UPDATE: Commenter Ed lets us know that spot has been pulled and will be revised. Read more here.
ORIGINAL POST - 6/24: Not too long ago I was listening to 105.1 The Blaze and heard a commercial for Red Zone Sports Grill, the new-ish sports bar in Northeast Fresno. The commercial was something like, "The Top 10 reasons you should get out of the house and have a beer at Red Zone."
In the beginning, the reasons were predictable and cliché: "Your mother-in-law is in town" -- stuff like that. (Note: I only heard it once, so I don't have exact quotes).
Halfway through came this bomb: "You just found out your son is gay." I did a double-take. Really? They're putting that in a commercial? Just to clarify: The tone was not celebratory. I'm not easily offended, but right away I was like, "Well, I don't think I'll be spending any money there."
I thought about this issue more and started to ponder a few questions: Should stuff like this -- even if the place says it's just a joke -- determine where we spend our money? What about political statements? And what if you like the place? Like really like it? Where do you draw the line?
In the case of Red Zone Sports Grill, it's not too big of a deal for me. I'd never been there, other than poking my head in once, so I don't feel like I'm missing anything by pretending the place doesn't exist.
But then I thought back to election time. A buddy and I were grabbing lunch one day at Tacos Tijuana. Tacos TJ had a "Yes on 8" sticker in its window, a political statement that neither my buddy nor I agreed with. I was disappointed, but he almost outraged. I guess I get carne asada blinders sometimes. (The sticker is down now, FYI.)
I've been trying to check myself on my logic here -- why the Red Zone thing bothered me, but Tacos Tijuana didn't cause me to boycott. I've boiled it down to this:
Tacos Tijuana was taking a stance on a high-profile political issue. Lots of people did at the time. Red Zone's commercial is just an uncalled-for cheap shot aimed at a hot-button topic. Not only is it offensive, it's bad for business.
Wow. I don't listen to the radio so I would've never known about this. Thank you for blogging about it.
I refuse to support any type of business or establishment that feels it's funny to make fun of a persons sexuality. I also refuse to support places that blatantly and flagrantly oppose homosexuality. There is no need for that.
Shame on them. It takes an act of courage to come out to your parents, and that isn't something that should be taken lightly.
Just my two cents....
Well I Guess Im Not Taking My Party Of 15 People There On This Friday.. I Dont Pay To Have Fun At A Place That Advertises H8.. I Would Sugest All Do The Same>>>>>> " Pull Your Buisness From The Red Zone!!!!"
At least, until the commercial is pulled or edited, and the person who runs it issues an apology. Let's not be unjust. PLEASE.
if this is the case are you not going to attend any movie theatre that plays the new movie Bruno? because to me this is an extremely more offensive commentary on the stereotypes of homosexuals... are you going to stop watching cable and network programming because of the "homo-phobic" programming that is aired?
i'm not a religious blogger and only stumbled onto this topic from hearing about it through a friend... i just wonder why mike oz doesn't start a blog stating "why i'll never step foot into a movie theatre", "why i'll never watch cable tv", "why i'll never watch network tv", "why i'll never do anything but blog about things i'll never do".
This is entirely different from Bruno, dearie. For starters, not all of us gays are in agreement as to whether Bruno is harmful. But in any case, it is entertainment and is supposed to be satire, whether it is successful satire is another question and if people feel otherwise, they are free to not pay to see the movie. No one, that I am aware of, would suggest punishing the theatre.
This radio ad is different because it communicates something very specific about the value of gay and lesbian people -- particularly LGBT youth -- and sends a message about the character of the business management that should be of concern to the people who patronize that business.
Personally, I hope the restaurant remedies this situation, and when they do I fully expect Mike to say so and hope he returns to dining at this establishment. Frankly, I am much more concerned with the Taco place mentioned -- to me, putting a Yes On 8 sticker in your window is tantamount to putting a "coloreds only" sign in your window and that is an establishment I WILL NEVER -- EVER -- patronize again.
It's bad for business if they wanted to bring certain segments of Fresno in, but I should think there's a large enough contingency of people that love sexist, or bigoted, or fear-mongering tropes to hear that commercial, laugh "because that commercial gets me!" and go get a burger.
Keep in mind, the owners accept (or reject) what the ad agency comes up with. I would be interested to see what Spot Guru thought up that disaster.
"Spot Guru"...funny stuff, Chase.
BTW, I recently learned from an Indian friend of mine that Indian people find the term Guru highly offensive.
i'm not indian!
Mike dearie -- you just made my day. Could you perhaps pinpoint when you heard said ad a bit more specifically?
As for your asada blinders, we all have them sometimes and that is ok -- but this is Fresno afterall...it's not like there aren't 5000 other asada places. Some, like Tacos Marquitos actually support the LGBT community.
but we'll give you a pass this time because you're such a cutie.
this time!
Afternoon on 6/13, I believe.
Thanks for the pass. Tacos TJ is still delicious -- but it did diminish my opinion of the business, not the tacos.
Well, I have to say that this is just disgusting. I haven't really heard good things about this place anyway, but I won't go try it out for myself now. To take a political stance about how you think marriage should be defined is one thing, but to be so offensive as to suggest that someone coming out about their sexuality is some kind of horrific event that somehow necessitates drinking, that is pathetic. This is the type of closed mindedness that the world needs less of these days.
I agree. I don't think the issue is (or should be) that they hold a different opinion than you. It's that they are being offensive about it and using it as advertising. I don't see any problem with the sign at the taco place. They're just displaying their opinion on a current issue. It's up to you if you want to boycott them for that. To me it seems like not being friends with someone just because they disagree with you politically (which I think is pretty closed-minded myself, not to mention counterproductive).
Thank you for posting this mike. So many layers of wrong; from the client, to the agency, to the station itself for airing it. All are at fault for such blatant homophobia
Agreed.
I find that really disturbing. And easy to spend my money elsewhere.
i know that many of us have used the term gay as an insult in our past, and many of us are working to eliminate any negative connotations from our current usage. well, at least i know that for me. having said that, i realize that sometimes i still use insults that i wish i didn't.
with that preface, it's pretty stupid for them to use it...except we live in a place (the valley) that hasn't always shown itself to be the most tolerant place. and, it was on the blaze, which is billing itself as a rock station that will rock your a** off with billboards featuring only a woman's rear. i can't say i'm surprised. offended, yes. surprised, no. i'm guessing their target demographic is white, 35-55 males.
i wonder if they would've approved it if it were like, "your daughter's dating a black guy."
as to the political thing, it's not quite the same. discriminating against a group of people is actually worse than just demeaning them publicly.
At what point does this post become an ad for Red Zone Sports Grill?
i remember when word got out that (whatever that spot was after the daily planet - coconut club, cadillac whatever) had snubbed reel pride their business tanked. sure, that's tower and not north fresno, but i doubt it's a good advertising to use sexuality as a slur.
i know, all pub is good pub, but i don't know if that's always true.
Maybe before 20+ people started chiming in on how they aren't going to eat there, either.
Maybe, but this is also a skewed population that probably contains younger and/or more progressive/liberal/whatever types than the general make-up of Fresno.
If that's true, this post isn't hitting Red Zone's target demographic, and it's not an effective ad for the restaurant, as couchlock suggested.
Touché
It already has.
And what makes it worse is everyone acting as if Hitler, himself, came back from the grave and went on a rampage, killing Jews and gays.
I do support gay marriage and equality. Absolute equality.
That means if in-laws are fair game, so are gays.
If you want to be an absolutely integrated part of society, that means you'll have to take the occasional jabs, just like EVERY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC and stop acting like every freakin' joke is a political statement, or an act of aggression or hatred.
You want to be part of society? I want you to be part of society.
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-cross, people... lighten the hell up and realize when a joke is a joke.
Political correctness is DESTROYING the 1st Amendment faster than any legislation possibly could.
I could never knowingly support a business that espouses political hatred such as the ban on gay marriage.
Not ever.
But using "you just found out your son is gay" as a reason to go have a beer is not tantamount to banning gay marriage, or gay-bashing.
It's tantamount to, "you just found out your brunette wife has blonde roots" as a reason to have a beer.
When was the last time you bitched someone out for telling blonde jokes because they're racist?
See here C.B.:
Calling people humorless is not a tenable defense.
And no, to set the bar low and say that every group will be jabbed as a member of society is weak. We can and should have higher expectations and no one should have to defend themselves for being offended.
"We can and should have higher expectations and no one should have to defend themselves for being offended."
They should have to defend themselves for being offended over something that was completely harmless.
I call shenanigans on this, and I'm saying right now, that people offended by this sort of thing are a bunch of crybaby prima donnas who seem to feel the world should pamper them and cater to their fragile little egos.
Screw that.
I'm disgusted but not surprised. There will undoubtedly be people who defend this with comments like, "Gawd! It's just a joke, lighten up", and other revolting statements. I personally will not go to The Red Zone Sports Grill and will always reconsider listening to The Blaze for running the spot.
Mike, there is no line to be drawn. Consumer activism is an ongoing series of choices based on available facts, personal wants/needs and your moral compass. Some decisions are obvious (like this one) but most evolve over time.
red zone that is in poor taste shame on you and the radio station
For once in the past two years that I've been commenting here, I think I actually agree with The Real Dave!
I don't know that 'You just found out your son is gay' qualifies as 'making fun of' or 'poking fun' at someones sexuality. Probably could be construed as offensive, I don't know. I don't find it offensive, particularly.
However, seeing 'Yes on 8' I find offensive because it's clearly discriminatory. Had they posted 'Yes on 8' and 'No on 8' to show they're passionate about the subject and promote debate -- that's cool.
Then again, probably best most places don't espouse their political views lest they irritate people who have differing views.
they definitely are using it as a negative. they're giving reasons to go there, as an escape from your life. mike only gives two of the reasons, but one is your mother in-law is at your house and other is your son tells you he's gay. even if the other 8 are like, 'our food is good' it seems that they're using those two as negative/escapist.
Yes, it was very much an "escapist" commercial. Most of the reasons were presented as something you don't like and want to get away from.
I listen to 105.1 the Blaze, religiously....so I hear that commercial all the time. I also find it disgusting. I was utterly appalled the first time I had heard it, it was one of those "did he really just say that?" type thing.
I've never been to Red Zone Sports Grill, and I'd like to keep it that way.
So, Liz, as someone who has heard the commercial more than me, can you help us out with context and recall some of the other "reasons?"
I've had The Blaze preset in my car for since they came along. I'll be changing it immediately, and the Red Zone will have to do without my dollars..
It's 2009! EVOLVE, ALREADY!
A lot of commercials work political and controversial statements into their message, but they are usually a lot more subtle than this one haha. I wonder how they came up with this top 10 list though, imagine it being generated through an anonymous survey, that could be a real story there. Eh it was probably just some bozo working alone though. They should have just taken it one step further like "you just found out your gay son is... pregnant!" or left it alone entirely ... probably the latter.
It sounds like they were just working off the standard stereotypes and canards.
I haven't heard the commercial but I totally wouldn't be surprised to hear that one of the ten was something about it being that time of the month for your girlfriend.
It's tired. It's all so very tired.
i suppose its too much to ask ignorant homophobic business owners to not create ignorant and homophobic ads for their business.
What's a canard?
1 a: a false or unfounded report or story ; especially : a fabricated report b: a groundless rumor or belief
It's also a duck, thankyouverymuch.
