choose this lifestyle?  It's not a few oddballs choosing to be different, it's a big chunk of the population.  10% isn't a tiny number.  Why would 10% of the people in this world choose to be discriminated against and treated like second class citizens?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I certainly don't believe anyone can freely shift gear with his/her sexual orientation but that doesn't mean there is absolutely no choice here. Yes, many gay people openly admitted that they failed at their attempts to live straight lives but your population here is biased. As you see, homosexuality is a very private and personal matter. Those who finally decided to openly embrace the lifestyle are certainly going to be vocal about it and those who are ashamed of it and tried to change are not likely going to speak up even if he/she succeeded in the end.

[Hell Kitty]

Well done to GLAAD for doing their job and standing up for gay rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But SteveThaiBinh, standing up for gay rights is just one step away from gay marriage which is just one step away from BABY KILLING FACTORIES and the decline of Western Civilisation!

[LoneWolf16]

People need to grow some ****ing skin... For god sakes, do people have nothing to do with their lives except bitch and complain about things that don't really affect or concern them in any shape or form?

 

And before anybody says "they have every right to complain", they would, if this mattered, at all. He's a film critic. Who gives a flying **** what this guy says about homosexuality? Anybody who does isn't worth your time to begin with, so shut up, ignore it, and move on.

Edited January 8, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[SteveThaiBinh]

BABY KILLING FACTORIES

Soylent Green is babies.

People need to grow some ****ing skin... For god sakes, do people have nothing to do with their lives except bitch and complain about things that don't really affect or concern them in any shape or form?

The stereotyped view that homosexuals are predatory by nature is one that, though in decline, is still held by some, and it's a view that does real harm to gay people as they live their lives. If what this critic said is perpetuating that stereotype, then this does affect GLAAD's members and that organisation has every right to answer back.

[LoneWolf16]

The stereotyped view that homosexuals are predatory by nature is one that, though in decline, is still held by some, and it's a view that does real harm to gay people as they live their lives.  If what this critic said is perpetuating that stereotype, then this does affect GLAAD's members and that organisation has every right to answer back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure it does.

[Child of Flame]

Steve, were you born a total pansy or did you have to get a Liberal Arts degree first?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Steve, were you born a total pansy or did you have to get a Liberal Arts degree first?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Abuse from the board wit. How truly I have been pwned.

[Hurlshort]

This is a civil rights movement. Ask yourselves whether you want to be the open minded fellow who believes no one deserves discrimination and prejudiced stereotypes, or if you want to be on the other side of the fence.

 

I've spent a lot of time studying civil rights movements. Years of my life, actually. It's a subject that gets my blood up, because I can't imagine why anyone would stand against the ideas of equality. People point to religion, to human nature, and to the survival of civilization in order to justify their discrimination. But there is nothing civilized about contempt, intolerance, and standing in judgement of others.

[Judge Hades]

But there is nothing civilized about contempt, intolerance, and standing in judgement of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, but humans will be humans. That is the nature of man, he needs something to hate.

[LoneWolf16]

This is a civil rights movement.  Ask yourselves whether you want to be the open minded fellow who believes no one deserves discrimination and prejudiced stereotypes, or if you want to be on the other side of the fence.

 

I've spent a lot of time studying civil rights movements.  Years of my life, actually.  It's a subject that gets my blood up, because I can't imagine why anyone would stand against the ideas of equality.  People point to religion, to human nature, and to the survival of civilization in order to justify their discrimination.  But there is nothing civilized about contempt, intolerance, and standing in judgement of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh come on now. He's a film critic and what he said wasn't really "offensive" for crying out loud. Screw him! Let him think what he wants, shut up, and go home. You're not going to change his mind by badgering him about it.

 

Let it go, and pick your battles better next time.

Edited January 8, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[~Di]

Talk about overreaction all the way around.

 

Shalitt is a movie critic. He criticizes movies. That's his job. His opinion is his livelihood. Now GLAAD is entitled to be annoyed with his review, but they do not have the right to try and shut him up or harm his career simply because they disagree with it. Some critics called Glen Close's bunny-boiling performance as the "stereotypical woman-scorned histronics." I didn't see any organization leaping from the woodwork to call those critics misogynists and heaping insult upon the organizations which employed them.

 

I haven't seen the movie so I don't know if the lead character was behaving like a sexual predator or not. Now contradicting what some on this thread have implied, a male who persues a female repeatedly with unwanted advances IS a sexually predator; there is nothing "romantic" about it.

 

If a male (or female for that matter) is persuing another male against that person's wishes, is manipulating or coercing that person into a sexual relationship that person has repeatedly said he did not want, that IS being a sexual predator and saying so does not make Shalitt homophobic. At least Shalitt has seen the movie, which is more than most of us here can say.

 

GLAAD has a right to offer a contrary opinion of the movie; it does not have a right to attempt to destroy Shalitt's career because they didn't like his opinion. This has not helped their cause, IMHO.

Edited January 8, 2006 by ~Di

[Lucius]

If a male (or female for that matter) is persuing another male against that person's wishes, is manipulating or coercing that person into a sexual relationship that person has repeatedly said he did not want,  that IS being a sexual predator and saying so does not  make Shalitt homophobic.  At least Shalitt has seen the movie, which is more than most of us here can say.

I've read the story, not seen the actual film, but both of these dudes are gay and very much in love.

 

So now ya know.

[Surreptishus]

I'm glad [GLAAD] are taking [Gene Shallit] to task on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Have you seen the movie Hurlshot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That was my first reaction...but after reading the review, I see the point that GLAAD is making.  I don't have any interest in seeing the movie.  It looks like a lame romance movie, and I avoid those types of movie as often as possible. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

so.. basically you are waffling?

