Note carefully: It is virtually impossible for a movie to offend me (insulting my intelligence is a different kind of offense) or embarrass me, and while I’m not sure I can go so far as to say that Brüno quite did either, it did on occasion make me slightly uncomfortable. So, if you are easily offended, for goodness’ sake, ignore the four-star rating and stay the hell away from this movie. If you look no further than the four-star rating, don’t blame me.
Assuming that the reader has at least some familiarity with Sacha Baron Cohen’s 2006 assault on the moviegoing public, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (thank God for copy-paste functions), the approach of Brüno will come as no surprise. Where the previous film offered us Baron Cohen as the befuddled, English-mangling Borat Sagdiyev, Brüno gives us Brüno, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashionista with a taste for unearned fame and an intellect that would embarrass a hamster.
As with the last film, the basics are a weird blend of applying the techniques of Candid Camera to the premise of The Magic Christian (1969) and filtering it through a kind of John Waters sensibility. In other words, scenarios are set up to put people on (à la Magic Christian), except that the responses are theoretically not scripted, but are the actual responses of the victims. The question inevitably—and fairly—arises as to how unscripted those responses are. My guess—based on seeing the film—is that they’re around 75 percent real, 15 percent bogus and 10 percent the result of clever editing. Even when they’re real, however, there’s a tendency for them to be something like hunting in a baited field.
The stakes are upped this time around in that Brüno is out to uncover homophobia—as well as comment on our growing inability to differentiate between fame and notoriety—which makes the film more daring in some ways and more strained in others. To achieve its goal, Brüno is crafted to be the ultimate incarnation of every nervous straight boy’s nightmare of homosexuality—the über predatory gay caricature who desires every man he sees. In real life, it’s almost always a given that the guys most worried about being the object of another man’s erotic fantasy are the ones who couldn’t get picked up on Christopher Street on New Year’s Eve. Brüno, however, fulfills their deepest fears. On the one hand, that’s squarely in the “serves you right” column, but it’s also a stacked deck that can be viewed as pandering to a stereotype of gays. None of this keeps Brüno from being interesting and sometimes uncomfortably perceptive. The contradiction may in fact make Brüno more so, but it does need to be considered.
The question, of course, is ultimately whether or not Brüno is funny. More often than not, the answer is yes—assuming the viewer isn’t too appalled by its designed-to-shock antics. Occasionally, the shocks fall flat or are simply off-putting (a mimed encounter with the invisible spirit of the deceased half of Milli Vanilli is awkward and creepy). At other points, they’re effective without being very funny (like Ron Paul’s response to Brüno’s attempts at seducing him). Often, the film is at its best in fleeting moments or throwaway gags—as when Brüno decides that Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Kevin Spacey are famous because of their one shared trait: being straight—but there are enough of these to get Brüno past its rough patches.
There are jaw-dropping moments that approach brilliance. The interviews with stage parents who will subject their toddlers to anything in order to get them a job are staggeringly appalling and funny. Brüno constantly coming on to the guy who is supposed to be “de-programming” his gayness is priceless. The movie’s big scene—its equivalent to the rodeo scene in Borat—is an unabashed lift from the throwaway gag about a boxing match in The Magic Christian, but taken to elaborate extremes, and it works both as comedy and social comment. But the best is probably the final scene, which I will not spoil by discussing.
If you’ve the nerve for it, yes, Brüno is worth your time, but be prepared to be shocked and possibly disgusted in between the laughs—or even during the laughs. Realize what you’re getting yourself into. Rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language.
I just read where the Ukraine Culture Ministry has banned this film for being “immoral.”
“The ministry said Wednesday that Cohen’s depictions of sexual organs, homosexual intercourse and language are obscene and improper.”
http://portal.tds.net/news/read.php?ps=1016&rip;_id=
Well, it probably is at least improper. That’s kind of the point. I suppose that’s too much to expect a cultural ministry to consider.
I also thought this was great, but apart from the harmless laughs (the child photo shoot; Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium) I found myself at times feeling bad for the victims, specifically Ron Paul and the redneck hunters. There’s a fine line between exposing homophobia and sexually assaulting someone. I wonder how many people would find it funny if a heterosexual character were sneaking naked with a condom into a woman’s tent. But regardless, the man’s a genius.
This might be of some interest:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new.php?id=13759
I found myself at times feeling bad for the victims, specifically Ron Paul and the redneck hunters. There’s a fine line between exposing homophobia and sexually assaulting someone.
I can see your point, though, based on Ron Paul’s response I’m having trouble feeling all that sorry for him. It is, however, one of the sequences that didn’t strike me as funny.
I can see your point, though, based on Ron Paul’s response I’m having trouble feeling all that sorry for him. It is, however, one of the sequences that didn’t strike me as funny.
I believe that Paul has made some anti-Semitic comments before and is supposed to believe in Jewish conspiracies, so that might be why he was in Cohen’s crosshairs.
The movie is hysterical btw.
Half of the theater walked out during the showing I was at.
I was surprised, you would think they would know what they’re getting themselves into.
Yeah, at the showing I was at there were a bunch of douchy high school dudes in baseball caps sitting in front of me. They were texting girls and trying unsuccessfully to shout out witty things at the previews. But when the movie came on and they were confronted with everything they didn’t say a thing; and when it was over they filed out like they’d had an unexpected visit to the dentist.
I agree the last scene was the best; also best use of Celine Dion in a movie.
Also thought the Ron Paul bit wasn’t that funny. But I laughed pretty hard when he pulls the same thing on the hunters.
Half of the theater walked out during the showing I was at
Really? Where did you go? I’ve seen almost no walkouts.
I went to the Grande Stadium. A ten year old and his grandmother walked out within ten minutes into the film.
Also thought the Ron Paul bit wasn’t that funny. But I laughed pretty hard when he pulls the same thing on the hunters
I have to admit that amused me. Yes, I understand how it might not be fair and all that, but it still amused me, though the funniest stuff for me was in the campfire scene, not the tent business.
I went to the Grande Stadium.
Ah, I only go out there if I absolutely have to, so I never have a feel for what’s happening there with audiences.
A ten year old and his grandmother walked out within ten minutes into the film.
Most of this sort of thing could be avoided if people would just bother to get a clue about what they’re going to see.
I thought the Ron Paul part was hilarious. It was very funny to see Ron Paul’s ignorance and bigotry rise to the surface, and the fact that he said that Bruno “put a hit on” him was absolutely hysterical.
Ron Paul put out a shockingly racist, anti-semitic, gay-bashing newsletter for decades. He can’t even deny it because it is in print for anyone to see, so he made up some ridiculous crap about how it was the fault of a ghost writer. That’s particularly hilarious considering all of his asinine rhetoric about taking personal responsibility. The notion that he isn’t responsible for the content of his own newsletter is beyond preposterous.
Even if ghost writers wrote the most disgraceful parts, it went on for many years and he sure as hell could have read his own news letter before it went out. If he really disagreed with the astonishing bigotry in it he would have profusely apologized after the first time it happened and most certainly wouldn’t have ever let it happen again, but that wasn’t the case. Instead he allowed it to continue for years and years.
Ron Paul is a bigoted imbecile and I was very pleased to see Bruno expose him as such.
wow, you are so misinformed on Ron Paul it’s just stupid. both you & orbit dvd, enopticon…
I thought dr. paul did a decent job of putting up with bruno until it was just overtly sexual, and then of course he stormed out – he’s a respectable politician.
and y’know, if you’re going to bash the guy, don’t use concepts you vaguely believe in because you read them on dailykos or whatever – show some links/proof, or your bashing means nothing.
bruno was funny. offensive, but funny.
My post is irrefutable. Even Ron Paul does not deny the bigotry in his newsletter. It would be impossible for him to deny because it is there for anyone to see. It has been exposed by countless stories on the subject.
He denies responsibility for the content of his own newsletter, claiming it is the fault of ghost writers writing in his name, which is absolutely ludicrous, especially because it went on for years and years.