A business can doom themselves however they see fit. What gets me is the strength at which the restaurant affiliates itself with the Fresno State University. I wonder how the university administration would react to this ad. Also, I think every openly gay person in Fresno should go apply for a job at the grill. I wonder if they are equal opportunity employers, even if they are not equal opportunity parents.
I get alerts sent me from SAFE, -and this one came up a few minutes ago.
-There was also an informercial on a local TV station that ran sunday night (mentioned in another string) that was pure bullwark about some sort of homosexual onslaught on society.
(SAFE went after it, they're headed after this too.)
-Now the station is supposed to be airing a 'pro-glbt Bible based' program as an apology...
Good.
My wonder is this.
Back during the Prop 8 thing?
Folks were all pissed off and definitely taking stands one way or another (including the then mayor, VERY loudly.)
Then it gets passed, --and it was business as usual in Fresno.
And as much as I'm not into disrupting everyday life? THAT really upset me.
It was all just a big cage match.
Though I realize boycotts can be effective, and rallies can get attention and get the blood circulating?
-What happens with that???
I really want to know WHO wants change?,
--and WHO is going to really speak against this sort of garbage at the source --and take the risks?
You need to understand:
(If) the people (like the former mayor) feel (along with Franklin) that endorsing glbt in any way -not only is sin?,
--but brings down judgement of God on the community and nation (which is preached time and time again?,)
--forget about any sort of 'rights' or 'equal recognition' here in Fresno happening any time soon.
This is a very potent mix of Arts/Govt./Relig.
It shouldn't be happening,
(Yet in the Former Mayors case, it most definitely goes on unchecked.)
--it has it's own broadcasting,
--(and)-- folks around here eat it up.
Further?
Somebody having 'value' is NOT an 'agree to disagree' issue.
(For Example)
(IF) you feel strongly that Mexicans are 'just as human, and just as valuable' as anyone else'
-and yet 'hang and are okay' with people who call Mexicans 'beaners' and/or DON'T correct them?
--you're a hypocrite, and you don't want change.
(IF)you feel strongly that African Amercans aren't to be called 'niggers,'
Nor people from near/far Asia: 'TowelHeads' 'Dots' 'Squints, Chinks and Gooks,'
-you don't refer to women by their genitalia...
-BUT
you hang out 'are cool' with folks who say/act like that?
-you don't care,
and you don't want to see that behavior stop.
When you associate with people who have such radically different (and offensive) behaviors, you say VERY loudly several things:
1. that issue isn't THAT strong that you'll speak against it,(you know, around those who are doing it.)
2. You care more about yourself (and your relationship with that person)
-than to see somebody else be referred to decently
(so, basically 'right/wrong' 'they' get thrown under the bus.)
3. THEY (and anyone watching and hearing the situation)
KNOW by your lack of action 'that it's not that big a deal'
--because you DON'T call them on it,
--and just let them slide.
-because if it really bothered you? you'd tell'em off, get hostile, let them know, --and they'd be 'boycotted' too.
The more publically involved
-and the more well known a figure you are?
-the more people see this going on who will take your cues.
-So if you're still 'close' to people who are into stuff this heavy, and this twisted?
-others will very clearly KNOW that it's a bunch of hype,(and) that it's okay to treat others this way.
(This thread?) we're talking about not going to one business or another based upon their slamming of someone. -okay, that's a start.
-yet, will anyone really go after the rhetoric (even in a public setting like the rally) and speak AGAINST somebody like the former mayor or Franklin...
-probably not.
-because down the road there will need to be business done,
-this is a small interconnected town,
--and if you step on somebody's toes (publically, or in the media)
and they have feelings THAT strong on the issue?
--it will hurt you.
That's how it's played.
-people do not want to be that hard nosed about it.
A lot of people who are glbt in this town don't want to be that hard nosed about it.
(Because the sentiments are sooo strong, (and) it's gonna make a big mess where people 'gotta live and eat.'
IF
this is as big a deal as it is being presented:
'A group of human beings are being stripped of their rights, (and therefore) being called sub-human.'
(and not some barking at one team versus another?)
-than you can't be
'others don't feel the same way,
-and that's fine.'
-This is not something where 'there are equal opposing views that can be respected.'
(Sorry, this is about human rights and dignity, this is based upon (ending) disrespect --or just rolling over and letting it continue.)
You are either for the rights of these (all) people,
-or you 'just don't care (in this area)'
which means, you don't care at all.
-no middle ground here.
You're either furthering (or) stopping a sickness.
"Consumer activism is an ongoing series of choices based on available facts, personal wants/needs and your moral compass."
That was a really good point Skin. Part of evolving and being a more conscious consumer is refining the way we each spend our time and dollas. As a consumer, people should spend their resources (time & money) on things or entities whose values align with their own. Consumers are ultimately investing in things (or ideas) that they want to see more of.
If you LOVE the ad and you really want to see more intolerant kind of messaging, you should totally go to Red Zone & say "hey, I support your business's values." If the advertisement (which represents the establishment) does not fall in line with your personal core values, it would be wise of you to spend your valuable (and often scarce) resources in a place that "better" supports what you believe in. This way, you increasing the likelihood that business's whose values are similar to your own will continue to be around and support what YOU are really about.
There are plenty of places & ideas to spend our time and money on. By taking a moment to think about how that exchange adds value to our life, we become more conscientious consumers and invest in a world we really want to see.
I think this is getting a bit blown out of proportion. I voted "No on 8" and I think anyone should be able to marry anyone they want. I think discrimination is wrong in any form... BUT I have to admit that if my daughter comes to me and tell me she's gay I will be bummed. Not disappointed in her but just bummed. Bummed because I want grandkids, bummed because I'd like to see her live a traditional lifestyle like I live. If she turns out to be a lesbian I'll love her the same and treat her partner with respect and support I would treat her husband with if she ends up being straight. All I'm saying is that before we get on our high horse let's really examine how we'd feel confronted with this kind of news. There's a reason it takes courage to tell your parents. Because they're hoping not to hear it. Most straight parents don't imagine their children as gay so it would be a shock to the system. That doesn't mean those people are gay haters. Trust me, it doesn't make me feel good to admit this. It goes against my died in the wool liberal roots. But it's the truth.
Please don't speak for all parents. While I can appreciate your honest I whole heartedly disagree.
If my daughter came home and told me she was a lesbian, I wouldn't need a drink to help me deal with it.
I would love her and offer her all the support she will need.
Your comment made me as uncomfortable as the advertisement did. A parent's love should be unconditional. Whether the child chooses to live a "traditional lifestyle" or not.
They never said they were speaking for all parents, in fact they made it blatantly clear that this is their own perspective.
Hot4vegas said they support same-sex marriage because they think discrimination is wrong and that any two people should be free to marry. If they're using critical thinking to make their decision, who cares if they had a negative emotional response, especially if they can recognize that there is something wrong about that response. They said it didn't feel good to admit that, which suggests they are as uncomfortable with that reaction as you are.
Hot4vegas, thank you for voting no on prop 8 and for being an ally. Also, thank you for being honest about your own emotional response and thinking critically about it.
Taco TJ Makes Some Good Ass Tacos!!
I have visited the Red Zone before all this and figured it wouldn't last. I live just around the corner and hoped it would be a staple, but the food is not that good and service was bad.
I heard the commercial just the other day and wondered when someone was going to notice.
Anyhow, I know of a place that I would happily drive across town to visit. It's called Hero's. Although, I have only been there twice, I have enjoyed it and will return, unlike my bad neighbor.
I wonder if the people who say "lighten up, it's only a joke" are the same ones who were calling for Letterman to be fired?
I think there's a big difference between being "bummed" that your kid is gay and thinking it's OK to joke about it on a radio commercial.
Your daughter can still have kids, Hot4Vegas. Your daughter just wouldn't be allowed to get married in California. You might want that for her instead, if she told you she was a lesbian.
In any case, coming out is not a joking matter.
EEEEEEE. NOT COOL. I WAS GONNA EAT THERE SOMETIME SOON TOO...
I hate to disagree, but as an almost 50 year old, I am getting a little tired of how sensitive everyone is about whatever their particular issue is.
This was obviously either good or bad humor, but at worst, just bad humor.
It most likely wasn't meant to offend, but to garner a chuckle.
As a white, hetro, Christian, balding, overweight guy, there isn't a day that goes by that someone doesn't say something that I could find offensive.
But honestly, having a deep and honest sense of humor would go a long way at diffusing many of our differences.
I personally don't care what you do with whom, and for some, I am sure this is an issue close to their heart, but like was said above, some fine Guru offensive, some find the bottom of your shoe aimed at them deeply offensive, or shaking with your right hand.
Can't we just admit we live in a very diverse society, and if you disagree with someone, look for some area where you can agree rather than roll out the hate / name calling bs?
Victim blaming and calling people humorless probably isn't the best way to go about disagreeing in this instance.
Your argument essentially calls for homosexuals to get over the fact that their orientation is fair game for pointed humor. Put that in the context of the hate crimes and discrimination that particular population has had to deal with and all it does is force them to concede ground in a debate in which they are already unequal.
Remember that old idiom, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"?
I think the bigger issue at hand is how everyone walks around spring-loaded and ready to take offense at what really amounts to nothing more than trivial BS. Making an off-color comment such as the one in the ad, especially when it really isn't that original/funny/shocking, would be better off left unnoticed by anyone who likes to consider themselves a reasonable person. Until everyone can be poked fun at equally, does equality really exist? Isn't that the ultimate goal?
The quickest way to disarm the harshest of your critics is to be the first one to laugh at yourself, something people seem to forget.
I'll also ad that in the case of restaurants, most of the time the ad is produced and recorded solely by the radio station, not the establishment. Just a little food for thought.
"white, hetro, Christian, balding, overweight guy, there isn't a day that goes by that someone doesn't say something that I could find offensivere "
Sure, that's true, but then reality sets in. You are allowed to marry the person you love, you do not live in fear, the medical community does not look down on you, you are not followed around a store simply because of the color of your skin, you are not told you will burn in Hell due to your religious beliefs....
Let's not play the poor " I'm a white male and it's politically correct to make fun of me" card. At best you are fodder for late night comics, but your life, your L I F E is not at all affected by any of those things.
Ads such as those by this grill are insult to injury. Let's kick a people while they're down. Let's make fun of something that someone can't change.
BTW, I am a 36 year old, white, hetro, married, woman.... trust me, I KNOW how fortunate I am to have been born with the DNA that was given to me.... let the late night jokes come... because at the end of it all I am afforded luxuries I didn't even realize were luxuries.
I look forward to the counter-ad:
Top-10 Reasons to Get a Cosmo at Landmark:
#5: Just found out your son is gay!!! Yippeee!
#4: WAS bummed your daughter came out to you, but turns out your wife did, too. What a relief! Now you're all out of the closet!
#3: WetTowel wrote less than 10,000 words!
#2: MikeOz is buying
and #1 -
Nobody, but no-BODY makes a cocktail like Miriam at the Landmark.
keith says his cocktails are just as good. get them while they last. he leaves fresno on august 1.
This is the problem with urban sprawl. Stuff like this, in the burbs usually goes unchecked for the most part. Mainly due to the fact that you have a community that is pretty much keeps to itself. I prop Mike Oz for attempting to make this matter known to the rest of the general public in Fresno. Hopefully other "respectable" news affiliates shed further light on this outrage in North Fresno. I know for sure I myself will never recommend, eat, point at, or mention this restaurant again in a positive light. I am disgusted by this hate minded humor and hope that Mike Oz and the rest of the Fresno Bee staff continue to shed light on wrongs in this city.
