Question Answered

Aww, stephen77 we're buds, air buds even.

There are things I like about that Louis clip and things I didn't like. There are actually two clips, and I'm going to talk about both. My primary problem (although I have several lesser ones) with the one that appeared on Louis, was it was that Louis was the author of it, which makes it quite disingenuous. It's actually an apology for this clip, which is really, really offensive. In it, he is complaining about how his privilege as a heterosexual to say "faggot" has been revoked (or, more accurately, his privilege to say it without suffering social consequence has been revoked). The idea that he should be free to say "faggot" without actually having to think about the people who that word derogatorily insults is far, far, far more offensive than simply saying it as a derogatory insult.

When it comes to the clip that appeared on Louis, the main problem is that Louis is God as far as the clip goes. He is the writer, therefore the conversation reaches whatever predetermined conclusion he wishes. Which is, specifically, that it is okay for him to say "faggot" on stage. I don't know if this was based on actual discussions or not, but either way, it is the exact same example of entitlement and privilege as the first clip. This time he has a puppet there to explain how he uses "faggot" in the good way. (I still say the South Park episode about the word was the most offensive thing I've ever seen on TV).

A secondary problem that I have with it (and this is more of a problem for Loki who is a linguist as opposed to Loki who is gay), is that the enytmology of "f" presented in the clip is completely false. It has nothing to do with witches or burning at the stake. "Faggot" was a derogatory term for women in the 1600s. The current theory of its evolution is that over the next two centuries it became associated women's work, and in all male dorm's the young male students did "faggot work" or "fag work." We know that for a fact. We think Americans saw this, and heard the term, and thought there was a sexual component to it, and brought it back to America where the word was devoid of the context of work, and became just a derogatory term for men who have sex with men. After that, the new definition crossed back to Britain.

I loved the clip with Chang, because it is specifically making fun
people who use the word "gay" derogatorily. Chang is an immature internet troll given form, and of course he would respond to Jeff giving a heartfelt speech about respect by calling it "Gay." It's a joke about the kind of person who responds to a message board post with "gay," by having the worst person in the show scream it in the middle of Jeff attempting to give a Winger speech. It's purposefully obnoxious, irritating, and stupid and is mocking obnoxious, irritating and stupid behavior. But, of course, the people who are watching it are probably using it sincerely. Which as wonderfully dripping in irony as it is that people who sincerely using a clip that makes fun of them without realizing it, kind of pisses me off.

The reason why the word "gay" means "stupid" (and the same reason that "faggot" means "stupid" to Louis CK), is because of decades of social belief that gay people are bad. Children and teenagers just hear that "gay" means something bad, without actually understanding what that bad thing is, so they use it to refer to bad and/or stupid things. This is actually much more offensive to me than someone saying it to genuinely insult a gay person. Because it means that the person saying it does not think about the words they are saying, actual gay people and their feelings aren't even a concern to merit a moment's thought. Again, it goes back to privilege, they have the privilege to be in the majority and not even consider anyone who is not a part of that majority.

Personally, I use "gay" in an ironic way quite a lot. It's actually useful to me. For example, I say stuff like, "RuPaul's Drag Race is so gay," often. I need a handy word to mean "high degree of homosexual themes and content," but I never use it in that way around anyone who might actually think I'm using it to mean "stupid" or "lame."

You can use the words any way you like, but just think about it beforehand. And don't arrogantly assume that you are entitled to use them however you like, and no one else should criticize you for it.

I Hate Defending Things I Hate...

I hate Glee. It's a pretty show that has weak writing and poor characters. It's the perfect example of a show that pretends to be edgy and artistic, but produces nothing but thoroughly market researched, focused grouped, middle of the road, trite crap. All of which is easily ignorable (like 90% of CBS's lineup), except that it inexplicably gets undeserved massive media attention and awards recognition (like 10% of CBS's lineup).

Needless to say there are many, many, many valid criticisms of Glee. And yet somehow I stumbled across a two part series of anti-Glee posts, that managed not use a single one of them. And put me in the uncomfortable position of actually wanting to like Glee just to spite the author. For the record: Part 1, Part 2

"Glee: The Pinnacle of Cultural Marxism"

Oh, great. We are in for a treat. First off, the idea that Glee, the most overtly pro-capitalist show to air since children's shows specifically designed to sell toy lines went out of style, has anything even closely resembling Marxist criticism is ludicrous. But then again, "Cultural Marxism" is entirely a creation of conservative snake-oil salesmen and exists as nothing more than negative catchall term for anything that limits their social privilege. Considering the racist, sexist, slut-shaming, homophobic entitlement of the author is going to be on pretty open display throughout this piece (as well as his/her obsession with images), it's not particularly surprising that entirely fraudulent conservative bogyman would show up in the title of the article.