Here is one of many links that incontrovertibly proves my case, from CNN, not the Daily KOS:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/
You should really learn the facts of the matter next time before spouting off about an issue that you clearly knew nothing about about whatsoever. Before you go calling people stupid, you might want to check your facts first next time. That way you won’t be exposed so quickly for being in the wrong again.
Yeah, Ron Paul does have some shady stuff in his background that is pretty well documented. And he’s anti-abortion rights as well. I think all of the socially liberal conservatives latched on to him because they have no other representation in the Party.
I did enjoy in the debates watching him school Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney on foreign policy. Wouldn’t ever vote for him, but I have much more respect for him than the other Republican hucksters.
I tend to believe Paul on this issue after reading the articles in question – they’re utterly inconsistent with every interview, statement and policy position I’ve ever heard from the man, not to mention it doesn’t even read like his writing style.
It does show a pretty staggering error in judgment to let your name be associated with polemical writings without reading the damn things though.
And since you asked for links, for a more thorough, and frankly jaw dropping list of some of the astonishingly bigoted rhetoric in Ron Paul’s newsletters, check out this article:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Here is but a tiny sample:
“One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
The list goes on and on and on. Paul’s newsletter praised David Duke and condemned the end of apartheid in South Africa. It called for gay people to go back in the closet and argued that AIDS victims should all be quarantined. In other words, it was riddled with shocking, crackpot bigotry.
Paul claims that he shouldn’t be held responsible for the “ghost writers” of his own newsletter, which is even more insane than his crackpot theories. He condemns the bigotry in his own newsletter now, but in all the years they were out, he never wrote a single retraction for any of those bigoted remarks, and he never fired one of those “ghost writers.” Instead he just kept publishing more and more shameful bigotry.
If anyone thinks that the discussion has strayed too far from the subject of the movie, I would offer you the defense that part of the film’s goal’s was indeed to stimulate such debate. And it managed to amuse us with footage of Ron Paul ranting about “queers” in the process.
I thought dr. paul did a decent job of putting up with bruno until it was just overtly sexual, and then of course he stormed out – he’s a respectable politician.
So are you saying that it’s respectable for him to start shouting, “That guy’s a queer!”? Also, it didn’t seem so much like he was putting up with Bruno as it seemed like he was completely oblivious.
If anyone thinks that the discussion has strayed too far from the subject of the movie, I would offer you the defense that part of the film’s goal’s was indeed to stimulate such debate.
I wouldn’t really argue your point — though let’s face it, Ron Paul is a very small part of the movie. The film, however, is meant to stir things up, so in that regard you’re not wrong in the least. Also, the movie clearly has an agenda, which was part of the whole reason for making it, and the choice to leave in what it does indicates that it is hardly pro-Ron Paul. (Neither am I, if it comes to that.)
However, I would prefer that this didn’t turn into a full-scale war about the man, since the film is about more than that. I simply don’t want to see all the focus shifted to this single topic.
More than this, though, has anyone ever changed anyone’s mind on a political matter in a war of words on the internet? I’ve never seen it happen. I’ve even seen people give ground on the topic of religion more readily.
Jeremy, there is a gaping hole in that argument… Ghost writers represent whoever they are writing for, and Ron Paul never even wrote a retraction. Instead, he kept publishing that sort of vile bigotry under his name for years and years.
Think about it… What would you do if someone wrote that sort of vile bigotry in your name? Would you shrug it off and just keep letting it happen for years and years like Ron Paul did? Of course not. Any normal person would go absolutely ballistic the very first time it happened, and it sure as hell wouldn’t ever happen again if he disagreed with it.
By the way, I disagree with your notion that the bigotry in his newsletter is entirely inconsistent with his career. He has been intricately linked to at least one registered white supremacist hate group, The League of the South, for many years. He even wrote a forward for a founder’s book and publicly endorsed another prominent member’s book. In fact, the von Mises Institute, which he is has been long involved with, is intricately connected to the League of the South. And as mentioned, his “queer” tirade in Bruno speaks for itself. He is anything but the straight shooter that he pretends to be.
Ken, for what it’s worth, when I see Ron Paul stickers on hippie cars in the parking lot of Greenlife and around town I want to tear my hair out. It is sad and disturbing that so many stoners were duped by his right-wing extremism just because he wants to legalize pot (which I am all for). He also wants to make this a Christian nation and a bunch of other scary stuff.
I appreciate that Bruno helped expose a side of Ron Paul that those who idealize him may not have been aware of. He suddenly doesn’t seem like such a cool old guy when he is yelling “queer.” It’s the part of the film that stood out for me the most.
I’m not quite cynical enough to believe that it is impossible to convince anyone with a sound political argument on the internet. It doesn’t happen every day, but I’ve actually changed people’s minds from time to time, or so I’ve been told, and I have no reason not to believe them.
The other parts of the film that particularly stood out for me were the scenes of the parents who were so willing to put their children in harm’s way, and the fundamentalist homosexual rehabilitater who was clearly doing a whole lot of projecting.
I think Paul’s language was unacceptable but his shock was understandable. I remain completely uninformed about his politics. It’s a good thing the producers had the payoff of the word “queer” because otherwise it would’ve been a whole lot of creepy for nothing, and the whole thing still kind of felt like entrapment. (To be clear, I don’t think it’s right to use the word “queer” with negative connotations in any situation.)
I’m not quite cynical enough to believe that it is impossible to convince anyone with a sound political argument on the internet. It doesn’t happen every day, but I’ve actually changed people’s minds from time to time, or so I’ve been told, and I have no reason not to believe them.
I didn’t say they don’t happen, only that I’ve never witnessed it.
What fascinates me about Bruno from a purely reaction standpoint is that no one has come in to denounce the movie as a vile piece of pornographic trash or words to that effect. That’s kind of surprising.
Perhaps it is just me, but it seems like the Mountain X website has been over-saturated with political commentary these days. I can understand and appreciate this sort of thing when it is relevant to the article at hand, and I don’t really have a problem with it spreading in an appropriate manner to articles that were not initially meant to be politically oriented. I love to read peoples opinions over subjects that they are passionate about, but it just feels likes it’s been excessive lately. Now, I do think it is appropriate and relevant to talk about Ron Paul when discussing “Bruno“, so long as it is constrained in the manner Hanke previously mentioned. My real issue is with the egotistical and outright hateful nature that is so often associated with various discussion. The truth is, I kind of wish I was posting this somewhat longwinded comment on a more slightly more relevant and heavily trafficked thread. But it’s crossed my mind as of now because I see one of the main points of “Bruno” as being to expose backwards negative prejudices and homophobia (along with comedy). So why can’t one take the same sort of stance on not partaking in all this religious and political disrespect that we are guilty of demonstrating towards one another (and I’m NOT claiming to be innocent of this, because I’m just as guilty, and that would be hypocrisy)? We are all human beings who are unique from one another, and therefore share different opinions and views. So please try to be more civil and stop attacking each other for disagreeing. Stop taking things so personally as if your opinion is the only one that matters. Honestly, the biggest problem that I have is trying to be respectful when I suddenly find someone as drastically inferior in maturity and intelligence, and yet they act like they are Gods gift, and I’m the idiot. That is usually the point that I break down. [NOTE: This comment is not aimed at anyone in particular. If you feel offended, then you should ask yourself why.]
We can end the debate now. The Sexman review is in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqkLVjW0wGA
It’s a good thing the producers had the payoff of the word “queer” because otherwise it would’ve been a whole lot of creepy for nothing, and the whole thing still kind of felt like entrapment.
Well, if you want to get technical about it, everything about the film is entrapment.
So why can’t one take the same sort of stance on not partaking in all this religious and political disrespect that we are guilty of demonstrating towards one another (and I’m NOT claiming to be innocent of this, because I’m just as guilty, and that would be hypocrisy)?