If you are upset about this homophobic radio ad, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!
Email Blaze 105.1 at these addresses:
kororke@lotusfresno.com (GM), JVerdier@lotusfresno.com (Dir of sales), awinford@lotusfresno.com(Prog Dir)
Email Red Zone at this address:
redzonegm@yahoo.com
Tell them that this ad hurts the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community. Tell them that hatred of these groups leads to violence against them. Tell them that they will lose your business if they continue to run these ads. And tell them that homophobia is not okay!
kelli is right, email all the involved parties. let them know that you are not happy with this situation. demand they rectify the situation immediately.
I agree, the ad was NOT funny, NOT amusing, and was in fact horribly offensive. anyone who would support a business who thinks it's not only okay to send out homophobic messages, but uses those types of disgusting comments to try to gain business is just... well... disgusting.
Anyway, if I even were of legal drinking age, I wouldn't go there. I wouldn't even let my friends suggest going there. Maybe if prop 8 hadn't been invented, it would be a little alright with me, but hasn't anyone noticed that the passing of Prop 8 has shortened people's fuses? Like mine. I'm not going to tolerate any of this. It's... just not right.
Yeah, my comment is stupid... I fail with this stuff. (( I'm only a kid, so yeah. ))
(hot4vegas)
-First off, I applaud your honesty. If any of my nieces or nephews came out and said they were gay? In a way, I'd be bummed, -but more because I know what a rough time they're going to be in for, --but also kind of relieved (in a way) in that, at least these days, -their peers are so much more open to the fact that folks can be different and that's still fine. (It wasn't like that when I was growing up.)
(Justa-Monica (Paul) etc.
Part of the problem (here) is that people are so desensitized to bigotry.
It was shocking to move into it (nearly) 4 years ago, and still, the ignorant stuff that people say about other races, genders, (etc.) just floors me.
(That) you're sensitive to it, and that you're like.. ya know what? Enough! ---is a good thing.
There's an old proverb you run into in many different cultures and languages, and it usually goes
'...if you live in a crazy house, you become crazy just to live there.'
It's not healthy to hold views that are so degrading on others, on onesself, and to try to shut down people's (healthy) responses against such garbage.
-and so long as it's 'acceptable' -it's never going to change.
So be bothered, say something, change, -and if you know people who are gay (whether they're out, obvious, or not sure what's up yet (such as if they're younger or just sorting themselves out?)
-By all means, be supportive, realize that you may be one of the few folks that they have that they can count on to accept them for who they are, choose your battles wisely,
-and never start calling 'degrading' behaviors anything less than that.
This is a crazy house.
Try to stay sane.
Fresno will continue to be viewed as a sub-class city because of these thoughtless ads that run in the city's media. It's time class up this city a bit and less inbred-Jed.
When someone says" let's take a step back and relax" or it was "only a joke" or "they were trying to be funny" let's re-examine the line again...
Original: "You just found out your son is gay."
Variation 1: "You just found out your son is Jewish."
Variation 2; "You just found out your son is Mexican."
Variation 3: "You just found out your son is (insert any other adjective)."
Would these same folks find the variations funny? Doubtful. It's offensive and marginalizes people in a way that is insensitive and disrespectful.
They have a choice as to how they want to conduct business. I have a choice as to how I spend my money. Neither Red Zone or 105.1 will see a dime of mine.
The way I see it, shame on the Red Zone for the ad in the first place -- and double shame, maybe quadruple, on 105.1 for running it.
The funny/not funny thing is that this crap comes just less than a month after the two morning drive chowderheads at 98.5 in Sacramento were taken to task nationally for going off for 33 full minutes on transgendered people in general -- and trans kids in particular. (Yes, gay and trans are different, but the sentiment here is similar. And keep in mind the mighty Don Imus lost his previous job for a one-second offhand comment about a group of young black women.) The one guy said if his kid came out as trans, he'd throw his shoe at him and hit him, and later called an 8-year-old TG kid in Omaha a "stupid little fruit." The other guy said if he had a kid come out to him as trans, he'd throw him/her out of the house and tell the kid (s)he would never fit in in society because "we still have moral judgment."
The two guys in Sac had to eat a lot of crow and be all contrite, and ended up doing 2 1/2 hours (commercially uninterrupted) about the transgendered life -- but only after a national letter-writing campaign against the station and after 11 national sponsors dropped the show.
Fresno might be the country's largest isolation bubble, but radio execs certainly know what's going on in their business. For someone at 105.1 to approve the ad was doubly unconscionable ... and to green-light it after what happened in Sac was doubly so on top of that ...
Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but could the commercial be saying, "Get out of the house and go to Red Zone and have a beer ... to CELEBRATE that your son is gay"? ... I'm just sayin'. I've never been there and don't plan to ... unless they clear the air. Then I might want to check them out.
Once this came to their attention yesterday, the station pulled the spot. Not everyone is Fresno is insensitive! Waiting for more...
here's the blaze's response to my email:
Good morning and thank you for your note. Once the issue was brought to our attention yesterday, the ad was pulled off of the air. We immediately contacted the advertiser and asked that they revise the offensive portion of the commercial. They agreed to do so and the ad has been changed.
Best Regards,
Kevin O'Rorke
General Manager
Lotus Fresno
KLBN / KHIT / KKBZ / KGST
1110 East Olive Avenue
Fresno, CA 93728
(559) 497-1100
(559) 497-1125 Fax
kororke@lotusfresno.com
it seems that the blame (at least according to the station) lays with red zone.
This is a great first step. A statement of apology from Red Zone Sports Grill would be a welcome second step, as would a statement from Lotus Fresno who allowed (and likely produced) the ad in the first place.
Score one for the opponents of freedom of expression!
YAY!
You're an a**hole.
Hmm. You're right -- (ab)using that first amendment sure feels nice.
Perhaps I am an asshole.
You have the right to express that opinion as far as I'm concerned.
And, in fact, I support your right to call me an asshole. 100%
Because ONLY by supporting YOUR right to tell me things I may not agree with can I expect the same right in return.
That was absolutely no abuse of the 1st Amendment.
I am a fan of Voltaire's words: "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it".
Curtailing the capacity for people to express themselves humorously, or seriously is a VERY VERY slippery slope.
It has become the norm, these days for anything said that includes a demographic and that demographic isn't spoken of in entirely glowing manner, that people get offended and make bulls**t demands for apologies and censorship.
As Americans, we have by and large become a big fat group of whiny, bitchy, crybabies with a martyr complex.
We need to cut that crap out, and let our balls drop again as a society, and be real people instead of fragile porcelain mockeries of the Americans we once were.
There was a time when Americans were known for their rugged spirit and unflappable attitudes.
We're now nothing like that.
Anything that is publicly said, or written is analyzed by 100+ demographics for anything that could possibly be construed as not being glowingly celebratory and that/those demographic(s) cry, and whine and demand special attention be paid to their "plight".
Rest in peace, spirit of America.
You've been gleefully murdered by crybabies.
They now dance upon your grave and screech like harpies if anyone points the finger at them.
C.B.
I wish people would really understand what the First Amendment says. It says that the GOVERNMENT shall not infringe on the right of people to the freedom of speech. That means that the First Amendment has everything to do with what the government can tell you what you can and cannot say. It has absolutely nothing to say about businesses and companies and the marketplace of ideas.
Red Zone and Blaze 105.1 can say whatever they want about whomever they want. However, they must be willing to deal with the consequences of their words, as we all must. By pointing out a problem with their discourse, we debate the idea in the marketplace of ideas. I believe that their discourse in regards to the LGBT community is wrong. You are free to make your argument as to why you think their discourse is right. We can debate the issue.
May the best and most noble idea win!
Nah. I'm not saying what they said is RIGHT.
What I'm saying is there's no reason for people to get up in arms about a humorous ad.
Let's play a little "what if", here...
What do you think would have occurred if the Blaze and Red Zone had not pulled the ad?
Personally, I feel it would have eventually come to someone suing them.
This is at the heart of why they pulled the ad, I think.
To prevent censorship by lawsuit.
THAT is a First Amendment issue.
And why would they feel they would have been sued?
Because there's precedent.
Censorship for political correctness has already occurred, and will occur in the future.
The crybabies of America are winning.
oooh, slippery slope argument. lemme try one:
what if no one had sued them, and then a member of the lgbt community was assaulted at red zone?
There was something in there about attacking gays?
Strawman.
no, but why not slippery slope whichever way we want?
Okay....
For the short bus...
The slippery slope debate follows a logical direction dealing with issues actually in debate.
We're discussing expression of ideas, none of which have endorsed violence against anyone.
So bringing violence into something where it wasn't endorsed is ... absurd.
logical debate doesn't employ insults like, "for the short bus."
and, slippery slope is a fallacy that should be avoided in logical debate.
You think they might have gotten sued? You are way beyond slippery slope C.B. You are in slippery cliff mode.
There is precedence for limiting speech if it incites hatred or violence. That is a pretty narrow definition, however, and I honestly don't think Red Zone or Blaze were thinking lawsuit.
Again, they have the right to say whatever they want (as long as it doesn't incite immediate hateful violence). But me and my friends also have the right to say we don't like it. We have the right to call, email, twitter all of our friends and ask them to tell Red Zone and Blaze that they don't like their ads. We also have the right to call for a boycott and contact sponsors.
Red Zone and Blaze had to make a decision. They were free to decide to continue running the ad. They were also free to apologize and pull the ad.
This is not censorship. This is debate. This is freedom of expression in action.
Yes. I do feel they would have been sued. It has all happened before, and it'll all happen again.
Any perceived slight, if not immediately pulled and apologized for leads to a lawsuit, these days.
And I do feel that's why they pulled the ad.
And you are correct in an aspect of your argument, you and your friends are all absolutely free to tell them what you think of their ad.
So, when does the boycott of Tacos Tijuana begin?
That's the restaurant that needs to be boycotted.
They espoused official political prejudices to be policy. Vote with your dollars.
the sexual acts that go on between gay men isn't something that i can accept and say, 'oh isn't that nice, they love each other.' so yeah, i would be bummed if my son came out and said he was gay. i wouldn't go to Red Zone to get beer because of that. i have plenty of beer in the fridge at home to ease the pain.
love is emotional and physical. the physical part seems to never get talked about when talking about gay people.
just my two cents. i respect all of your opinions and admire the fight in all of you. i work with a couple gay dudes, have a cousin in law that is gay, and i have a good time talking and laughing it up with all of them. i just don't agree with their lifestyle.
that's it, this is nice article though. great reporting by mike oz. he's on top of the game.
Who's asking you to comment on and/or approve of their sexual acts? If you go to a wedding of straight friends or relatives, do you wonder what sort of sexual acts they'll be engaging in that night? Or do you just join in the celebration of their love?
Mike D, you stated it much faster than I could have. Thank you.
@mdub420--why is it that when people have some kind of problem with the gay lifestyle that they always mention, "but I have a gay friend"! As though that justifies their homophobia? It doesn't. In fact, it only makes it worse. And why do you feel the need to mention that? Is it because you know that the opinion you are stating makes you sound bigoted?
There may be things that I don't agree with about your life (if I knew you). Would that give me license to make fun of you, taunt you, further hatred against you, and vote on your basic civil rights? You would probably prefer that I didn't. Because it is not fair.