"Have any of you heard of the hit show Glee? On the surface it is a show about the trials and tribulations of the high school glee club, but if you actually are able to sit through an episode, it is much more sinister than that."

Why yes, I do think Glee is quite sinister. It makes comfortably mediocre entertainment appear nourishing, and encourages a lack of critical discernment or expectations in its audience. But I doubt that is what you are talking about.

"I have not yet been able to accomplish such a feat, jumping up from my seat and exclaiming about diversity agendas, marxism, and anti Christian rhetoric to my (recovering) Glee-tard youngest sibling and mother."

Wait a minute... those a bad things? One of those isn't even a thing in this show. Another of those things is just a matter of living in contemporary American society (something the author, apparently, hates and chooses to express by writing a blog on the internet.) The third, well there was an episode that was roundly condemned for being both anti-religious and anti-atheist all at the same time. Of course this author is going to go out of his/her way to prove that any offensively over the top behavior by Christians on the show is not offensively over the top enough to be accurate, much less satirical.

"Worst of all, it hits you like a ton of rocks. I like my subervsion subtle, at least don’t insult my intelligence whilst destroying my culture."

I have to agree that Glee is destroying the culture, but I doubt we'd agree with why.

What follows is a quick rundown of the various couples that have appeared on the show's two and a half year history. While obviously there is wonderfully implied offense that the show would actually have gay couples... on a show... about a Glee club, there's also a whole lot of offense at the inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, and even couples where one half is skinny/muscular and the other half is fat. Then, weirdly, even a couple where one member is in a wheelchair.

What's really funny about all this is how obviously the author is getting off on everything he/she is presenting. He/She is not discussing Glee, but rather wondering around the internet looking for pictures of its gay characters making out to be "offended" by. Yeah, I really believe that. When you actually don't enjoy looking a pictures of dudes sucking face with each other, you don't make very, very long, overly detailed picture posts about it.

"'Did you bring the poppers?'

Kurt and Blaine’s first time having anal sex was lauded was 'sweet' by the media.

Someone's clearly spent way too much time researching gay sex on the internet. Whoever wrote this is clearly desperate to write homoerotic Glee fanfiction. What I love about this is there isn't even the attempt at making a case as to why any of this is is in any way wrong. I never saw the "Kurt loses his virginity" episode, but I have a feeling that whoever wrote this would still have a problem with it being called "sweet," even if it was on a bed of roses to swelling music underneath a full moon in Venice, Italy.

After this comes even more pictures of the various couples in various stages of sexual activity. I'm really starting to wonder how many jokes it is possible to make about someone claiming to be morally offended at something they are really getting off sexually on.

"Reminder: Show for young people. Prime time."

You mean like Friends?

Theme: Diversity

You’re only worthwhile if you are different. Tradition and status quo are immoral. White is bad.

Well, I am not sure how diversity could be an actual theme (but then again, I'm not sure how sex could be an actual theme, other than one of the worst episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and this blogger still labeled that a theme). This is one of those cases where the author winds up contradicting themselves with poorly thought out, illogical ideas. If "diversity" was a "theme" then that would make everyone "different" which would mean everyone is "worthwhile." Which would actually make sense within Glee, which is very much in favor of the idea, if inartful about it, that everyone is worthwhile. But, hey, this author is pretty racist and seems to be operating under the presumption that "diversity" and "white people" are diametrically opposed, rather than considering that diversity includes white people.

Also, the entire first episode was about how wonderful and lovely the tradition of the Glee club is and attempting to revive it. If anything Glee is increadibly regressive being incredibly nostalgic already heavily nostalgic productions like Grease. But in this case "tradition" and "status quo" are merely code words for "white, Christian privilege," and "white, Christian entitlement."

As far as "white is bad" is concerned. Just from the copious pictures so far in this blog, Glee has fully 12 white characters, including both romantic leads, both secondary romantic leads, and both teachers.

Let’s play ‘find the heterosexual Caucasian gentile’! (He’s the one in the wheelchair). Oh, and the Asian girl has a stutter (for good measure).

This... is just so stupid I can't even deal with it. We're about to hear the word "gentile" thrown around a lot. And I'm talking a lot. Enough to make you start to wonder about some things.

The villains of Glee represent anti-diversity.

Quinn (also Christian, more on that later)

Sue Sylvester

Both are part of the cheerleading squad (Sue is the coach). All are white blonde Gentiles.

Whoever wrote this is really big on blondes. Really big. Again, things to make you wonder. Anywho, what this particular section leaves out is that the other villains were the Hispanic lesbian and Jewish jock. Not to mention the Indian school principal. And I like how two examples gets labeled as "all."