I think you answer your question with the beginning of your next sentence — “We’re all human beings.” The reason that it’s not civil or respectful, however, also has a lot to do with the same people saying the exact same things over and over so you’re already in a pissy mood the minute you see one of the usual suspects’ names crop up. And you know the arguments are going to take the same basic course. Someone will say something that gets challenged. Then the first person will “prove” his point by offering a link to some obviously biased site and it goes from there. You’re not responding to someone’s single post, but to his or her whole history of posting.
I said this somewhere else, but what the convinced believe proves a thing doesn’t always wash with the unconvinced. For instance, if you refute something I say by telling me, “Ayn Rand said,” you’ve made no dent, because Ayn Rand saying it means I almost certainly don’t buy it. What baffles me is the idea that such a statement of “proof” is going to be generally accepted. Now, were I to attempt to prove a statement because “Obama said,” it would never briefly occur to me that a conservative would be swayed by that “proof.”
I suddenly find someone as drastically inferior in maturity and intelligence, and yet they act like they are Gods gift, and I’m the idiot. That is usually the point that I break down.
This is why I usually swear I will keep my mouth shut on any number of things (unless they come my way in the movie section). I sometimes succeed. I have yet, for example, to say anything about that novel that was on the front page of the paper last week — and believe me, I have a lot I want to say. Other times, I am…well, not so successful. And it’s usually when somebody I already know fits your description of “drastically inferior in maturity and intelligence, and yet they act like they are Gods gift” that it happens.
We can end the debate now. The Sexman review is in
Wow. That’s all I can say.
guess what, entotpicon? i HAD read those articles before, and i still think they’re garbage. at least CNN explained both sides. I was FULLY informed before making my decision to speak up, and merely wanted to see what trash you bashers would link to.
and Dr. Paul DID retract those statements, contrary to what you claim. he even disputes them in that CNN article, IF YOU HAD READ IT. and that’s why I believe him, and not his ghost-writers. because d’uh you’re gonna get some weirdo volunteers over 20 years in Texas.
plus – the NEW REPUBLIC? that’s what you link to in order to bash Ron Paul? good lord.
Thank you for your response Ken; very well put. I think that I just went off on a perfect world (or comment posting thread) scenario mindset. Ideally, I would be pleased to simply be able to avoid certain posters altogether. But eventually someone egotistical is bound to jump in the middle of a friendly lively discourse to state why their opinion is so superior. I could just ignore them, but then they jump around like a freakin’ Jack Russell Terrier saying “pay attention to me!” So I guess it’s practically impossible to avoid these types of people on the internet. Oh well, to be honest, when I’m in a good mood it can sometimes be rather entertaining, so long as I keep my humor intact, and don’t take things too seriously.
Oh well, to be honest, when I’m in a good mood it can sometimes be rather entertaining, so long as I keep my humor intact, and don’t take things too seriously
I think a lot of what sinks one’s ability to do this is the predictability factor. And then, of course, there’s the troll factor, though perhaps it should be re-christened the Cullen factor hereabouts (see recent outbreak in this week’s Screening Room). It’s just hard to keep your mouth shut and move on sometimes.
Rob Close, you are a riot. Out of one side of your mouth you say that Ron Paul wrote retractions even though it it is a matter of public record that there were no such retractions ever published in his newsletter, and out of the other side of your mouth you claim it never happened in the first place. Claiming that he didn’t stand behind those statements once he was busted for them, years after the fact, is not a retraction!
What’s even funnier is that even Ron Paul doesn’t deny the astonishingly bigoted comments in those news letters; he can’t because they are a matter of public record, yet you do. The New Republic article even links directly to photocopies of his newsletter! The New Republic, whether you like it or not, is a very highly respected periodical.
Are you seriously so naive that you think that a person isn’t responsible for what their ghost writer says? He had final say on his own newsletter, and they weren’t even very long. The primary ghost writer behind many of those despicably bigoted comments in the Ron Paul newsletter is said to be Lew Rockwell, who has many disturbing, direct ties to registered white supremacist hate groups. As a matter of fact, Lew was Ron Paul’s chief of staff and they have been extremely close for many decades. As mentioned above, Ron Paul even wrote a forward for a book by the founder of the registered white supremacist hate group, the League of the South!
Weirdo volunteers? It was his own newsletter! Would you seriously publish a newsletter in YOUR name where people praised David Duke, called black people animals, bashed the end of apartheid, said gay aids victims should be quarantined, and on and on…. for 20 years?!? You have got to be kidding me. It is the lamest excuse in the history of politics. Larry frickin’ Craig was more believable. However you slice it, Ron Paul published an astonishingly bigoted newsletter in his own name for many, many years. The fact that you are seriously trying to explain it away is mind-boggling.
The quote I provided above, suggesting that NYC be called names like ““Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” was directly from his own newsletter under his own name! Here is a link to photocopies of a whole host of astonishingly bigoted material taken directly from his newsletter:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Apparently even his “queer” rant on camera wasn’t enough for you. I have been inappropriately hit on plenty of times, I never started yelling about “queers.”
Sorry Ken, but I just couldn’t let that slide. Bruno wouldn’t have wanted me to ;)
Interesting Ron Paul/Bruno Debate, everyone.
If you want to continue it here:
http://www.mountainx.com/forums/viewthread/1866/
feel free.
[i]People[/i]. You should know that anyone who refers to Ron Paul as [i]Dr.[/i] Paul is beyond the point of conversion. More to the point, internet arguments never convert [i]anyone[/i].
Believe me, I understand the temptation, but as Abrams’ [i]Star Trek[/i] so clearly demonstrated, you’re bound to lose in hand-to-hand combat with a Ronulan.
I saw BRUNO last night. It was HILARIOUS. I don’t care what anyone says, I thought that I was going to die laughing. At times, I believe it is fun to see rednecks and bigots expose their true colors for the world to see, since I typically do not get along with such individuals. My fellow Christians would tell me that I am wrong for thinking that way, but I’m not so sure about that! The only thing that really “offended” me was the picture of the baby on the cross. I know it was a joke, but it made me slightly uncomfortable – however, Sacha Baron Cohen is an equal opportunity offender, and so, in some weird way, it’s fair. Either way, I’d recommend the film. I laughed until I had tears streaming down my face, particularly at the beginning. During the scene where he screens the pilot for his television show, I had to pick my jaw up off the floor at least twice.
Bottom line: know what you are getting into BEFORE you pay for your ticket! If BORAT offended you, STAY FAR, FAR AWAY!
well, if SBC was truly an ‘equal opportunity offender” he would be lampooning the left and their predictable knee-jerk ideologies as well…
Actually, Ali G interviewed quite a few well-known liberals including Noam Chomsky and Naomi Wolfe. In much of his satire he makes those who use power for exclusionary purposes look ridiculous. That’s what a satirist does. Think Juvenal, Swift, Mark Twain. It such so happens in today’s Western society that conservatives, after the power kick from Reagan/Thatcher/GW Bush, are the most ripe for the satirist.
I know conservatives desperately want someone to satirize the “fascist liberals trying to control our lives.” Unfortunately you can’t satirize something that isn’t true.
well, if SBC was truly an ‘equal opportunity offender” he would be lampooning the left and their predictable knee-jerk ideologies as well…
Being in almost complete sympathy with the left, maybe I’m not the person to weigh in on this, but I don’t really think his films (or whatever they are) are entirely devoid of this. That they are left-skewed, well, if you have a point of view it’s probably going to show through.
>> If you look no further than the four-star rating, don’t blame me.
I think most of your readers by now realize that yor star-ratings are utterly capricious and have no correlation to the actual worth of the movie, or even of your opinion of it. You should give up on using stars altogether. Use tiny pictures of your head instead. ; )
utterly capricious
Oh, you mean like your comments?
These Mountain Xpress blogs suck. Having just seen Bruno, I went to this page hoping to run across some interesting commentary, opinions, and maybe even healthy debate about THE FILM. Instead, the thread quickly devolves into the usual bickering and name-calling over, of all things, Ron Paul, who was tangential at best to the overall movie. Yeah, yeah, we get it — liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals, and you all have an arsenal of links at your fingertips to augment your obsessive preoccupations. What a joke.