That is the reason why homophobia, wherever it is, cannot be tolerated. Because it is unfair and furthers hatred toward a particular group of people. And that is the reason why we all work so hard.
still waiting for the answer to the 'Bruno' question.....
Is making fun of gays an acceptable script for a 'Hollywood' movie? or is THAT ok ?
Will the LBGT community boycott that, or is that artistic freedom?
This restaurant has the right to say what they want, AND the right to reap the consequences as well.
But....I doubt that Sascha Baron Cohen will reap the same outrage from this community.....why is that?
thank you pk... i would love an answer as well...
I don't plan on seeing Bruno for these same reasons.
It's always funny to me when commenters demand the content they want from a website. Start a blog PK. Say your piece on what you want to. Maybe the Beehive will add you to the blogroll.
i understand boycotting the movie bruno... but should the issue be the movie or the theatre for running it. or the television channels, newspapers, or radio stations for running ads or promotions for it just as equally offensive?
being offended is subjective, and if "Get out of the house and go to Red Zone and have a beer ... to CELEBRATE that your son is gay"? was said you would have a blog saying how are world is coming to an end because of homosexuals... to everything said, someone is offended... i miss the days when people had a sense of humor... when you could watch saturday night live, and richard pryor and chevy chase going back and forth with racial comments... no one was offended, and if you were then that was your problem...
Good to hear your feelings about the movie, and
not trying to hijack the comments, but when we are bombarded with ads for this offensive movie it is hard not to ignore the comparison.
A small radio commercial for a local restaurant as opposed to the opening of a *Major Motion Picture* not garnering the same outrage.....
We are naturally more sensitive to things in our own backyard, but the outrage should be much more orchestrated and virulent regarding the wall-to-wall coverage of the Bruno character, and those who are promoting this, a much more insidious problem for the LBGT community.
Blog?....hmmm....just another voice in the wilderness, but we'll see.....
Because Cohen's movies are designed to expose the prejudice of the people he interacts with, not act as a caricature of the prejudged group.
Not to spam or threadjack (but this thread is old and getting done so I don't feel super bad), but for all those who are interested in a large outlet criticizing Cohen and his movie, you can visit here (the fourth post in a series so far).
Essentially, the problem with Bruno is that the character is spawned off of outrageous stereotypes, designed around predatory, non-consensual ambushes, and won't generally make homophobes who see the film in theaters all that uncomfortable with their position on the matter.
I can't remember who said it, since I've read through almost all of these comments, but they mentioned how it takes constant acts to change the way you speak, think, and view all other races and lifestyles.
I agree.
I was raised in a very traditional Italian Catholic family where you just didn't mix with other races. You could be friendly with the gardener, but heaven forbid if you dated somebody who was Mexican/Latin/Spanish. It was fine for them to be close with the black housekeeper, but in 5th grade when all of my friends were black and I had a birthday party with them there... my family wanted to go ape. My older family members still use the racial slurs that they grew up with and they even throw out the comments regarding gays and lesbians.
At a young age I was even saying stuff that would be highly offensive. My Mom told me a story at how when I was maybe 2-3, I was watching a football game on TV. My Mom used to yell, when a black player was running with the ball "run n****r, run!" I was a baby so I had no idea what I was saying and apparently while watching that game, I did too. When hearing the story I laughed (out of nervousness and complete shame) at the fact that I, at toddler age, was saying things like that and it was "OK." It blew me away, and it won't happen with my children because it's unacceptable.
I won't say that I am perfect, or that I am a saint because I am human and I make mistakes. Do I sometimes stereotype out of habit? Yes, but I am not proud of it. I then correct myself. It will forever be an on-going thing but I am fine with it. If I can at least try to better myself, better those around me, better my family... then it will have a rippling effect and hopefully it will spread around to others.
It won't change the world, but if it can change maybe the way 50 people think and act, then I know I made a difference.
Now, at almost 27, I am married to a man who is half Persian, I am a proud Atheist, I still have friends of all races, sexual orientations,and beliefs and I'm proud of it. Hell, I've even had piercings that made my family freak out and I have 3 tattoos. You don't have to be a product of your environment if you don't want to.
Just curious on how the radio add differs from the youtube battle a few posts earlier then this one. With this quote "I have one word that guarantees my victory: Boobs!" isn't this kinda sexist? Could be even demeaning to women? Yeah Mike is just making fun of something that in his opinion is very amusing. Maybe kinda like the Red Zone people. Is Mike getting a free pass? Like Tacos TJ? Pot calling the Kettle black? Or am I just off the make with my observation. Just asking and would be interested to hearing responses.
@Mdub - you loves it when the ladeez do the deed, tho, right? Ah, lesbians...they make the world (and Howard Stern) go 'round.
The gay lifestyle? I never really understand that term. It always seems to end up meaning the act of sodomy, and never holding hands with your lover, two women together, raising a child together, paying bills, watching TV, arguing about money, etc.
It never boils down to even stereotypes, like drinking cosmos whole bending wrists and lisping, or dancing to techno/house or oohing over the nice buns on that cute boy.
It always comes down to 'icchh, two guys kissing is gross.' But two women?
It never seems to deal with Robin McGehee begging Obama to allow folks with the gay 'lifestyle' to serve in the military or to get married. It never deals with fooling the Mdubs of the world with recent sex-changes, with performing in drag, dealing with transitions rooted in genetics, etc.
Nah.
Gay lifestyle always seems to equal sodomy.
Which I'm SURE Mdub has never practiced himself, not even once. And then had a beer afterwards.
Nah.
He's too busy being all cool with his gay cousin-in-law.
Mdub is one of my fave folks, but like so many of my friends, his decisions on this are societal and rooted in childhood teachings....while those darn sodomites and heathens aren't making decisions at all, but rather, acting on the only choices they have in the first place.
But as for the ad on the radio? Eh. Who the hell cares.
As for KMPH playing that 'infomercial' without even thinking of the content? Well, that was just stupid. Very stupid, offensive, and harmful. Choosing to play 'For the Bible Tells Me So' doesn't make up for it, since that film is all inclusive and doesn't have any hate rhetoric at all.
But Mdub? Your squeems over the potential for gay kiddies is really a major part of the problem. Sorry, but that's true.
Silly radio ads? Notsomuch, not really. But it has led to a fun beehive post with responses.
re: 'Bruno'
The type of humor that Sacha Barron-Cohen (sp?) is doing is deliberately NOT PK in any stretch.
It was mentioned above about the Chevy Chase Richard Pryor skit from SNL (a loooonnng time ago) where they started (as an effort to de-sensitize the issue) trading insults back and forth, -jokingly, to show how two media persons of 'opposite' races, could intelligently say the words and NOT let it get to them.
-until Chase dropped 'nigger', and Prior got really quiet, then raised his eyebrows and responded with '...DEAD Honkey..' (his previous insult? '..honkey-honkey..'
-It was meant show that people have their lmits.
-it was also done (at least) 30 years ago.
Jackie Chan, in a modern rendition, walked into a room full of Afr. Americans (gangsters, I believe in one of his more recent films, smiled and said: '..Hello, my nigga...' -and the audience cracked up (and the black guys in the film were pissed.)
'Bruno' --like 'Borat' is a type of humor that is supposed to be 'no-holds-barred' --and really look at the ENTIRE situaton.
It's meant to be 'acceptable' --but it's meant to sort of work as a time-released-explosive.
-Part of how THAT works?
-it shows not only how people deal with the issue of male homosexual (stereotypes(some very real) in public,
-but is meant to show how PC can be little more than a veneer, (and also) how people can push the issue (way) past simply being 'accepted' for who they are,
--and blow past that into really stirring up confrontation with others to provoke them,
-sometimes (out of revenge?)
Because he's opennng a can of worms, (and is doing this by design,)
--he knows that some of these worms are going to belong to everyone.
It's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.
It's what 'Borat' did only on a more specific level.
(I was at a local club a couple of years back where the commedian DELIBERATELY tried to insult and provoke the audience (who had a lot of African Americans in it, -though it was a small audience) -by mockingly say 'praise be to Allah' -several times...(He's white.)
--the audience just sort of sat there and didn't respond,
they didn't laugh,
they didn't get pissed,
they just looked at each other smirked and said '..this guy isn't funny..' -and waited for the set to end.
(-It's a type of humor that doesn't always work, it's not meant to be appropriate.)
'Bruno' like 'Borat' is meant to get everybody to laugh at the characters behaviors,
-and then get everybody to think about 'WHY' they're laughing, or 'WHY' they're uncomfortable(no matter how PC they are.)
It's a catalyst.
Now, tons of commedians do this, (and, like Richard Pryor, RIP)
they will go after 'their own' culturally, --and if they want to do that?
Often it's considered more socially acceptable, (even in the gay community, you'll hear guys call each other 'faggot, queen, queer, and the women refer to each other as 'dyke.'
-but (as they're referring to each other,) it's taken as okay, because they're 'of the tribe.'
The response to 'Bruno' may be different (if) it turns out that the artist is gay, --because then it would be seen (by some) as an acceptable form of slamming, (another definite point in this.)
IF 'Bruno' gets people to talking,
IF it gets people to see the situaton clearly (both sides, --because both sides at times do stuff that are incredibly stupid, self-damaging, -and ridiculous?)
--and they choose to 'deal with their issues'
-and stop?
The movie is successful.
IF
people are going to really 'deal with' the issue of homophobia and Bigotry, (and self loathing and self depreciating behavior,)
--and they choose NOT to endorse the movie?
That's fine too... (the same end result is achieved.)
But IF people are going to boycott and denounce the movie because it makes them feel uncomfortable?
-and they just refuse to deal with their own stupidity,
-and sweep the issue further under the rug, because the movie is 'offensive'?
-(Which already is happening,)
-Than the movie's message about false PC rings true as well.
(and it shows that group of people for what they are...)
This is just this artists way of 'outing' the whole situation and forcing people to deal with it.
It may not be comfortable, people may not like it, but it works and is actually extremely common anymore.
whew.....after reading all that....
So Bruno is supposed to be a catalyst to make us better people like Borat did?!!! Now that's humor!!!
But really....thanks for your thoughtful answer, but basically,I think the movie is just a way for SBC to make tons and tons of money!!!
ps....last I hear SBC is not gay, he is in a relationship and has a daughter with Ila Fisher.
Almost ironic that Mike puts a blog stating he won't patronize restaurants/businesses that offend his loyal followers. However, he then posts a blog about how great of an idea of "CANS for Cans" Tower Movies night is by that SAME radio station. A little mixed up because it is in the tower, talking about female body parts, or continuing to listen to the radio station despite the fact that a lot (maybe majority) of people on here this topic have said they are going to stay away from?
Or should we continue this game and say how offended women should be being seen in that light?
maybe mike oz changed the title before i saw it, but his post is "give canned food, get funny movies."
there is references to cans, the type they're trying to collect, and cannes, the city and film festival in france, but no references to "cans" equaling breasts.
furthermore, this post isn't about the station per se as it is about an ad that this station featured, that could have presumably aired on any fresno station.
...yep, I noticed that too.
Welcome to Fresno.
(this is NO game.)