Terri Schesuter is the bitch wife of the Glee coach and makes his life a living hell.

The author is really excited to use the word "bitch." It's a nice preview of the slut-shaming to come.

The only heterosexual white Christian gentile who is not evil is the guidance counselor. However she is a repressed virgin, has OCD, is a germaphobe, and has “ginger supremacists” parents (we all know what they’re alluding to). A very flawed individual, indeed.

So, apparently, the romantic lead and the head teacher are both evil? There's a lot of stuff in this particular paragraph that demonstrates wild hypocrisy with what's about to come. Also that the author doesn't like flawed characters, or possibly flawed individuals.

The heroine of the show is the underdog Rachel, who triumphs over the evil blondes and gets the guy. She is one the character allowed to be innocent, sweet, and a virgin (up until recently) without any underlying hints of repression or hypocrisy.

Evil blondes and evil Hispanic lesbians.

She is mocked because she is “different” and has two fathers. This family is portrayed as the most functional, fun and happy, while those that mock her have cruel heteronormative parents (more on that later too).

Really? The parents who raised the insane, perfectionist, desperate to be the center of attention Rachel were presented as fun, functional and happy? That's just an example of bad characterization.

You can only gain redemption by joining the underdogs.

You mean like The Mighty Ducks, or every other sports movie ever made? Shocking!

Santana, Brittany, and Quinn (cheerleaders), Finn and Puck (football jocks) — were evil bullies magically transformed into kind souls once they joined the Glee club and embraced diversity and “being different.”

You mean this group that includes a Hispanic lesbian and a Jewish jock weren't diverse prior to joining the Glee club? Not that I ever remember Finn being portrayed as a "bully."

Theme: Christians are assholes

I'm reasonably certain this is the entire theme of this blog.

Quinn, the only overt Christian on the show for some time, is a bitch, a cheater a hypocrite, and a slut.

And here we can start in on the slut-shaming. This author is deeply misogynistic. Quinn, at least in the episodes I've seen, only had sex with one guy (granted she was cheating on her boyfriend when it happened), which really only gets one labeled a slut if you are in highschool or on Maury Povich. Or the author of this blog who loves to label women as "bitch" and "slut."

We are constantly reminded that the bitch is the Christian, via the small cross she wears on her neck.

Sort of like how we are constantly reminded that the bitch who writes this blog is a "Christian" based on the drivel that comes out.

She’s actually such a ridiculous hypocrite that she takes (even ridiculous by Glee’s standards) “prayer breaks’ between sex sessions with her boyfriend. We are constantly reminded that the bitch is the Christian, via the small cross she wears on her neck.

Keep this in mind, because it is going to come back in just a little bit.

The Celibacy Club is also full of hypocrites, judgemental assholes, and cockteases. The motto of some of the girls is….. “Yes to teasing, no to pleasing”

Other than the "cocktease" part, that sounds pretty much like the author. And that quote sounds remarkably similar to lots of things I've heard over the years at various Christian clubs and activities I'e attended.

Lastly is the new Christian character Joe Hart. He is a “weird” (best friend is his Mom, home-schooled), judgmental, space cadet who only gains redemption when he agrees to sing a Valentine’s Day sing-o-gram to a lesbian couple, exclaiming, “Love is love, man.”

So, after complaining, and complaining, and complaining about the lack of good white Christians(while ignoring all the good white Christians), the author gets a white Christian and... is still complaining. And what's with being so offended at Christians being presented as judgmental? The very start of this post was judging gay couples, inter-racial couples, inter-faith couples, couples of different body shapes, and a couple that consisted of one member in a wheelchair. Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness.

Theme: “Loving yourself” moots all value judgement

Oy, this is going to be a chore to get through. Note how just after complaining about Christians being presented as judgmental, the author is complaining about the lack of judgement.

Lauren “owned” that she was fat and loved it, and that’s why Puck fell in love with her….citing her “bad assness”

I'm sorry, but what value judgement is going on here? Because the only one I'm finding is that the author hates fat people.

Rachel wanted to get a nose job and was convinced she was beautiful regardless

Wait... the author wants the show to tell teens to get plastic surgery?

and of course…Kurt. Everyone should “be themselves”

Some one, apparently, hasn't sat through any after school specials. "Just be yourself" is one of the oldest cliches in literature.

I can honestly say that I’d rather my children watch every episode of Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiara’s and Kardashians than even one episode of this thinly veiled propaganda.

After all, this person obviously wants his/her children to hate everyone, but not be judgmental, get plastic surgery, and not be themselves. I'll delve into the idiocy of part two in a little bit.