I’m not even go to try reading the thread on the new Harry Potter movie. It’s probably somehow turned into a shouting match over Obama’s health care policies.
Yeah, yeah, we get it—liberals hate conservatives, conservatives hate liberals, and you all have an arsenal of links at your fingertips to augment your obsessive preoccupations. What a joke.
I really can’t argue your point because it’s one I’ve railed against too, even though I can be guilty of participating (sans links, however).
At the same time, this particular thread is an extreme case — and one that got out of hand pretty fast. I’ll grant that it is the sort of movie that is going to provoke a certain amount of socio-political commentary owing to its very nature. That said, I would have greatly appreciated a little more comment on the film itself in a broader context than the Ron Paul debate. Paul is not only a tangential part of the movie, he’s pretty much a fringe figure in general.
While there are certainly digressions in the Harry Potter thread (the currently ubiquitous complaining of Mr. Shark, who complains about me complaining, a peculiar digression brought forth concerning the response on Rotten Tomatoes to me not liking Back to the Future), it at least doesn’t fall apart like this one has.
“Give it A rest”
Although you make some valid (and humorous) points, I also notice you dont really make any valuable contribution to the discussion yourself, but you have the time to give two paragraphs of your own complaints.
I guess a positive contribution to a healthy dialogue must be more difficult than you are implying.
And, no, you can feel assured that Obama and Socialism are not being discussed in the Harry Potter thread. Just homosexuality and Home Auto Repair.
Bert,
Although it’s true that the Ali G character interviews some notable ‘lefties’ like Gore Vidal, noam chomsky and naomi klein, he does not put them in any situation that could be compared to the situation he put, say, Ron Paul into.
In the case of Chomsky, they merely discussed linguistics, and at no time does he attempt to trap Chomsky in a room and seduce him while dropping his pants…
As much as i find a lot of SBC’s delivery to be funny and at times subversive and enlightening, it seems relevant to note that he is from a very wealthy, “Liberal” family, and obviously carries many prejudices and preconceived notions of what a ‘typical American” believes. Some of this is funny, but much of it, especially in “Brüno”, is very ham-handed and juvenile, not to mention subconsciously homophobic in its depiction of a gay man, and belies what comes across to me as a very condescending and elitist perspective.
“Brüno” is funny at times, but overall shows a growing lack of originality in SBC’s method of duping people into showing their @ss.
I think it’s biggest failure is to attempt to parallel Racism with Homophobia. Much of SBC’s “Börat” character’s strength was exposing people’s underlying racism… “Brüno” seems to be attempting to duplicate this method by replacing racism with homophobia. This just isnt an accurate comparison in my mind.
Cohen’s desire to shove a bad caricature of the oversexed gay man in people’s faces and force them to accept it, or be labeled a “Bigot” seems odd to me. Since when is it “Wrong” for someone to admit to being uncomfortable with homosexuality? How would you respond to the Brüno character coming into your place of work? Your home?
Unfortunately, I think this kind of simplification of the issue of homophobia in American culture distorts it, and makes it less possible to have a rational dialogue occur between opposite ‘sides’ of the debate.
Of course, if his desire is to uphold a notion of Modern, Western Social Liberalism, and imply that anyone who doesnt completely agree and approve is somehow ‘backwards’, then he certainly has succeeded in that endeavor.
I fear he may have run out of original ways to prove how the common man is inferior too the Moneyed European, and may have to actually move on to a new schtick in order to continue his presence in pop culture.
Perhaps he can do a special in the middle of Africa, or China, where nobody has heard of him yet.
Oh, Bert, one last point i failed to make in my previous post: Why do you assume that I am a “conservative” merely because I point out Cohen’s obvious “Liberal” tilt? Nothing in any of my comments could make one come to that conclusion, without first applying their own preconceived notions and assumptions.
I lied-this is my ‘last point’.
Bert, Where did I give you any reason to think i believe “fascist liberals (are) trying to control our lives.”?
This strange notion that a comedian has some unwritten moral responsibility to make fun of every side of an issue equally brings the recent studies showing that right-wingers lack the ability to understand humor to mind.
There is a reason that there has never been a great right-wing comedian. There is a reason that right wing comedies are generally not funny. Right wingers are not funny. Humor relies on the ability to empathically project oneself into another’s shoes. If a right-winger could do that, they wouldn’t be a right winger.
The far right’s tactic of exploiting the bigotry and ignorance of their constituency by constantly pushing a new boogeyman, from welfare mothers, to gays, to feminists, to brown skinned immigrants, works because they know that among their constituency xenophobia and racism will trump reason every time. If their constituency had the ability to empathically project themselves into the shoes of all of those groups that they demonize, they would not be right-wingers because the boogeyman tactic wouldn’t work on them.
The MSM has mislead the public by treating every issue as if there were two equal sides to every story. Fortunately some media critics are aware of this. With most every story they create a false binary polemic where it doesn’t truly apply. For example, the Obama birth certificate story is not a case of two equally reasonable opposing opinions. It is a case of a rational side and a bunch of insane right-wing extremist wingnuts spouting off paranoid racist nonsense. When the MSM tries to treat the issue as if both sides have valid arguments in order to create a story where there is none, they fuel the insanity and mislead the public.
Another side-effect of that tendency to create false binary polemics is that people start assuming that the MSM’s misleading tendency to give two sides to every story equal weight should apply across every medium, even comedy, as evidenced by some of the comments above.
The truth is, SBC, like any good comedian, sees problems that transcend the overly simplistic binary polemics of politics and that is expressed in his work, but he doesn’t pretend that liberals are just as bad as right-wingers out of some misplaced belief that there is some moral obligation to portray all sides of every issue as if they had equal weight.
Ron Paul and those bigoted right-wing extremist fundamentalist homosexual converters, as well as the Arkansas wrestling fans, are bashed more than the relatively liberal characters because they deserve it.
“I fear he may have run out of original ways to prove how the common man is inferior too the Moneyed European, and may have to actually move on to a new schtick in order to continue his presence in pop culture.”
I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s doing. No one has more money than Paula Abdul. In the Bruno tv show there’s a bit where he lampoons a fashion designer for having a “trailer trash” show. He deleted a scene from Borat where a southern lady refused to give him a dog after he told her he wanted it to attack Jews. Notice when he goes into the South he’s not going into trailer parks. In Borat he attended a dinner with wealthy Alabama folks who live on “Secession Drive.” With the hunters and the cage match in Bruno he’s commenting on the kind of situation that led to Matthew Shephard’s murder. Can you imagine what those hunters would have done to him if the cameras hadn’t have been there?
Sorry if I pigeonholed you as a conservative. I think Chomsky and Kline would have found it pretty amusing if Bruno tried to seduce them. I would enjoy having a beer with Bruno and probably just laugh at his attempts to seduce me; thus I wouldn’t make a very funny participant in the movie.
You can’t ask satire to play nice. That’s on the level with criticizing Mark Twain for not portraying the white folks along the Mississippi in a more positive light in Huck Finn.
And I believe this is now a serious socio-political discussion, Give it a Rest.
Entop, absolutely nothing I wrote could be construed by any rational person as being “far right” or as having anything to do whatsoever with the MSM.
But I do find it interesting to no note how by merely bringing up that perhaps it is actually okay that some people might not be comfortable being confronted and sexually harassed by a bad caricature of an oversexed gay man somehow makes me “right wing”.
I was responding to “Berts” above assertion that Cohen has indeed lampooned “Liberal Policy”, when, in fact, he hasnt. Regardless of weather or not you think the Left deserves any lampooning, the only point I was making was that his target is increasingly people from a far lower economic class than him (Especially in this most recebnt film), which strikes me as quite “elitist” and “Classist”, especially since he comes from fairly prominent wealth and power.