Well I hope all of you that say you will not eat at the Red Zone keep your promise. That way the next time I go to the Red Zone it will be less crowded and I will not have to wait to get a seat!
kfsn 30 did a story on this tonight, and played three of the ten
your wife is in one of those moods again
your mother inlaw is in town
your girlfriend just left you for your brother
the red zone manager (owner?) said he wanted an edgy ad, listened to it, and approved it, but should've listened more closely. there is also an apology on their website, "The management at Red Zone Sports Grill would like to apologize for the recent radio spot that aired. It was not our intent to offend anyone. Thank you for your understanding."
Owner.
One of my best friends is the other co-owner's (not the one on ch30) wife, and from talking to her tonight, I know that they're kind of doing the human equivalent of tail between the legs. They now know it was a big mistake to air, and are looking for ways to make it up to the GLBT community. One of the things they were hoping to make Red Zone when they were getting started was a place where everyone could come and feel comfortable and welcome.
I hope that they're able to find ways to tell the LGBT community and Fresno as a whole they they're truly repentant for what went over the airwaves, and when that genuine apology comes out, that it will also be received by everyone as such. I can vouch that at least the half of the ownership that i know is not at all homophobic. Definitely a little shortsighted on what makes a good radio ad, though. I'm pretty disappointed about that.
But good job Mike on calling them on it. As much as I love red zone and its management, I think that it is really important to make sure people recognize that the messages they put out there are hurtful and harmful, whether they realize it or not. This is gonna mean rocky times for Red Zone, but it also presents them the opportunity to prove that it isn't their intention and learn from their mistake, which I hope they pounce on. I could totally go for Drag Nite at Red Zone.
They now have an apology up on the front of their website:
http://redzonesportsgrill.com/
.....though they don't say 'what' it is exactly they are sorry about.....perhaps the whole campaign?!
I just read the "More" part of their apology, thinking it would be -- you know -- more.
Instead it directed me to hang out at their "Thirsty Thursdays" instead of at the ball park, which I assume means the Grizzlies' "Thirsty Thursdays."
How does a sports grill not only not support the home team, but co-opt their promotion name in order to take away business?
Still not an ad?
Still not sure what an ad is?
Thirsty Thursdays at the Chuck FTW!!!!
Thirsty Thursdays and taco Tuesdays? Thats a down right promotions jack move.
Answering a question with a question is kinda cute, but mostly annoying.
While I don't really like that type of ad I some how doubt most in here were going to be going to anywhere with the words Sport Bar very much so don't think their losing to much business. Cheap beer and big hdtv and men will come.
"You just found out your son is gay." Oh my word! What were they thinking?
Could have been "I just found out my son works in radio!" or "I just found out my daughter is a radio DJ!"
Seriously, folks, to the owners/management/staff of BOTH Red Zone Sports Grill AND 105.1 THE BLAZE, it's time to attend and successfully complete a diversity training workshop.
Details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversity_training
I suggest people realize that diversity also includes diverse thought processes, and methods of expression.
Homogeneity of thought is the death knell of cultural diversity.
Who's homogenizing thought?? A radio spot contributed to the larger and misguided perception that there is something to be ashamed about when it comes to homosexuality.
Unless you're a homophobe, a bigot, and/or a religious nutcase, you can't criticize those complaining about this instance as crybabies or humorless. It's pointing out the failure of a culture that has normalized the ostracism of whole classes of people.
Getting offended over someone lambasting peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is silly. Getting offended because someone has contributed to the larger trend of bigotry, marked with hate crimes, oppression, and repression, is valid.
Talk about homogeneity of thought. Open your damn eyes C.B.
My eyes ARE open.
There's a bigger picture here, too.
You're looking at a step. I'm looking at the slope.
We've already started on the slippery slope to thought policing, and we need to apply the brakes. And we need to apply them HARD.
I will ALWAYS come down on the side of freedom of expression.
Whether that means someone making a humorous ad, or a drag parade in bustiers and assless chaps, or the KKK or Black Panther having the right to a parade. Until the message turns to violence, and/or political bigotry (like Prop 8), the right to express oneself is fundamentally American. And yes... I think this is blown out of proportion by a bunch of whiny crybabies who can't handle a humorous jab and have a martyr complex.
I voted No on 8 because I believe every non-felon demographic deserves equal rights under the law. Why did YOU vote no on 8?
See... I don't believe in gay rights, black rights, women's rights, or any other demographic rights. I believe in human rights. And we should all have the SAME rights. No bigotry or special treatment for anyone. And that includes the equal right to express yourself.
Humor is humor.
The reality of human nature is that for a straight couple to find out their child is gay is USUALLY a shock. Certainly not always.
Pointing the finger at that is not a bad thing, especially when done in a humorous manner.
Now, if the ad had said, "You just found out your son is gay, and you need a beer before bashing his brains out with a brick." That would have been over the line.
So... why doesn't a gay bar in Fresno take advantage of this?
I can hear the ad...
[announcer voice]
Top 10 reasons to come here and have a mojito:
Your partner's redneck brother is in town.
Blah
Blah
You caught your partner listening to The Blaze.
You just found out your adopted son is straight. And a fundie. Have two... you might need them.
Etc... etc... etc..
[/announcer voice]
They can turn it into a humorous jab, AND make an ad.
And they can make fun of the Blaze (and they might even play it... you never know), and rednecks, fundies, and heteros and it's likely that the only people who would whine about it would be the fundies, and who cares, anyway?
It would be a humorous jab with freedom of expression.
And it'd be funny.
Just like the Red Zone thing is funny.
the red zone does have a right to make such ads. and they did. and then the people spoke up and said they didn't care for this type of joke. and the red zone agreed to remove the ad because it was offensive.
the radio station also decided that they would rather not offend their listeners with this ad.
both entities are free to keep running this sort of ad, should they choose to, but they also have to know that it will have an impact on the way they are perceived.
freedom comes with responsibility. and, the freedom of speech has limits, legally and morally. just because i can say degrading things doesn't mean i should. and, if my degrading statements lead to illegal action, which does happen, i am legally responsible.
could people just shirk off insults? sure. but they can also ask for you not to insult them.
Finally.
A non-emotional, logical response that didn't come down to "I don't like it because it offends me!"
All valid points.
I find it very telling when the idea of gay rights is not allowed to be 'emotional'. Rights... of all kinds are very emotional topics. Those who do not think it is are those who have their 'rights' and don't REALLY care about the people around them.
"Because it offends me" IS a valid arguement when discussing where one will and won't spend one's money.
""Because it offends me" IS a valid arguement when discussing where one will and won't spend one's money."
I agree. 100%.
But, "Because it offends me" is NOT a valid argument for calling for the removal of their ability to express themselves.
You have the right to spend your money (and consequently vote with your dollars) anywhere you wish. And honestly, I encourage it, completely.
What I can't encourage is crybaby martyr crap.
Grow a set.
Picket them if you like (within legal parameters, of course), call them, boycott them, whatever.
Realize, however, that in limiting the capacity for one group to express themselves, you may be limiting yourself, tomorrow.
What was it Nietzsche said? "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."
And free speech IS my right when I want to earn your dollars. Just as voting with your dollars is YOUR right to say, "You don't get my money with that ad."
I STILL see this whole "controversy" as crybaby martyr stuff.
It's been blown way out of proportion for a completely HARMLESS humorous ad.
It's allowed to be emotional.
I just don't have any respect for those who make themselves out to be martyrs because someone learning their son is gay might be cause to have a beer.
It's not even calling for drowning sorrows in liquor, getting drunk, or anything else.
Just ... a beer. For shocking news.
And people act as though Red Zone has called for concentration camps.
The "I believe in human rights" thought is nice in theory.
Thankfully those before you understood that in order to have 'human rights' had a little more common sense, else I would still have no right to vote and little right to work outside the home.
Thank goodness those before you understood that we have to make policies stating that this group or that group ARE human ( look up some very old arguments about slavery to discover how many slaves counted as one 'man').
You can not have 'human' rights till you acknowledge exactly WHO qualifies as human. Sad truth about the human animal is our wish to exclude.
The 'right' to free speech ( as another stated) is simply in reference to the government.
As a people with the 'right to free speech' it is our human duty to call to task a company that wants our money. It is our duty to say "We won't be spending our cash there till you change your ways because we feel you're wrong". We are not infringing on their right to free speech, we are giving them better marketing plans. They are using advertising that we find offensive and harmful towards a group of people. They are using that advertising in order to get people to come into their business and spend money. We are pointing out that there are those of us who will not give them our business.
'Free speech' simply is not your 'right' when you wish to take my hard earned dollars.
You act like this stuff happens in a vacuum, C.B.
Yelling "Fire!" in a theater is not a violent phrase in and of itself. Yet, we curtail that speech because it leads to dangerous situations.
Dehumanizing people, like in this instance where homosexuality is shamed, leads to other people treating them like less than human beings.
Your eyes are not open because you can't contextualize this instance in the larger framework of othering gays, lesbians, trans, etc.
Yelling "Fire" in a theater is completely different in scope than saying, "You just received shocking news... come have a beer."
And saying that it's shocking is also completely different from saying, "You just found out your son is an inhuman gay creature."
You guys make this out to be much more "harmful" than it has the capacity to be.
They weren't calling for violence, segregation, slavery, sterilization, political sanctions, disowning or anything else. They were saying it was a bit shocking, so come have a beer.
The way the ad was framed was that you ought to get a beer because of this set of negative news.
Again, you miss the context. ">As Mike Oz said above, "Most of the reasons were presented as something you don't like and want to get away from."
They weren't presented as shocking, but as negatives.
"They weren't calling for violence, segregation, slavery, sterilization, political sanctions, disowning or anything else."
No, they weren't, but I'll try and explain it for like the third time. When you reduce a person, a subset, a group of people by their identity, you dehumanize them. You remove some of their value. Maybe you don't specifically call for violence, but anyone else that hears it can automatically make the assumption, "Hey, someone else agrees with me that these people don't count as much." It's a validation to others that might be more inclined to violence.
Sort of like all the people who trash talked George Tiller over and over again calling him a mass murderer and such scurried like cockroaches when people started think about their enabling language that certainly did nothing to convince Shelley Shannon or Scott Roeder that violence against the man was undeserved.
Do you understand yet? It's not a harmless joke. And it's not crybaby martyrdom. You call for logical arguments but you're not making any.
It wasn't really any of that.
It was a HARMLESS bit of humor, pointing the finger at the fact that it's shocking news.
It wasn't dehumanizing anyone.
"You found out your son is gay." does not equate to "You found out your son is a sea lion."
They weren't talking about coming and drowning sorrows in gallons of liquor, either.
"You found out your son is gay... come get blind stinking drunk and drown your sorrows." would have also been crossing the line.
But that's not what was said.
It's a matter of scope, as well as perspective.
I'm hetero. I'm a father of 4 kids.
And yeah... if one of them said, "Dad... I'm gay."
I'd probably have a beer.
In the house.
Have I just dehumanized a whole segment of the human population of the Earth?
I won't touch ( much) on the logic of your 'crybaby martyr" logic.
However, it is always distressing to read a 'father' of how many who doesn't see disparenging words as 'harmful'.
As an educator, who has researched more than her share of studies on words and the harm that they cause when in reference to bullying, I can tell you that words do hurt.
When we take something that is the nature of another and make it a put down, make it something that is acceptable to use in holding them back we cause harm. We cause emotional harm. We cause financial harm. We cause harm to over all security.
We cause security harm because it incites further damage by those who wish to cause physical destruction.
Pick a word used against any sex, race, religion and you'll find a case where it's been burned on a lawn, carved into walls, carved into skin.
