Matt Damon wants everyone to know that he never actually used the “F-slur” himself
After causing a stir over his use of the word in an interview earlier this week, he's come to say "I stand with the LGBTQ+ community"
Film News Damon
Despite what he said an interview earlier this week about shutting “the fuck up more,” actor Matt Damon returns to set the record straight about his use of the “f-slur.” In a statement to Variety, Damon seeks to add more context to an earlier interview with the Sunday Times, in which he was quoted telling a story about how his daughter wrote a “treatise” against the use of the derogatory slur and how, as direct result, he retired his use of the word. The actor now says that the conversation with his daughter was “not a personal awakening” and that he does not “use slurs of any kind.”
In the initial interview, the Stillwater actor discussed the changes in modern Hollywood, before launching into the story about his daughter’s thoughts about the use of the f-slur in older films and its unfortunate historical use in everyday life. “I made a joke, months ago, and got a treatise from my daughter,” Damon told the Times. “She left the table. I said, ‘Come on, that’s a joke! I say it in the movie Stuck on You!’ She went to her room and wrote a very long, beautiful treatise on how that word is dangerous. I said, ‘I retire the f-slur!’ I understood.”
Following the backlash, Damon says he understands how his phrasing “led many to assume the worst.”
“During a recent interview, I recalled a discussion I had with my daughter where I attempted to contextualize for her the progress that has been made – though by no means completed–since I was growing up in Boston and, as a child, heard the word ‘f*g’ used on the street before I knew what it even referred to,” Damon says in the statement. “I explained that that word was used constantly and casually and was even a line of dialogue in a movie of mine as recently as 2003; she in turn expressed incredulity that there could ever have been a time where that word was used unthinkingly. To my admiration and pride, she was extremely articulate about the extent to which that word would have been painful to someone in the LGBTQ+ community regardless of how culturally normalized it was. I not only agreed with her but thrilled at her passion, values and desire for social justice.
“I have never called anyone ‘f****t’ in my personal life and this conversation with my daughter was not a personal awakening. I do not use slurs of any kind,” Damon continues. “I have learned that eradicating prejudice requires active movement toward justice rather than finding passive comfort in imagining myself ‘one of the good guys’. And given that open hostility against the LGBTQ+ community is still not uncommon, I understand why my statement led many to assume the worst. To be as clear as I can be, I stand with the LGBTQ+ community.”
215 Comments
This is….. dumb. I don’t want to play anymore.
not a very eloquent treatise, but your thesis is sound.
Yeah, I’m generally pretty ambivalent about the court of public opinion, but this seems like a textbook example of it trying to meet some procedural quota. I’m quite sure there are higher quality, actually deserving targets out there, Internet.
What are you talking about? People were criticizing him because HE HIMSELF said HE had recently been using the word and only stopped after a tremendous amount of effort by his daughter convinced him it was wrong, all in the recent past. This isn’t the “court of public opinion” manufacturing outrage (unless you think casually dropping homophobic slurs around your children, and then defending it, is behavior that doesn’t deserve to get called out), or unfairly jumping to conclusions. It was rightfully judging him on something he said he did.
It’s because they’re jumping on him at the moment HE HIMSELF is both freely admitting to doing something wrong with no outside pressure/getting caught, and saying that he’d now changed his ways.What’s really telling here is that the online cancellators always say how it’s okay to make mistakes in your past so long as you demonstrate an understanding of why what you said was wrong and how you have changed. This is exactly what Damon’s done here, and he’s getting flak for it, which would seem to prove that for all their posturing these douchebags on Twitter really are just looking to get high on their own outrage.
So, he’s actually not freely admitting anything, because this story is about him DENYING the thing he previously admitted. Beyond that, I don’t think it’s the rule of “cancellators” that ANY mistake made at ANY point the past is fine as long as you say sorry (in fact, one of the criticisms of the “cancellators” is that they don’t let people move on from past mistakes). This isn’t him saying that when he was 13 he used the word before he fully grasped how offensive it was. It was him saying he used and defended his use of a homophobic slur MONTHS ago and only came to change (despite it being 2021 and it being widespread knowledge that word is an offensive slur, especially for someone in Damon’s position) after his daughter had to expend an enormous amount of energy to explain what he already knew. Being an ally doesn’t mean you never get criticized for any action because you say the right set of apology words, it means accepting criticism when you fall short of treating people with respect and stop doing it.