But if you really think that those of us on the “Left”” are not in need of a good ribbing, then you should really re-read some of your off-topic rants that characterize anyone who disagrees with with as some kind of Nazi.
Of course, asking entop to have a sense of humor is like asking a cow to be made of Tofu.
[b]Ron Paul and those bigoted right-wing extremist fundamentalist homosexual converters, as well as the Arkansas wrestling fans, are bashed more than the relatively liberal characters because they deserve it. [/b]
Because you are morally superior to them, right?
Yep, no need for any lampooning on your part. Nope. Not a bit.
subconsciously homophobic in its depiction of a gay man
Now, this I don’t think is really the case. I really think that Bruno is designed to be what so many nervous straight boys thinks a gay guy is like. In other words, he is their predatory nightmare of gayness come true. In other words (and naming no names), he’s a certain Stomper’s vision of gay.
Much of SBC’s “Börat” character’s strength was exposing people’s underlying racism… “Brüno” seems to be attempting to duplicate this method by replacing racism with homophobia. This just isnt an accurate comparison in my mind
How not? What specifically is the difference between racism and homophobia?
I think this kind of simplification of the issue of homophobia in American culture distorts it, and makes it less possible to have a rational dialogue occur between opposite ‘sides’ of the debate.
Have you ever had a rational dialogue with a homophobe? If you have, you’re definitely one up on me — or we have very different definitions of “rational.”
Actually RU486, I don’t think I had even read your post. I rarely do. I certainly wasn’t calling you a right-winger. You were projecting. I have never thought of you as a right-winger, just a bit of a blowhard who often shoots from the hip before thinking things through and is abundantly overconfident in his ability to be clever.
“Of course, asking entop to have a sense of humor is like asking a cow to be made of Tofu.”
Seriously, considering your painfully impish attempts to be funny such as this, I take your personal insult as quite a compliment.
Where did I say the left can’t be ribbed? As demonstrated plenty of times on this site, I disagree with the left on plenty of occasions. And where did I say anything about Nazis? It is kind of sadly amusing how you just make crap up as you go along.
You asked: “Because you are morally superior to them, right?”
Are you freaking kidding me? Am I supposed to say that I don’t think I am morally superior to a bunch of right-wing extremist bigots? Abso-fricken-lutely I think I am morally superior to them when it comes to the issues in contention. Does that make them entirely horrible human beings? No, but I certainly don’t condone their bigotry and I am not about to write it off to some flailing attempt at twisted relativism.
And to be honest, I felt your suggestion that there is some legitimate debate about homosexuality being OK or not to be very offensive in its own right. There is no legitimate debate. Homosexuality is not wrong. It is no more acceptable to consider whether or not homosexuality is equal and acceptable than it is to consider whether or not black people are equal and acceptable. I think your suggestion that you can’t compare the two is completely asinine.
Oh, and by the way, as Bert rightly pointed out, the notion that SBC doesn’t lampoon rich people is completely ludicrous and patently false. The notion that it is somehow classist, and the far right’s favorite buzzword “elitist” to make fun of bigots if they aren’t rich is just plain ridiculous.
[b]How not? What specifically is the difference between racism and homophobia?[/b]
Well, historically and culturally, racism has a direct connection to classism, and most people’s racism is generally just thinly veiled classism. Homophobia, on the other hand, can not be so easily defined, nor tied to class-lines. “Exposing” someones racism can be very eye-opening in the context of a culture where noone admits to being racist–which is where “Börats” strength lies in my opinion–in making people feel comfortable enough to let their un PC attitudes unfold. “Brüno” on the other hand, does not utilize the same kind of subtleties. He spends a good portion of the movie pushing his ‘character’ as his outrageously absurd sexuality in the face of unwitting people, often just to make people uncomfortable. Some people, like the ‘gay converter’ christian guy, deserved to be treated as they are. But others, like the guys he goes hunting with, seem to be demonized for being shocked by his aggressive advances. I really fail to see how this is “fair”. It’s one thing to expose something hidden just beneath the surface, it’s another to aggressively manipulate a situation all for the sake of casting someone in an Un-PC light.
I’ve been familiar with SashasBaronCohen for many years now, and this has always been my impression of his Bruno character. I guess I am one of those “Evil” people who doesnt particularly like that ‘kind’ of gay man. I spent much of my youth working crap jobs in San Francisco, and I quickly tired of the aggressive gay man who takes advantage of the fact you cant punch him in the face when he grabs your ass because it would be ‘gay bashing’. Perhaps you all should shun me from now on-I obviously have angered the PC gods.
entop-again, you use words like “Far right” to characterize my commentary. I really dont have the words to convey how close-minded and ignorant that makes you look. Beyond that, responding to you is pointless–you are arguing with someone in your own head.
Well, historically and culturally, racism has a direct connection to classism, and most people’s racism is generally just thinly veiled classism. Homophobia, on the other hand, can not be so easily defined, nor tied to class-lines.
I’m not sure I agree that racism is class-driven, so this isn’t exactly convincing me. On the other hand, I do think homophobia can be pretty clearly defined without the class question.
“Brüno” on the other hand, does not utilize the same kind of subtleties.
I have to say that I never found Borat brimming with subtleties. The character strikes me as just as much of an outrageous caricature as Bruno. The difference — which is why I think Bruno is actually more interesting — is that Borat trades on the foreignness of the character, while Bruno works on the basis of a presumed familiarity.
But others, like the guys he goes hunting with, seem to be demonized for being shocked by his aggressive advances
I would agree if the whole sequence consisted of this, but it really doesn’t. It builds to this level, and I don’t think it would have if they hadn’t become increasingly uncomfortable with the character when his gayness becomes more obvious — before he actually starts hitting on them.
Of course, at this point we’re discussing a film that has pretty much died. My own take is that it died mostly because it crossed that line between foreign and familiar and was too uncomfortable, because it lacked that sense of distance. Having said that, I’ll more than happily admit that I cannot imagine ever sitting through it again, but then I can’t imagine sitting through Borat again either. They both seem transitory and disposable at the end of the day.
The (TCbY)… You are a riot. Where did I use words like “far right” to criticize your commentary. Like I said, I don’t even think I read your commentary. Exactly what part of: ” I don’t think I had even read your post. I rarely do. I certainly wasn’t calling you a right-winger. You were projecting.” don’t you understand?
It is absolutely hilarious that the hypocritical irony of you saying that I am arguing with someone in my own head, when it is you has been arguing about comments that you took personally even though they had nothing to do with you whatsoever, is completely lost on you.
Again, I don’t think you are from the far right, and I have never thought you were from the far right. That exists only in your imagination. I can’t be responsible for the imaginary arguments that you are having with yourself. If you weren’t sure if my comments were aimed at you, since I never even mentioned you in any way and I certainly wasn’t thinking of you, you could have just asked. In the past, when I wasn’t sure if comments were aimed at me or not, I have just asked.
As for your comments about about not being able to punch that “kind” of gay man in the face for pinching your butt, yada-yada-yada, yes I do in fact find your rant to be pretty ignorant and homophobic, and virtually no different than ranting about that “kind” of black person.
Really, entop? No difference? So I guess if a straight man aggressively engages a straight female, thats sexual harassment, but if it is a gay man advancing upon another male, that male must ‘tolerate’ it?
If he had pulled that foolishness in the woods with a group of women, he would be strung-up for misogyny.
Personally, I find this insistence upon the gay community to basically co-opt the concepts of the Black Civil Rights Movement and try and compare them to their experience to that experience of being a minority race is disgusting and unimaginative.
And comparing someone who is not comfortable with an aggressive representation of homosexuality to a Racist is bull$hi†.
It is precisely this kind of hysterical multi-cultural fascism that people such as yourself push that gives the “Cultural Conservatives” the fuel they have to gain popular support for measures like CA’s Prop 8.
Your insistence upon characterizing my conversational queries in regards to the issues I found stirred in myself after watching Brüno are quite telling.