When we use the First Amendment to justify the EXCLUSION of a group of people based on sex, religion, sexual preference, race, we spit on our constitution.
I take it that you find sexual humor in the work place acceptable as well? Boss to inferior? I take it that race jokes are just fine on a job site? Taunts of 'retard' on the playground A-Ok?
There is nothing that says human rights about any of the above.
Actually, the right to free speech "no matter what" tramples all over the idea of human rights.
Here's the thing, though.
We disagree, completely on what "dehumanizes" people.
Having a beer because someone found out their child is gay is not holding them back, denigrating them, or dehumanizing them.
Disowning them, perpetrating violence against them, berating them... THAT would be holding them back and would be harmful.
This is the funniest thread I've read in months...
I love this discussion.
I would say it is a good thing we aren't waiting for CB's permission to complain. I have a feeling we would still be making jokes to sell products at the expense of women, African Americans, Jews, Asian Americans...well, you get the picture.
You see, it used to be okay to dehumanize women in the same way. It wasn't that long ago you could have run an ad that said you should grab a beer because "your wife just gave birth to a baby girl".
Honestly, CB, I don't care if you do think we are being "cry-babies" or whatever other term you care to use. As a woman, I know how damaging "jokes" can be. And I am going to work as hard as I can so that my LGBT friends and family (especially LGBT youth) don't have to live in an environment that promotes these kinds of harmful "jokes".
Yeah... I don't see the jokes as harmful.
I just can't fathom it.
Racial jokes, women jokes, men jokes, gay jokes, blonde jokes, religious jokes...
It's all meant for HUMOR, not dehumanization.
"I just can't fathom it."
BINGO!
And I still can't fathom how it's denigrating or "dehumanizing".
At worst, it's a harmless jibe.
It's not Auschwitz.
Usually those who don't see these types of "jokes" as being harmful are rarely the butt of them.
And I am talking about these kinds of "jokes" as being part of the public discourse, in advertisments and such. And these kinds of "jokes" are being told in the larger context of homophobia, inequality, and violence.
So, yeah, they are a problem whether you can fathom it or not.
Having heard plenty of jokes about males, blondes, southerners, white guys, fat guys, bearded guys, old people, gamers, geeks and even people with big feet.. I can safely say I've heard these kinds of jokes, and have been the butt of them.
And yet... here I sit... unoffended by any of them.
I know they're meant in jest, and I've never been the victim of violence by any of the people who told the jokes for any of the reasons the jokes were told.
Although, in Fresno in the '70s, and in Texas in the '80s, I was attacked for being white. But I don't recall any of my attackers telling white jokes before hand.
Anecdotal evidence.
The large collection of societal data tells a different story.
Societal data tells that having a beer after finding out your son is gay is directly responsible for violence, denigration, and other forms of bigotry?
At this point, you should just go outside and argue with a brick wall. Probably get the same result.
Likely.
As I'm not terribly apt to change my mind.
I'm an old Constitutionalist Libertarian who believes in human rights, and the equal opportunity for all to peacefully express themselves. No matter their demographic.
I know... I'm quite the bastard.
Ha, I figured you were a libertarian.
Nevermind, have it your way. You keep making inappropriate jokes, offending people, and then telling them they're crybabies.
Some people like to be bullies.
Oh noes!
Libertarians were just dehumanized!
I'm so offended!
Libertarians should shake and line up lawyers, now!
I hope your boys turn out better than you did.
Who said they were boys?
Girls can't be gay?
My goodness... is that misogynistic?
You assumed I meant boys. Wow... should I be offended? I'm not really sure if that's reason enough to be offended.
Would a crybaby please tell me if that's sufficient reason to be offended, and line up lawyers?
I apologize for the assumption. I was reading hastily and thought I saw the word boys.
What's really great is that I absolutely mean my apology. And guess what? My quality of life, still super. It didn't ruin my day one bit to have to say that I was sorry for that.
To be honest... no apology is necessary.
See... I wasn't offended.
I even said so (albeit in a facetious and sarcastic manner).
So... why apologize for something that was not offensive?
And that's a part of my point.
I didn't want an APOLOGY, I wanted you to see how innocent words can be construed as offensive by people TRYING to be offended.
And how much crap it is to be offended by such.
And I just want you to see that you're imposing motives on everyone in this thread. You're essentially saying that our feeling of being offended have been constructed solely for the sake of wanting to be offended. Which is ridiculous.
You've consistently glossed over all my points about the joke othering a whole set of people, regardless of intent. Bigotry is embedded in our culture. We're socialized with it.
Pointing out "harmless" jokes like this is an attempt to reverse that socialization, to say that it's not okay to make these jokes, regardless of whether you have to right to or not.
This isn't about rights or intent. It's about a little bit of empathy. It's about understanding that the words you say have an impact on other people and it's not your job to denigrate their reaction but to adjust your behavior. Have a bit of selflessness in your life.
Wait... you're saying I *HAVE* to empathize with the offended?
"It's about understanding that the words you say have an impact on other people and it's not your job to denigrate their reaction but to adjust your behavior."
So... I say something that someone can find fault in, and *I* have to adjust my behavior?
Screw that.
That is the heart of censorship.
And I refuse... R E F U S E to sit idly by and give in to censorship.
To quote a bit of bumper-sticker philosophy: Censorship is un-f***ing-American.
Ooh! I can bring up something like Wet Towel does...
Hitler liked censorship too!
*chuckle*
Tell me C.B.
What did you expect to accomplish by joining a thread filled with people who had already expressed their being offended and indiscriminately calling people cry-babies and martyrs?
You certainly weren't seeking to persuade anyone with language like that.
Empathy doesn't mean agreeing. It means understanding. You didn't come in here with understanding. You came in here with preconceived notions and name calling.
All you've done is damage your position.
I expected to engage in conversation with people who have a martyr complex and post my point of view (especially ABOUT martyr complexes), and be amused and entertained at the responses.
I've not been disappointed.
Granted, the persecution people in my demographic suffered is in the distant past (look up "Saint" Olaf Trygvasson for details), and seeing the actual REAL persecution of those distant ancestors, I can see that a joke at my expense is ... less than inconsequential. It's nothing. Humor. It's not even worth thinking about past the initial laughter I get at hearing the joke.
I learned a long time ago, that if you can't laugh at yourself, you have no business laughing at anything.
And I feel laughter is important to sanity.
And sacred cows make the best hamburgers.
And tri-tip.
Who are the martyrs here? Who are the crybabies?
(btw, the misuse of both those words by someone who claims he wants a 'logical' debate is the most amusing part of this thread).
Not one person thus far has stated "I'm gay and my feelings are hurt".... so, there goes the crybaby theory.
Not one person has stated "I'm gay and am being persecuted".... there goes the martyr theory.
And one last little note... your 'sacred cow joke' only furthered YOUR slide into infantile posting behavior.
Though I heartily disagreed with you, in the beginning, I had a bit of respect for your version ( though, flawed) of logic. I at least respected that you tried to find logic in your non belief belief system.
You should have stopped while you were ahead. Your true self has shown through in your later posts.
What I normally put (though I may have missed the caveat a time or two) is people with a martyr complex, and yes... that's what it is.
People who WANT to be offended, people who have the desire to feel like martyrs, people who have some need to feel as though they're being persecuted because of a humorous ad that finding out your son is gay is a valid reason to come have a beer at a sports bar.
Read the thread... people are talking about how the joke is equivalent to the persecution of Jews, Gypsies, gays and pagans in Hitler's Reich.
People are saying that it's the equivalent of beatings and murders...
That is definitely a martyr complex.
And the crybabies are those who are acting like the small bit of insignificant humor is such a moral equivalent.
Though the discussion has evolved, my point remains.
They should have the freedom to express themselves with that humor.
And you absolutely have the right to vote with your dollars, and even let them know you're doing such.
Again, that's expressing yourself. And you NEED to be free to do so.
My view is also that every demographic group has the right to express themselves freely (as long as it doesn't call for violence).
And I think a gay bar taking that ad and turning it around would be just as amusing (especially if it was satirical... and doubly so if the announcer voice was what the stereotype of a gay man sounds like, though still amusing if it were a jazzed guy, or "ANNOUNCER VOICE").
That, to me, is the best way to fight this sort of advertisement.
Turn it on its ear and use it to further your own businesses. And doing it in a way that makes fun of people who seem to usually cause grief to gays.
A guy I used to hang out with til he moved to the Bay Area used to tell this joke:
____________________________________________
"You know what the difference is between a straight guy and a fag?"
Straight guy: "What?"
"A 6-Pack."
people laugh...
Jokester: "Hey man... want a beer?"
_____________________________________________
So... in hearing the joke (by the way, the jokester was gay... flaming, really), and laughing at it, was I participating in the denigration of a segment of the population?
Or was I laughing at a joke?
Was I being morally equivalent to Hitler, Himmler and the rest of the Reich?
Or was I laughing at a joke? Told by a gay man, to straight men. And I was on the receiving end of that joke... more than once, actually, since sometimes he'd tell that joke to someone new and then ask ME if I wanted the beer.
So, the question is... was I being morally equivalent to a rapist, murderer, gay basher, or some other sort of wildly, violent homophobe... or was I laughing at a joke about gays and straights?
Gah. You really are purposefully obtuse.
No one is saying that the commercial=nazis.
Normalizing language that dehumanizes (you'll have to read up on it because earlier you made it clear that you don't understand what it means) can eventually lead to the normalization of attitudes like those held by people who commit hate crimes.
It's really not a difficult idea to follow, for most people.
Read Wet Towel, and Claire's posts...
They're totally saying that the commercial DOES equate to Hitler's Reich.
First: I am curious as to how skinny ths paragraph can get.
Second: Adam doesn't usually read what I write, (no biggie.)
Third: I AM saying that at the ROOT of the joke (the one we're initialy talking about) and the ROOT of the reasoning behind the justification and denial of Nazi Germany to do NOTHING about the lessening, rounding up, and persecution of others?
---Lies the same thing.
Might as well call a spade a spade.
We can even acknowledge that they (glbt and jews were included in the same bloody acts of atrocity.)
Understanding history?
We can even acknowledge that among the persecuted were their OWN kind acting as agents in the round-up, policing, and extermination...
(basic fact, there are traitors on all levels, and in the end people will do extreme things in efforts to self-preserve... that's just how it is... doesn't make it right)
Again:
for me this is not a heavilly debatable issue, and somebody like Adam may chime in with 'only Siths deal in absolutes' or some such thing. (maybe not.)
But that's okay. We're two very different people.
The point is On this there ARE only two sides:
-Being 'For'
the rights of (all) others (which means shutting down those who are perpetrating the removal of said rights (mockery being part of how they do it.)
-Being 'against'
those rights, and joining into, (and agreeing) that those others have no right to exist.
That's all there is.
Simple.
Done, Boom, --who's got lunch?
Big part of the problem?
Folks just don't want to stand up and say
'..yeah, I feel and act this way or that way, and that's where I am on this.'
I'd say that I respect somebody who can speak clearly and say what it is that they are about,
--but I'll never have respect for someone who feels 'justified' in ruining somebody who is guilty of just 'existing' and wanting to live like anybody else, and be left alone.
(And that includes with jokes.)
This is simply what it is.
I don't have to agree with somebodys views to defend them,
and that they have mine certainly is not reason for any sort of alliance.
A person can be a total schmuck and have a right to a happy life as they want (good or bad,)
--that is until part of their happiness depends on the degrading of others, --then (if) what I believe in and stand for is worth anything?