So, he’s actually not freely admitting anything, because this story is about him DENYING the thing he previously admitted.You’ve just acknowledged, right there, that he ADMITTED to it. This latest PR defence – which might be bullshit, sure – was in response to the backlash he received as a result.Being an ally doesn’t mean you never get criticized for any action
because you say the right set of apology words, it means accepting
criticism when you fall short of treating people with respect and stop
doing it. So if I go online and freely admit: “I used to do X, then I learned that it was wrong, now I’m not going to do it anymore,” the result is that I must endure the outraged vitriol of thousands of people online… to what end? Is it some form of restitution or penitence? Or is it a way for people online to get their self-righteous on in a way that accomplishes nothing? Do you think this makes the left look good, somehow? Do you think this is a valuable use of people’s time and motivation?
Yes, he admitted it. Then he took it back and said he didn’t do it. You can see how “I actually didn’t do it” in response to a backlash isn’t “freely” admitting anything. It’s conditionally admitting it. He only “admitted” so long as he thought he wouldn’t face consequences. The result of admitting you did something wrong is that you face consequences for it, and one of those consequences is criticism. When you do something wrong and harmful, you aren’t entitled to freedom from criticism just because you admitted you did a wrong thing. Also, you should try to understand why people are upset. It’s not just that he used a homophobic slur. I think a significant portion of men around his age (present company included, unfortunately and ashamedly) have used that word. But it is ridiculous for someone in Damon’s position, in 2021, not to have realized that homophobic slur was unacceptable to use (in front of his daughter no less), and more ridiculous that it required his daughter to expend an enormous amount of energy to explain why it was wrong. It suggests a lack of respect for and attention to the feelings of LGBTQ+ over the course of decades. It’s why people are so critical of Republicans who come out in favor of gay rights after a their child comes out as gay. I think criticizing ignorant use of homophobic language is a better use of time than defending (apparently pro bono…how kind of you) a very powerful person who alread has his own team of PR professionals.
So, he’s actually not freely admitting anything, because this story is about him DENYING the thing he previously admitted. No. The original interview and his subsequent statement are not contradictory, and he’s not trying to weasel out of taking responsibility. He admitted to (volunteered it, in fact) having used the word in the past, but now in his subsequent statement he’s claiming that he has never used the word as a slur directed at anyone.I’m sure that you’re more than familiar with how derogatory language can be used outside of the context of slurs directed at members of a given oppressed group. That’s what Damon freely admitted to, not to going around hurling that word at LGBTQIA+ folks. To wit, from the original Sunday Times interview in which Damon tells the story about the experience with his daughter: “I made a joke, months ago, and got a treatise from my daughter. She left the table,” he told The Sunday Times. “I said, ‘Come on, that’s a joke! I say it in the movie, “Stuck on You!”’ She went to her room and wrote a very long, beautiful treatise on how that word is dangerous. I said, ‘I retire the f-slur!’ I understood.”Again, he used the word while making a joke, not as a slur. To be clear: That doesn’t make it right, and neither myself nor Damon are saying that it makes it right. In fact, Damon himself says in that very interview that he now realizes that it was wrong, but my point is that those comments are not at all at odds with his subsequent statement. (Nor is Damon now claiming that he’s never used the word, as others lacking critical reading skills keep insisting in comments below). As someone who fought long and hard to get their friends, classmates, co-workers, etc., to stop using that exact same word because of their own experiences, I can tell you, lots of people—especially back then (and especially in Boston)—use(d) that word devoid of its context as a slur directed at someone. It’s completely believable to me that someone could cluelessly grow up using it and not even think of it in terms of its actual meaning as hateful speech. I witnessed that very phenomenon several times, first-hand.Should Damon have known a long time ago that it was wrong to use it in any context? Of course. Should we keep denouncing people when they admit to past mistakes and speak of their growth? You have to decide for yourself, I guess, how productive that is and if it’s going to help us all live in a better world.