Read Hanke’s response to my post for a better example of a way to respond to the issues in question without descending into your usual “right wing extremist” dogma and widely off-target characterization of me as some kind of evil bigot for being offended by unwanted sexual advances i have experienced in my life.
I hope you get to “tolerate” some aggressive sexual advances in your life.
[b]I have to say that I never found Borat brimming with subtleties. The character strikes me as just as much of an outrageous caricature as Bruno. The difference—which is why I think Bruno is actually more interesting—is that Borat trades on the foreignness of the character, while Bruno works on the basis of a presumed familiarity.[/b]
For me the “subtlety” was that by coming across as a person from a very “different” culture, “Börat” was able to get people who have become accosted to PC culture to let their guard down and speak as they would around familiar company. That is a very difficult thing to do in our hyper-sensitized, media-savvy culture, where people “censor” themselves from expressing their true feelings out of fear of being ostracized. He could have never pulled that off playing himself.
When he allows these revelations to then be used to mock the persons in question, I think his approach fails. But when it allows us to deconstruct some of those layers of censorship
to confront our own personal prejudices and why it is we dont speak more “freely”, then I think he succeeds. My hope would be a better understanding of who we are as a people, and not a witch-hunt of our least favorite relatives and their uncouth ideas.
oh, and entop, i have made no implication that i feel homosexuality is “Wrong”. But I am not surprised that you twist my words into whatever meaning allows you to see me as a “Right wing extremist”; your own personal one-size-fits-all foil.
The (R2D2) said: “If he had pulled that foolishness in the woods with a group of women, he would be strung-up for misogyny.”
Yes, and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Did you really sense that those hunters were threatened by Bruno? Of course they weren’t so to conflate the annoyance of Bruno’s advances on a group of large hunters to a large man doing the same thing to women is more than ridiculous. There is a very big difference between annoying annoying and threatening.
The (R2D2) also said: “Personally, I find this insistence upon the gay community to basically co-opt the concepts of the Black Civil Rights Movement and try and compare them to their experience to that experience of being a minority race is disgusting and unimaginative.”
Well, personally I find your suggestion that the struggle that gays have for civil liberties is not comparable to any other minority to be “disgusting and unimaginative,” so there you have it.
The (R2d2): “It is precisely this kind of hysterical multi-cultural fascism….”
What the hell are you talking about? Multi-cultural fascism? Where do you get that crap from? Do you really think that phrase has meaning?
The (R2D2): “I hope you get to “tolerate” some aggressive sexual advances in your life.”
You still don’t get it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I already mentioned here that I have been inappropriately hit on by men plenty of times, and I never once turned into some kind of gay-bashing idiot. I’ve also been mugged by black people a number of times and I never went on some asinine rant about those “kinds” of blacks. I judge people as individuals.
The (R2D2): “But I am not surprised that you twist my words into whatever meaning allows you to see me as a “Right wing extremist”; your own personal one-size-fits-all foil.”
Would it kill you to make a cogent argument for once in your life? I am always amazed by you people who forget that all we need to do is scroll up to call you on your bs. I repeatedly stated that I never called you a right-wing extremist. You just made it up because you needed a straw-man argument to compensate for the unfortunate fact that you have no legitimate argument to make.
Personally I feel that the center of the right wing has been pushed to the far right extreme. If you disagree with my assessment why don’t you try arguing the facts for once instead of your incessant whining and confabulated straw-man arguments?
[b]Yes, and if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Did you really sense that those hunters were threatened by Bruno? Of course they weren’t so to conflate the annoyance of Bruno’s advances on a group of large hunters to a large man doing the same thing to women is more than ridiculous. There is a very big difference between annoying annoying and threatening.[/b]
The point is (which you heroically avoid) is that the hunters are somehow not allowed to be surprised or threatened by what you call his “advances”.
[b]You still don’t get it. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I already mentioned here that I have been inappropriately hit on by men plenty of times, and I never once turned into some kind of gay-bashing idiot. [/b]
Right, cuz defending yourself and your personal space against unwanted advancement is “gaybashing”. yeah, that’s an accurate comparison.
It must be hard for you to live a life of such ridged stereotypes and predetermined opposition to the world. Do you really think everyone who doesnt agree with you is some kind of fascist?
No continue with your rant about how i’m a right wing extremist fascist slave-owning homophobe who eats babies and secretly prays to hitler at bohemian grove all the while text-messaging karl rove the plans for our Sarah Palin takeover in 2012!…
The (C3pO), are you on glue? I have never called you a right-winger in my entire life, but you keep yammering away with that delusional fantasy anyway. I’ve already told you about 4 different times that I have never thought of you as a right-winger, but you are so blinded by your delusion that you keep insisting on it anyway. Again, I have never, ever considered you a right-winger, just a blowhard with a lot more attitude than sense.
Where on Earth did I argue that the hunters couldn’t be surprised by Bruno? Of course they were. What I said is that they weren’t threatened by him, because it was completely obvious that they were not. Again, you are conflating being annoying with being threatening. Bruno was plenty annoying, but he was certainly not threatening.
Defend your personal space all you want, but when you rant about those “kinds” of aggressive gays, you are saying more about your issues than theirs. Although I have been inappropriately hit on plenty of times, it would take one hell of a tough SOB to make me feel threatened, so that has simply never happened. Whatever the case, it has never crossed my mind to start yelling pejorative homophobic blather like Ron Paul did.
I’m not the one talking about those “kinds” of aggressive gays in SF, blah-blah-blah, so you probably shouldn’t be hurling accusations of stereotyping.
Now you can go and make more crap up about how i think you are a right-winger even though I have never said any such thing. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel good to completely ignore reality. Ironically the truth is that although it is no secret that I am liberal leaning, most of my comments here as of late have come down on the conservative side.
In the words of Charlie Brown, “good grief”.
Glue? Great idea. It might make your self-aggrandizing tomes/posts seem worth reading.
[b]Now you can go and make more crap up about how i think you are a right-winger even though I have never said any such thing. Knock yourself out if it makes you feel good to completely ignore reality. Ironically the truth is that although it is no secret that I am liberal leaning, most of my comments here as of late have come down on the conservative side.
Oh, and by the way, as Bert rightly pointed out, the notion that SBC doesn’t lampoon rich people is completely ludicrous and patently false. The notion that it is somehow classist, and the far right’s favorite buzzword “elitist” to make fun of bigots if they aren’t rich is just plain ridiculous. [/b]
I think the (RU486) may have been trying to make a point there, but as usual, his ham-fisted logic fell short. If you are trying to say that that the above quote means that I was calling you a right winger, you don’t know how to read. I specifically referred to the fact that “elitist” is the far right’s favorite buzz word, and it is no secret that it is. Just because I noted that you used that silly right wing term, it does not mean I was said you are a right winger, especially after I had just made it perfectly clear that I thought you were not. If you had even bothered to read the post right above it, I made it perfectly clear that I certainly wasn’t calling you a right winger, and I have never thought of you as a right winger. This is what I said in the post right above the quote that you just recited in a botched attempt to make your delusional point:
“I certainly wasn’t calling you a right-winger. You were projecting. I have never thought of you as a right-winger”
If that isn’t clear enough for you, you are beyond reason.
And by the way, this debate started because you jumped in defensively about one of my posts that had absolutely nothing to do with you whatsoever, so your blather about my posts not being worth reading really is hysterically hypocritical. Nobody asked you to read my posts. All I did was respond to your delusional baloney, and seriously bub, for you to call anyone else self-aggrandizing really does take the cake. Try reading one of your own posts sometime. You have absolutely no idea when you are in over your head, but a lack of substance never stalls the tenacity of your less than witty, incessantly sanctimonious rants.
ham-fisted logic.
You have absolutely no idea when you are in over your head, but a lack of substance never stalls the tenacity of your less than witty, incessantly sanctimonious rants.
The irony is killing me.