I need to comment, otherwise I become a liar and a fraud, (now, that's me... others are entitled to their own feelings on the issue.)
But 'ones own rights' does not include the 'right' to devalue and trash somebody else.
I appreciate your clarity, but I absolutely disagree with your standpoint.
And oddly enough, I'd fight to the death for your right to let your standpoint be known.
And that, for me, is the root of the discussion.
Whether or not people should be allowed to express themselves in the way they want (as long as it doesn't call for violence).
No matter how absurd their views (take the KKK and Black Panthers, for example... ooh, and the SPLC and ADL... completely absurd views, but I still feel they have the right to express them), they have the right to express them.
Where is the line drawn?
It is drawn when absurdity turns to a call to violence or political segregation/prejudice as policy.
That, to me, is why the original blogger's views are ass-backwards. In my view, he should have taken the stand against the restaurant that espoused political segregation (and face it... that's what it is... Jim Crow laws for gays) as official policy, and been rather indifferent about the sports bar's ad.
I just wanted to see if my comment made it in the skinny line column. I have nothing of substance or quality to add to this enlightening conversation.
I'll just keep reading.
If my comment does not fit in the skinny section, it is probably because I am too heavy to be considered skinny. Of course, by "too heavy" I mean of normal size. Normal size is now considered heavy by society's standard.
Ok...back to reading. I think I am getting to Wet Towel's comments...
How skinny can this column get, do you think?
Will it come all the way down to single letters?
I
d
o
n'
t
k
n
o
w
Damn, this thing is skinny like emo jeans...
Do you see what just happened?
You did PRECISELY what you've been bitching about other people doing.
I could easily construe from your reply that you are saying all Libertarians are bullies.
And because "we" are all bullies, it's okay to denigrate us, or become violent against us because we're "bullies". Not people.
Do you see, how you went from victim to perpetrator?
I rather doubt it, actually.
All that having been said, I do NOT construe that from your post.
But having said what you said, it would be easy to take exactly your tack and go that route with it.
You didn't mean it that way, and neither did Red Zone.
I do see that. And I'm willing to admit that I shouldn't have.
And yet, you still continue to fail to see the context (in this particular example, there is hardly a history of people lashing out at libertarians in violent and hateful ways).
Intent is besides the point in regards to Red Zone's ad. I accidentally say offensive things all the time. That it is an accident doesn't change the fact that it's offensive.
You're still thinking in one dimension.
The point is that you didn't mean it that way, and I shouldn't take it that way.
BUT, what you said COULD be construed as offensive, if I were LOOKING to be offended by it.
Fortunately, I don't have a martyr complex, and I'm not looking for offense where you're not offering one.
See how that works?
Context (in this situation) is also everything..
-same thing in 'humor.'
1. THIS area has been ground zero for one of the largest rifts (religiously) in the history of the Internatonal 'church,'
(which all other major denoms are watching,) --specifically over how 'genders' are seen.
-The legal battles are raging on, generations of families are being split like crazy, and properties and such are being taken back and forth --with a lot of people's personal and spiritual identity completely being thrown into a tailspin
-Over simple ethical treatment of Women and Gays.
(I'm speaking of the Episc./Anglican split.)
-So yeah, Fresno, stand tall... folks are literally shaking and lining up lawyers based upon the backwardness of this area.
That this involves other denoms, (that) this was the first area to really blow out and reconfigure (with ramifications world-wide) --and that a ton of people in this area are 'people of faith'
--which still dictates the local govt? is a big deal.
2. This is also an area where there was just a massive rally intended to bring the issue of gay rights (and marriage rights) back to the forefront, (yet) where two women who are partnered were maligned in their treatment at an area hospital (which is supposed to be neutral in medical treatment) --and THAT is being picked up by the ACLU.
To a lot of people the context is '...this is Fresno, this is funny in Fresno, people say dumb s**t in Fresno and it's okay....'
-Then someone in the media catches it, it goes past 'did they just say Fresno,' and people realize how bad they look, (and act) and get all offended.
People (here) don't understand this,
--nor why it's such a dependable hot-button,
--sort of like how people who own cats can live in a house that wreaks of litterbox,
--and not even smell it.
But as soon as you talk to people (from here) OUTSIDE of here, --and as soon as folks move? It's one of the first things you are told.
It's basically understood (nationally) that this area of California is 'narrowminded and backwards.'
If this area REALLY wants to be seen differently?
Change.
Radio Ads like this, TV programs like what was aired, and public figures who are saying stuff like this --NOT being shouted down?
Just furthers that image.
(BTW: I voted no on 8 because it was denying somebody basic municipal rights, --it didn't even have to go deeper into 'moral' stuff. -it's just plain illegal to do what has been done.)
It's about time people realized that making fun of somebody who's glbt is wrong.
Because this area is so bigotted, 'Normal' in this situation, and in this area is far from 'Normal' (or constitutional) in any other area.
Fresno, in how it handles this issue, can and will be judged (in front of everyone) by the rest of the US --rightfully so.
It's not debatable.
Hating people is wrong and treating them as inferior? (unless you're 'here') is wrong.
Until that's addressed and stopped
(that directly, 'addressed and stopped.')
-this place just looks more and more 'mouth-breather' and rightfully so.
"-So yeah, Fresno, stand tall... folks are literally shaking and lining up lawyers based upon the backwardness of this area. "
Thank you, Wet Towel, for proving that part of my point.
I'm not sure if you understand what it is that I'm saying.
-Countrywide (in a ton of different denoms, thousands of churches, millions and millions of dollars in property (and occupations, pensions, etc... it's staggering how much is involved with this,)
Whole Denominatons (not just a few churches) have been watching this play out --and have been watching here.
I get asked about it, and it gets referenced in conversations (far from) just locally.
-This was the first and most blatant area where astonishingly incorrect legal moves were done, (now being fought out in the courts) and not too few laws broken, entire town pops. altered and neighborhoods changed,
--all over a Single church leader who views being 'gay' as a sickness, (and won't allow anyone who is 'out' to have much involvement, (much less leadership) -and refuses to allow 'women' to be in leadership (with very limited involvement.)
That blew up here, (that 'had' to blow up here, in a way? there was no other place where it could happen so dramatically and so thoroughly...)
Why?
Because it isn't just one wacko who had homophobic and mysogenistic ideals,
-but has thousands of people (all from the valley) who are in strong agreement, (or have no spine to speak against it.)
--and thought nothing of dancing this thing off the end of the table.
(The leaders from other countries that they 'joined up' with? have no problem with burning homosexuals alive, apparently.)
-and that's just one (relatively small) denom here in town.
There are other churches that are massive in comparrison who think Pr. Franklin is a type of hero-martyr, --and needs to be stood with.
That degree of 'agreement' with hating glbt is here. (Based in Fresno.)
Kidding about this and taking this lightly?
-is sorta like openning up a home furnishings store that has big discounts shown in the windows for all lamps made of human skin (with prison numbers)
--at a town with a known prison closed prison camp in Germany or Poland.
--only that's a history that they've vowed never to repeat,
--here? Same type of subject is an ongoing 'debate' and (source of humor.)
People here don't realize how bad this is (because) they're living in it.
Maybe it's a type of coping humor, (I dunno.)
But even discussing the mindset of bigotry, (about gays or whatever) of here, to other areas? Even in a very 'non-biased' way, brings looks and responses of 'you gotta be kidding.'
People here just don't realize how serious this issue is, (nor) how other areas are taking their cues, (or shaking their heads in disbelief) over what's considered 'normal,' here.
Beautiful.
I couldn't have said it better, myself.
:D
You see what he said in his post?
Saying that receiving news that having a gay son is an okay reason to have a beer equates perfectly to selling lamps made of human skin that were made from Jews killed in the holocaust.
I love this guy.
Please... keep posting!
Obviously, your knowledge of history is very limited.
Oh... do tell.
History happens to be one of my very favorite subjects.
Please... enlighten me as to my shortcoming, here.
Let's keep simple.
Since you stated you have 'friends who lost family to genocide'.
Germany started by looking for someone to blame for the state of affairs. Some guy came along who spoke loud and had someone to blame it on. It was the "greedy Jews" who were to blame for the unhappy lives of the 'pure' Germans. They were to blame... it's all their fault.
( anyone to look up how gays are being blamed for the 'moral' downfall of our society to draw a parallel?)
This guy was a bit nuts, but he spoke loud enough, found someone to blame, and got an entire country behind him. Basically, he lied ( sort of like how the church lied in advertising during prop 8)
You don't think the Jew jokes were happening then as well?
I, personally, KNEW a woman who escaped ( after walking past her entire family being gunned down in front of their store. She was 16). She and my grandmother would have Sunday brunch together and discuss their teaching years. Both women, saddly, have passed.
Of course there were jokes. Let's not forget that Jewish women were being taunted, molested, or worse, young boys were being taunted and beaten, or worse.( don't see any connections yet?). Then rights were being taken away. Homes and businesses were being seized.
But the jokes were harmless? Advertisements stating that this company was a good "German" company unlike the one across the street that belonged to a "Jew".
Words...words, words, words.... all harmless... the jokes were harmless, the finger pointing, the name calling, all harmless, right?
The first small step to dehumanizing a population begins 'harmless'.
History.... it's not just dates and names and locations.
If you understood REAL history ( dare I write HUMAN history) you would know that.
Man... that's some SERIOUS moral equivalence.
"You just found out your son is gay. Come have a beer." is morally equivalent to beatings, killings, rape, attempted genocide, and concentration camps....
I'm ... astounded.
And more than a little amused.
I once knew a guy who still had the numbers on his forearm.
Sadly, I lost touch with him ... close to 20 years ago.
I don't think he'd agree with you, to be honest, and frank.
Just a few weeks ago a trans woman was beaten in Queens with a belt buckle while her two assailants repeatedly called her a "faggot".
Of course, you won't be able to make the leap between enabling and allowing the use of language and implications of shame in this commercial to people committing hate crimes.
You can't fathom it.
Maybe someday you will.
Hm. My reply got unhitched, here...
It was supposed to go here...
What was it you said?
Anecdotal evidence?
Isn't that how we dismiss (as irrelevant) any particular evidence that isn't part of a numbered statistic?
*edit*
At least particular evidence we don't want to count?
Oh, I'm sorry you didn't realize that was just one of the roughly 1500 hate crimes perpetrated against the GLBT community each year.
You really are as callous as I imagined.
Actually... I'm likely far more callous than you ever imagined.
I'm also likely one of the first people who would stand up and fight for absolute equality under the law (with all its rights and responsibilities) for all Americans, regardless of what non-felon demographic to which they belong.
I'm also one of those people who believes the only 10 Commandments we need in America are found in the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States (and yes... I know there are far more amendments than that, but the first 10, the bill of rights, should be absolute, and should be the only 10 commandments displayed on public property).
I guess part of it is that I so often see people actively trying to be offended by things people say, that I've grown cynical of it. And honestly, I see most of the offended as being disingenuous about the offense.
They purposely take the "offensive" material and really make mountains out of mole-hills.
And after a time, it becomes almost its own joke.
"How far will it go?"
Well... the punchline changes every time.
It's nice to meet someone who can divulge the true genuineness of anonymous people on the internet. You've apparently developed a knack for transposing your ideas about someone's motives and what they might truly be.
Congrats, it's a surefire way to never lose an argument because you're not actually arguing with anything but your perception of the person you're talking to.