[Cantousent]

Back when civil rights were a hard fought issue, painters, writers, journalists, and others who worked in media were encouraged to remove references to what the mainstream considered "questionable material." For instance, murals of campus life that showed black students or same sex couples were definitely taboo and the artist depicting such people was often put under pressure to change plans or paintings to reflect the prejudices of the day.

 

Now, we have a film critic who gives his honest assessment of a film. Did he specifically target the character's homosexuality? No. The line in question, should the reader not know the characters were homosexual, could apply to a heterosexual couple just as easily.

 

So, the journalist in our day and age is put under the same pressure that we so deplore in times past. Not only that, the threshold for deciding that someone is prejudiced is increasingly low. Freedom of speech is apparently only a good thing when people say what you want them to say. I tell you what, why not go beat on the critic with a stick? After all, he said something you don't like.

 

I tell you what, if this example is the best GLAAD can produce, then shame on them. What that tells me is that they will only be satisfied with reviews, opinions, or statements that convey the message that they, the members of GLAAD, desire. In that case, why do we need critics at all? Why not just have the party most interested in every film be the final word on both the artistic endeavor and the reviews. If that's not enough, let's create some thought police to contain such unwanted criticisms in the future. Every film about Nazis should not only be written by nazis but also reviewed by them as well.

 

Comparing GLAAD to nazis is undoubtedly unkind and a bit excessive, but inasmuchas both groups are keenly interested in muting other views, not merely opposing but offensive in any way, I'd say the comparison holds.

 

If this critic's views are over the line and unwarranted, then it should be apparent. If the offense is as clear-cut as GLAAD suggests, then it should be obvious. It is neither clear-cut nor obvious. Hence, the need for GLAAD to scream murder in the hopes of getting people like Steve to help them pedal an argument that increasingly boils down to restricting our freedom of speech for our own good. Sorry, Steve, I respect the fact that there is no politically correct issue that is not too politically correct for your tastes, but this goes well beyond the pale. The fact that GLAAD's tactics might work only underscores how we, as a society, are increasingly held hostage by a minority who not only desires protection and equality, but preference as well.

[~Di]

I've read the story, not seen the actual film, but both of these dudes are gay and very much in love.

 

So now ya know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the info! Since you've read the book, I'll trust you have an excellent grasp of the characterizations and motivations involved in the story itself. Now, have you also read Shalit's entire review in context? Personally I get suspicious when a single phrase has been yanked out and used to villify someone. I think that's one of the things that has annoyed me about this story... and this thread... the vast presumptions being made with so little actual evidence.

 

I've tried to find the text of Shalit's original review, but no luck so far. However, I've certainly found a bunch of websights labeling Shalit as a homophobe, and worse, because of this review. I'm one of the most intolerant folks on earth when it comes to real homophobia, or anything that denies homosexuals the same rights and protections every other person on the planet has. But I'm not going to chime into a mob scene and start chucking stones based on somebody else's say-so!

[Diamond]

What's good for him is he gets free press. I didn't even know him before that thread.

[Cantousent]

What's good for him is he gets free press. I didn't even know him before that thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I guess that's true. I mean, like Di, I tried to find the original review. Since I never read critiques of movies or books, I guess I should be easier on GLAAD. Everyone ends up helping each other. Weird.

[Lucius]

Thanks for the info!  Since you've read the book, I'll trust you have an excellent grasp of the characterizations and motivations involved in the story itself.  Now, have you also read Shalit's entire review in context?  Personally I get suspicious when a single phrase has been yanked out and used to villify someone.  I think that's one of the things that has annoyed me about this story... and this thread... the vast presumptions being made with so little actual evidence.

 

I've tried to find the text of Shalit's original review, but no luck so far.  However, I've certainly found a bunch of websights labeling Shalit as a homophobe, and worse, because of this review.  I'm one of the most intolerant folks on earth when it comes to real homophobia, or anything that denies homosexuals the same rights and protections every other person on the planet has.  But I'm not going to chime into a mob scene and start chucking stones based on somebody else's say-so!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't read his review since... well I didn't really care to get seriously involved in this thread. I'll take a look at it later on if I can find it.

But I agree, it's unfair to pull stuff outta context.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Lucius

[julianw]

I guess that's true.  I mean, like Di, I tried to find the original review.  Since never I read critiques of movies or books, I guess I should be easier on GLAAD.  Everyone ends up helping each other.  Weird.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's all part of a system of control. The matrix has you, Eldar...

[Surreptishus]

His review was on a tv show so unless there's a transcript or recording we don't have much to go on. Even so what was reported as being said was innocuous with respect to perception of homosexuality.

Edited January 8, 2006 by Surreptishus

[Child of Flame]

GLAAD is so gay.

[Lyric Suite]

"Shalit's bizarre characterization of Jack as a 'predator' and Ennis (

Heath Ledger) as a victim reflects a fundamental lack of understanding about the central relationship in the film and about gay relationships in general," GLAAD said in a statement. "It seems highly doubtful that Shalit would similarly claim that Titanic's Jack (

Leonardo DiCaprio) was a 'sexual predator' because he was pursuing a romantic relationship with Rose (

Kate Winslet)."

 

What if Shalit considers DiCaprio's character to be a sexual predator as well?

 

What the heck is a sexual predator anyway?

Edited January 8, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[~Di]

His review was on a tv show so unless there's a transcript or recording we don't have much to go on. Even so what was reported as being said was innocuous with respect to perception of homosexuality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Funny you should say that. I found the video of the review in question , but since my clunky dial-up would take half the morning to download it I decided not to bother.

 

If y'all are interested in seeing both sides of the argument, and your computer can handle video stream, you may want to give it a peek!

Edited January 8, 2006 by ~Di

[Diamond]

What the heck is a sexual predator anyway?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Also why is it bad to be a sexual predator anyway?