Oh then tell me Sean Williams, how am I in over my head? You could at least have the balls to try to argue an actual point. Snarky quips are all fine and good, but they are kind of pathetic when they aren’t backed up by any real argument. If you have some argument with a point that I made, try making it instead of just hiding behind vacuous quips. Considering that you had no cogent argument to make whatsoever, I find the irony of your hollow quip to a bit ironic myself.
i think entop would argue with stump if it looked at him wrong.
The (R2D2)… You think? I seriously doubt it. If you did, you would know how hilariously hypocritical that statement was. Your projection is astonishing. Do you really think that I couldn’t easily show hundreds, if not thousands of argumentative posts from you with various people on this site? I truly hope that you are not that delusional.
I make no bones about the fact that I am an opinionated person who will argue for what I believe. Unlike you, I don’t deny it. You on the other hand, are every bit as argumentative if not more so, but you lack the self awareness to even notice that irrefutable fact. The fact that you would have the dumbfounding audacity to chide anyone else here for being argumentative is truly cartoonishly funny.
If any small part of you is at all honest with yourself, you know that I am right.
You could at least have the balls to try to argue an actual point.
My idea was to avoid arguing an actual point, because I believed it beneath my dignity to participate in this debate. But since you so boldly called me out, I’ll deign to respond once more.
If you have some argument with a point that I made, try making it instead of just hiding behind vacuous quips.
I would never dream of challenging even a single point of the forensic masterpiece you’ve assembled in your previous forty bazillion posts. Read my first reply to this thread and you’ll note that I find Ronulans just as irritating as does the next netizen. I took issue not with your political stances but with your manner of expressing yourself.
(By the way, “hiding behind vacuous quips” is a mode of communication that we Earth-monsters call “sar-kaz-um”. It allows us to express disapproval without creating a confrontational atmosphere. But since you find this mode displeasing, I will endeavor to be forthright in clarifying the points that you misunderstood — whether due to my vagueness or due to your unthinking hostility, I leave bystanders to decide.)
My point was simply this: you have begun your every contribution to this debate by declaring your superior rationality, but your demonstrated command of dialectics is no better than your opponents’. You have made some perfectly legitimate points — like your observation that no amount of harassment justifies use of the word “queer” — but you have made those points repeatedly, at unnecessary length, and liberally interspersed with statements of the most advanced self-righteousness.
Your claim that all conservatives are lacking in intelligence and empathy is not only ridiculous but abhorrent. Frankly, I know many conservatives who are far more intelligent and far more empathetic than you. (If you object to that observation, remember that you urged me to express myself more clearly.)
I understand the temptation to argue again and again and again — it’s a faux pas of which I’ve been guilty on this very site — and I understand that internet arguments inevitably degenerate into abysmal idiocy regardless of the intelligence of the participants. But you are taking yourself far too seriously, moreso than any of the other debaters here, which is why I targeted you.
You could at least have the balls to try to argue an actual point.
Better tiny testicles than a tiny brain floating in a cubic meter of testosterone.
I await your “irrefutable” response.
Sorry Sean, but the truth is, you are guilty of most of the criticisms that you leveled at me. You are the one talking all of that crap about what’s beneath your dignity, and you really are laughably self-righteous.
You take issue not with my arguments but how I express myself? I can’t say that I am too surprised that you just substitute personal attacks on me for any real argument. Well guess what sport, I can’t say that I care for the way that you express yourself much either. Your flailing attempts at wit and tortured efforts to sound intelligent don’t exactly make you very endearing.
You really think that your smarmy sarcasm is somehow less offensive than anything that I have ever said here? Seriously, read your own posts sometime. Without a substantive argument to go with them, your vacuous quips are just that.
Your repeated attempts to make up straw man arguments are pretty pathetic. Of course I think my own arguments are more rational than whoever I am disagreeing with.
I’m sorry, but your criticism of of my command of dialectics really was laughably ironic. And the fact that you actually had the nerve to call me self-righteous in the midst of your ludicrously sanctimonious screed really was cartoonishly hypocritical.
I’m glad that you know conservatives that are so much more intelligent and empathic than me. Tell me, how does that work exactly? They want to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich by slashing funding for the needy because they are just so empathic? They fight equal pay for women and equal rights for gays and lesbians because they are so darned empathic? They fight to allow corporations to blacken our skies and pollute our rivers because they are just flowing over with empathy? They fight to deny tens of millions of people health coverage so that insurers can make huge profits by bilking suffering people out of their life’s savings because they are so much more empathic?
Or are you talking about conservatives who don’t actually support any conservative platforms? There’s actually a great new term for them. They are called liberals.
Yes, I do think it is inarguable that liberals are more empathic. I am proud to be a bleeding heart liberal. There is a reason that there is no such thing as a bleeding heart conservative. There is also a reason that there is no such thing as a liberal member of the Klan. I think there are plenty of conservatives who are vastly smarter than I in countless areas, but in my opinion, if they were intelligent about politics they wouldn’t be conservatives.
I take myself too seriously? Again, try actually reading one of your own posts sometime. I take things like Ron Paul’s long history of bigotry seriously, but I have never been one to take myself too seriously. For example, several different people nominated me to be a speaker at the upcoming TED talks, but I didn’t think I had anything that great to offer at this time, so I declined. If I took myself too seriously I probably would have used the opportunity to pontificate, but I didn’t.
Go ahead, hurl some more self-important personal attacks at me if you like, but don’t expect me to cow-tow to your sanctimonious drivel.
Can I get a “good grief?”
Sure, just read one of your reviews ;^P
Sure, just read one of your reviews
Touche.
Sean Williams for the Win!
[b]I would never dream of challenging even a single point of the forensic masterpiece you’ve assembled in your previous forty bazillion posts.[/b]
The win? What are you 12? Oh wait… your moniker is poopykap. Perhaps 12 is an overestimation.
A stump
All right, gig’s up: yes, Tom and I know each other in real life — we attended all of the same schools kindergarten through college, traveled in the same social circles, even chased some of the same girls.
He promised to check in around ten o’clock, s let’s all give a big Asheville welcome to my personal friend, I really love this guy, still can’t pronounce his name without gagging on my own tongue —
Tomislav Pijonsnodt!
Sean Moorhead requested my presence — or, more accurately, sacrificed the requisite number of albino rabbits to command my attention. (He has not, however, returned my copy of Weir’s Last Wave, and if he fails to do so within the week, I will remove an equivalent amount of his flesh.)
Now, Mr. Entopticon — although that’s clearly not your real name and you are clearly unworthy of a title originally reserved for gentlemen — may I have this dance?
I am proud to be a bleeding heart liberal.
And you’ve stained my carpet beyond the abilities of Oxy-Clean to repair, you fiend!
Nor is cardiac blood your only or even your most copious discharge: you resemble the common starfish in that you employ a single orifice as both mouth and anus. Too long has your streaming geyser of oral diarrhea besmirched these hallowed halls, and I — I am both your gag and your buttplug.
But I doubt whether even my peerless eloquence (and I do not believe I flatter myself by saying that my command of language is equal to that of the very Metatron) can staunch the relentless flow of idiocy from your keyboard, for such is the nature of idiocy that sagacious rebuke generally inflames it to greater boldness.
Nevertheless, I persist in the hopes that I, like the boy who saved the dykes of Holland, will be able to forestall the torrents by stuffing my finger in your hole. And though I, like the noble Spartans who held the Hot Gates, may perish on this battlefield, rest assured that my dying zinger will graze your cheek!
Looks like there are a couple of posts missing here.
[b]The win? What are you 12? Oh wait… your moniker is poopykap. Perhaps 12 is an overestimation. [/b]
ahh, yes, making poop jokes based on the user’s name. Indeed a mature, intelligent tactic.
I await your vitriolic response, in all its voluminous glory. I fear for the well-being of your little plastic keys.
You are the one who had “poop” in your moniker before you changed it. I merely drew attention to it.
Poofy, I’d thank you for your assistance except that it’s about as useful as a screen door on a submarine because (a.) you’re clearly a sock of one of the other posters, which casts suspicion on everyone else involved in this thread, and (b.) you are committing crimes against English usage of the type I usually expect only from Sean, who fancies himself a great prose stylist.