Nevermind the logic, just tell me what I really feel and why I really feel that way, C.B.
I'm done with this. I don't look forward to the next run-in with you.
It's certainly your prerogative to think that way. :)
But if you can't see that many of the "offended" are purposely taking it too far, and can not possibly be as offended as they let on... well...
I think your perception may be a little unclear.
That we're in agreement that the same mentality that could reduce part of society as being inhuman, and worth only to be rendered for the enjoyment of others,
-could do the same (and in a lot of countries DOES do the same presently) to others based upon their gender identity?
Not sure if that's exactly a happy bond there, C.B.
In reality, what I'm saying is:
If you do not see the equation, that reducing (any) part of the population as being 'lesser' and just fine to make fun of,
--very clearly is the same as showing complete ignorance to such ideals that fueled the holocaust,
--and that if you're not actively seeking to stop that mentalty, you're actually a part of it.
That (May) or (May Not) make your day.
I'm saying anyone who claims to be on the 'sideline' in this issue, really is claiming a stance that does not exist.
There is no 'neutral ground' when you have rights being denied.
-You either think it's fine to do so, or you see it as an affront and that it has to stop, (which includes 'kidding around' about it.)
-Or you just put it off and say 'I dunno, I dunno, lets debate.'
The problem is: This has already gone down and has already played out (60 odd) years ago, when the govt/religious views of the day did with the glbt population (as well as gypsies, Jews, dev. disabled, and religiously different denoms.)
--and rounded them up and began killing them.
(No doubt you're familiar with that aspect of the Third Reich.)
If you listen to the rhetoric and reasoning of the churches that are so vehemently against glbt rights? -there is a paper thin veneer that, when looked at clearly, goes to the point of saying 'it's not us who's judging these peopel, it's themselves (by not choosing to be different) and then God (who gives them diseases, etc.) and we're trying to love them...'
--that's just great until enough things begin to happen (with weather/govt/public health)
--and suddenly they start hearing from 'God' that the reasons why this is affecting 'everyone' is because they (the churches) failed to 'deal with their problems in society' --glbt being the big heavy right now.
Legally? they can't round up glbt and kill them. (legally,)
-But legal is a funny thing, isn't it?
-And when you get enough people in agreement, and they're following an irrational reason, --that's as self-justified as 'God told me/us' -not much can stand in the way of it.
Why say this?
It's the exact irrational (yet) very very well capitalized upon methodolgy used by the Third Reich, --and other countries even today.
(With a whole bunch of folks sitting around saying, '...well, gee, we didn't know that was happening and it was going THAT bad...')
When in reality?
Everybody knew, (most) everybody chose to look the other way, --and a ton of people were exterminated.
Some exterminations take a matter of seconds or minutes.
Some take years, and that whole time between it starting, and your heart stopping? The exterminated person is alive.
In a very real sense, the glbt commmunity is living in a slow death,
that can hasten at any minute,
--and finds its way (despite) what is 'legal.'
-That is why, this is such a serious issue, and why, even with a 'level board' (which it far from is,) this is going to be a rough climb.
(Laugh a minute, right?)
Do you mind if I save your posts to show to some people?
I have a couple of friends with grandparents who they know died in the holocaust.
I want to show them how "You found out your son is gay." as a reason to have a beer equates to genocide and making (and selling at a discounted price) lamps made of the skin of their grandparents.
And please... keep this going...
I'm always sure to put down my tea before reading your postings, now... spitting once is enough.
you know camp survivors? I know camp survivors.
Hell, I know people who's family were both 'in' and 'at' the whole thing as employees. (East Coast, lotta Jews, Lotta Poles, Lotta Germans, etc.)
Yeah you can show them that.
And they'll also understand that the foundations of rounding up people and killing them off (to begin with) was over a political/religious ideal that had hijacked judeo/christian teachings (mostly some weird interpretations of Martin Luther, -but there were a lot of others,)
--and how that mindset, once established? Made it okay to go after anyone who did not fall into the agreed/endorsed governmental/religious understanding of what was 'right/acceptable/worth reproducing' --and what was (first) an aberration, and (finally) seen as the reason why God witheld his blessing, (again: because the people who were responsible for God, and following God did NOT clean up 'the mess' (deviants,) -they wouldn't prosper, and they were not just threatened by 'deviants' --but were in enmity with God Himself.
That's how that all happened.
It was very opportunistic and very well done,
--but it's easy to feed people stuff like that when they're starving and in complete (financial, etc.) disarray --as Germany was after WW2.
(What's really wild? 'camps' (labor/death/etc) existed in Germany by the thousands... they were in towns big and small, and apparently there was no way possible for regular folks to 'not see,' what was going on...
-Basically the dept. of public works was a small concentration/work camp.
Why I'm pointing this out?
Here in Fresno, (here in this area of California) you have a group of people who are seen as inferiors, hated by God, a threat to 'decent society,' and who are being tauted by a very powerful and very wealthy effort to depict them as deviants who want to destroy the American Way of Life (and Traditional Marriage as we know it.)
--Churches already DO say stuff like 'God will bless us (if) we clean up our Mess, --and until we do? we're not going to be blessed (nor) protected.'
(It's not sound Theology, but it sells big.)
(Simultaniously?)
The country is in a massive economic slide, this means infrastructure is caving, this means welfare is caving, this means folks are getting more desperate, this means joblessness is going huge, (and) this means less cops to keep it under control...
-Mix into that?
Extreme Weather (and) shortage of such things as 'water.'
-Fuel all that with the very real preaching from a ton of pulpits that 'Because we have sinned, God is not blessing nor protecting us,,,,'
-and who walks in to the situation?
A bunch of glbt folks just wanting 'rights.'
(In front of a whole sea of people all freaked out and 'righteous.')
Perfect storm?
Definitely.
Can we stop it?
Probably not.
-But the same motives and viewpoints (by the church and church/govt mix) used by the Third Reich? --is being religiously pumped out here in the states.
-Targeted (at the moment) are the glbt community, --but also targeted are 'liberals' those who empathise with anyone who is not 'on the side of the righteous,' --and that powerbase is getting quite large (at least in this area.)
That does not bode well.
(My comments about 'if you're not against oppression, you're actually 'for it?')
It's also very true.
There are some things in live you can debate on endlessly. (Ed and Adam will happily accomodate you there.)
But even they (maybe, I dunnno, I don't speak for them,) would have to agree that there is a point where the facts are in, and decisions have to be made:
'...Do I know what is happening here? (yes/no)'
'...Do I agree with it? (yes/no)
' 'Do I squawk and try to stop it? (yes/no)
'..Will my actions make a difference? (yes/no)
'..Will my actions/inactions result in others seeing this as being something worth squawking about? (yes/no)
Does this (by effect) tell people it's a problem, or 'no problem' based upon my response? (yes/no.)
What's startling about Nazi Germany that a lot of people just don't realize is: Even today, it greatly disreagards it's own history and the genocide that it nearly succeeded in.
A friend of mine over there right now was just telling me how, (effectively) they treat the whole thing very minorly, don't talk about it much, and are seeing themselves as progressive and 'moving on.'
-but market the history, sites, and documentation of the sites (and memorials and such,) primarily to the Jews and Americans.
(which is pretty wild, as history has become a sort of selective theme park throughout the whole country.)
But what I'm drawing similarities to (definitely) is that the whole country knew something was happening, was witnessing it right in front of them, and (either) felt powerless (which a lot of my friends from Germany and other occuupied countries most definitely did (because they were,)
-and to cope with that, --they reinterpreted it and just looked the other way.
The problem here (at least locally) is:
People are not 'powerless' under a dictator.
(Yet,)
-they're looking and watching (and participating in) the maligning and removal of another group of (Americans) rights,
--and are not just looking the other way,
--but are looking right at it,
-and justifying it (and) participating and finding it entertaining.
It's one thing to be set up and duped (which could be argued happened to an extent to Germany,)
--which is why they are so adamant that they will not tolerate such things ever again.
But here in the US?
We here in the US don't have that excuse.
-Even closer in our history, we have rights being (finally) given to African Americans...
If/when we choose to malign and deny others rights? (on any level,)
unless we're on some sort of feeding tube and breathing apparatus?
--We're deliberately CHOOSING to do this to others.
-And sitting by and sayng 'I dunno, I dunno, gee maybe it isn't that bad, --when it clearly IS?'
Is just lame passive aggressive choice, (nothing else.)
And this area (along with other areas of the population it chooses to view as 'sub-par')
is choosing to do this to glbt.
-Again, that's why it's not just a 'stupid joke.'
Nah. I don't still know camp survivors. Lost touch with the guy a long time ago... 20 years... give or take a few months.
I do, however, still know the direct descendants of camp survivors.
If I'm still in this discussion by Monday, I'll let you know their reaction (whether it agrees with my position or not).
But, my position is and remains that the joke is harmless and is NOT IN ANY WAY morally equivalent to what Hitler's Reich did to the Gypsies, Jews, gays, pagans, and political dissidents.
Not in any way.
But your posts continue to entertain.
Who said the joke and the actions where the same??
You are being puposefully obtuse.
Look at the posts!
They're making full moral equivocations between that little joke in the ad and the genocide of Jews in the holocaust. They're saying that one absolutely leads to the other.
I'm saying that's crap.
I'm saying that it's harmless humor.
What was it you said?
Anecdotal evidence?
Isn't that how we dismiss (as irrelevant) any particular evidence that isn't part of a numbered statistic?
You know... to be honest... This thread has made me WANT to patronize the place to show my support for freedom of expression.
Did we break the page?
Likely.
It had enough of the bulls*** being thrown at it and quit.
Heh. Nice. :)
See... I can respect that.
Call a spade a spade.
Whether I agree with the assessment or not.
...looks like the 'response-o-meter' blew up.
oh well.
I'm not even sure I'm commenting on the right thread at this point but these total FRESNO STYLE KOOKS at the Red Zone need an old fashioned arse whipping by some TOLERABLE - beef loving hetero's!
Homophobia is REAL. Guys that say things like what Mike references above are literally scared of their own "gayness". Which - I cannot blame them - they realize that people can be as lame as them and who wants to live a life where your made fun of, beat up, comdemned to hell by preachers and even killed?
I - as a hetero male will stand up and fight right along side anybody who wants to stomp out bullies! That's what these closet cases are - they're afraid of THEMSELVES so how does it come out? They bully others!
I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia etc.
And to top it all off - these MORONS have started a business in one of the worst economy's in our history - brought on by another homophobe (GW) and their GENIUS idea is to alienate folks that eat food. Why? Do they simply not need the business? Can their business be that good? Was it a gamble to capitalize on ignorant Fresno?
Fresno isn't THAT ignorant...All they've done is said to gay people (and straight people who oppose bullies) - "don't come in our restaurant - we make more money then we can count already".
Ignorant turds.
When I had my own retail going - the last thing I wanted to do was make somebody mad (let alone alienate a LARGE group of people) because I was so vulnerable - everybody knew where I worked and I had giant plate glass windows - apparently I did offend somebody - they were broken out TWICE! I was also a concert promoter and I think I threw out one too many drunk knuckleheads!
RED ZONE SUCKS!
Come on dudes give the guys a break here. Everyone is entitled to a mistake. Lets be honest most of you that are not going to the RED ZONE do not like sports anyway and were not going to show up at all. It sure can't be because you do not like a good cold beer or two. So have fun at the ice cream shop.