Put that thesaurus down and back away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself. Leave the insult-hurling to the professionals — viz., ME — and depart this combat-zone before you’re caught in the crossfire.
T.H.X. Pijonsnodt, Esq. (sic)…. You seriously overestimate yourself. I don’t doubt for a moment that your friends are impressed by the self-aggrandizing drivel that you substitute for cleverness, but until you make the effort to actually develop some genuinely cogent thoughts, you are just like a boy indeed. Like a boy dressed up in his dad’s clothes, in your case a thesaurus that could use a rest, who is completely unaware of the fact that his big-boy costume is laughably amusing, but not so convincing as he believes it to be.
Take all of the personal potshots at me that you want. It is easy for a pencil-necked coward to hide behind a keyboard, but I would love to see you try to say that shit to my face.
Take all of the personal potshots at me that you want. It is easy for a pencil-necked coward to hide behind a keyboard, but I would love to see you try to say that shit to my face.
Not that I have any wish to prolong this, but aren’t you both using screen names?
Yes indeed, but as opposed to thx puffinstuff, esq, I wasn’t making any unwarranted personal attacks about anuses etc, and I would have no problem saying anything that I said to his face or anyone else here. Conversely, I seriously doubt that thx would be brave enough to make all of those asinine personal attacks on me to my face, because it would certainly get very ugly, very fast.
Conversely, I seriously doubt that thx would be brave enough to make all of those asinine personal attacks on me to my face, because it would certainly get very ugly, very fast.
Possibly so, but since that’s not an opportunity being offered, I don’t see where either of you can claim moral highground about hiding behind a screen name. Personally, I’m amazed that you’re taking his remarks seriously.
A stumph.
Oh, and i just adore the thinly veiled threat. Big man! I thought you intel-exua-als were non violent? You sound like one of those big mean right wing extremist gay bashers you ramble on about like a paranoid-delusional malapert milksop.
[b]You are the one who had “poop” in your moniker before you changed it. I merely drew attention to it. [/b]
Changed what? You dont pronounce the “H”? feel free to PM me iffin you’re gonna come beat me up.
In my annoyance, I may not have made my point very well. A migraine headache and a condition that makes my every nerve feel like it’s on fire makes me a bit cranky myself at times. My point was just that the imbecilic insults that some people wouldn’t dare say to someone bigger and meaner than them’s face are often easy online for some. For better or worse, I try not to say anything that I wouldn’t be willing to back up to someone’s face. I seriously doubt that HR puffinstuff esq, would have the courage to talk the same sort of crap to my face.
The (R2D2)… why it is that you obsess over my every post remains a mystery. There is a scroll bar on the side of every window. Just use it if you don’t like my posts. You virtually never even have anything intelligent or even relevant to offer in relation to the actual content of my posts. You just offer a bunch of embarrassingly lame attempts at wit that are essentially vacuous. I honestly just don’t think you are very interesting. If your insights matched your bravado I would have more patience for your less-than witty banter, but more often than not, I honestly couldn’t give a flying f*ck about what you think one way or another. It’s not that I even find your incessant attacks that annoying, they are just kind of pathetic for the most part.
You seriously overestimate yourself.
Estimate? I could precisely calculate My awesomeness in gigajoules, except that My TI-84+ shorts out when it attempts to process numbers exceeding ten to the hundredth power.
Instead, I measure My awesomeness in miles to reflect the distance at which My smoldering glance can disintegrate a woman’s undergarments.
in your case a thesaurus that could use a rest
I have no a thesaurus — only a collegiate education.
I don’t doubt for a moment that your friends are impressed by the self-aggrandizing drivel that you substitute for cleverness
Friends? I don’t have any of those, either. I have cowed minions. I have captive babies upon whose still-beating hearts I feed fortnightly. I have two idiot roommates, Sean and Joel.
But friends? Family? These concepts have no meaning to the God of Death.
Let Me tell you something of My personal history, puny mortal. I roundhouse-kicked My way out of My mother’s womb and strangled My father with My own umbilical cord. When I reached My majority, I punched the fabric of reality so forcefully that I traveled back in time, where I artificially inseminated My mother with My bare hands.
his big-boy costume is laughably amusing, but not so convincing as he believes it to be.
I wear this costume, this body of weaker, whiter flesh and bone more frail, because My true form is not comprehensible to dwellers in a three-dimensional Euclidian universe. After all, there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial.
Not that I have any wish to prolong this, but aren’t you both using screen names?
Need I explain My Name to you?
Tomislav is the name of the first king of Croatia.
Hadeon means “Destroyer” in Croatian.
Xenophon means “Strange voice” in Greek.
Pijonsnodt is the name of the chief deity of the ancient Slavic pantheon and is a corruption of an archaic word meaning “Thunderer”.
Esquire reflects my status as a Doctor of Both Laws.
I seriously doubt that thx would be brave enough to make all of those asinine personal attacks on me to my face
My reticence to meet you in public has less to do with cowardice than with mercy. No mortal man can withstand my unfiltered wrath. Sean has to wear a lead-lined biohazard suit to inhabit the same house as I.
it would certainly get very ugly, very fast.
It would indeed, when the hills flowed like wax and the sky rolled back like a scroll and the stars fell like untimely figs.
English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Arthur-king, you and your silly English K…kaniggets. I don’t want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.
your father smelt of elderberries.
Hey, I smell of elderberries, but it’s that cold remedy Marcianne Miller gave me!
“I wear this costume, this body of weaker, whiter flesh and bone more frail, because My true form is not comprehensible to dwellers in a three-dimensional Euclidian universe. After all, there are bodies terrestrial and bodies celestial.”
That’s actually an interesting thought for a change. Without all of self-aggrandizing trash talk and free-associative goofiness, I suspect you might be an interesting person.
Hey, I smell of elderberries, but it’s that cold remedy Marcianne Miller gave me!
I wouldn’t fret if I were you. I’m sure in some foreign culture somewhere, elderberries are highly regarded for their fruity odor…*ahem*…yeah, I’m sure that’s the case.
But friends? Family? These concepts have no meaning to the God of Death.
Aw, even the God of Death needs a friend.
Need I explain My Name to you?
What fool wouldn’t have been able to figure this out on their own? I, for one, was already fully aware of this…um…’meaning’.
[b]A migraine headache and a condition that makes my every nerve feel like it’s on fire makes me a bit cranky myself at times[/b]
“At times”? are those the times you are online?
[b]The (R2D2)… why it is that you obsess over my every post remains a mystery. There is a scroll bar on the side of every window. Just use it if you don’t like my posts. You virtually never even have anything intelligent or even relevant to offer in relation to the actual content of my posts. You just offer a bunch of embarrassingly lame attempts at wit that are essentially vacuous. I honestly just don’t think you are very interesting. If your insights matched your bravado I would have more patience for your less-than witty banter, but more often than not, I honestly couldn’t give a flying f*ck about what you think one way or another. It’s not that I even find your incessant attacks that annoying, they are just kind of pathetic for the most part. [/b]
Ahh, the irony, the irony! its burning my skin! my eyes!
i suppose ‘not giving a flying fu¢k’ about someone means you must respond to every ‘vacuous attempt at wit’ with ever-increasing vitriol and even some potential chest-thumping.
indeed!
This word “irony,” I don’t think it means what you think it does. I rarely, rarely comment on your posts, unless you are making the usual personal attacks against me. You, on the other hand, follow me around from thread to thread making personal attacks on me that rarely even address the actual content of my posts. Again, if you find me so uninteresting, why do you obsess on my posts all day long? When you aren’t making personal attacks on me, I have little trouble ignoring you.
I feel like the remainder of this conversation should be moved to the Star Trek thread due to the black hole of irony that’s being created here.
Well, it certainly winds the award for most posts that have nothing whatever to do with the film supposedly under discussion.