No. The original interview and his subsequent statement are not contradictory, and he’s not trying to weasel out of taking responsibility. He admitted to (volunteered it, in fact) having used the word in the past, but now in his subsequent statement he’s claiming that he has never used the word as a slur directed at anyone.Are you getting paid for this? First of all, the distinction you’re trying to make is one he never actually said. You may be reading into his new “explanation” that he admits to using the word but just never used it as a slur, but that’s not a thing he actually says, and its not the most natural reading of his newest statement. Especially not since in his original statement (which you quoted!) he said “I retire the f-slur” which would seem a pretty clear admission that he used it as a slur.Also, even if your reading is correct, he may not have directed it at anyone, he doesn’t get to decide whether the word is a slur! Unless he was referring to a pile of sticks, or trying to bum a cigarette in England a decade or more ago, if he used that word, he was using it as a slur, because it’s a fucking slur. And what he admitted to doing was defending the use of the word.Should Damon have known a long time ago that it was wrong to use it in any context? Of course. Should we keep denouncing people when they admit to past mistakes and speak of their growth? You have to decide for yourself, I guess, how productive that is and if it’s going to help us all live in a better world.
The amount of effort it would have taken Damon to have known, before sometime in the first or second quarter of 2021, is approximately zero. He just has to have lived in the world for the past 25 years. As I’ve explained elsewhere, the problem isn’t just his past use of the word. It’s (1) using the word at a time when it is obvious to everyone that it is unacceptable (Damon surely knew it was unacceptable, else why doesn’t he use it frequently in public?), and (2) it’s actually kind of a problem when people who consider themselves “allies” demand that others expend a significant amount energy explaining why something that is obviously wrong (like using the most well-known homophobic slur in the English language…it would be entirely a different thing if, say, he had called someone a “cocksucker” and had to have someone explain that to him), and even then when they only believe it when it is someone close to them, like his daughter, rather than just listening to, and accepting, what the LGBTQ+ community has been saying for longer than I’ve been alive about it! The latter is especially galling when the “ally” demands that not only do they not get to be criticized for their harmful conduct, but that we all recognize and applaud their “growth” for having realized, like 30 years after the rest of civilization, that a certain word is an unacceptable slur.I want people to grow and learn, but I’m not going to pretend that unacceptable conduct is actually acceptable to accomplish that, in part because I don’t think treating perfectly reasonably intelligent adults as if they are incapable of avoiding engaging in well-known harmful conduct without someone first personally walking them through why it is harmful.
admits to using the word but just never used it as a slur, but that’s not a thing he actually says, and its not the most natural reading of his newest statement.That’s exactly what his subsequent statement says: “I have never called anyone ‘f****t’ in my personal life and this conversation with my daughter was not a personal awakening. I do not use slurs of any kind”…You’re either equivocating the meaning of the word slur or you need to work on your critical reading skills. Either way, I’m not, in fact, getting paid for this, and so at least for today I’m done arguing with people who want to be outraged (or feign being outraged) for the sake of it.
He doesn’t say “I have used the word, but never directed at anyone, and never as a slur.” He says “I have never called anyone a ‘f*****t’ in my personal life” and “I do not use slurs of any kind.” “I actually have used that word, but never as a slur” are words YOU are putting in his mouth, it’s not a thing he said. Moreover, as I pointed out, in his original comments he said, after he was given the treatise by his daughter that convinced him to no longer use the word, “I retire the f-slur!” Maybe it’s not what he meant, but the only plausible way to read that is that he understands he was using a slur. And that’s the only sensible thing he could say, because unless he was using one of its alternate meanings (bundle of sticks, or “f*g” as British slang for cigarettes), the word is a slur, period. That’s why it’s inappropriate to use, because it’s a slur.I’m not outraged “for the sake of it” whatever the fuck that even means. I’m pointing out why the story Damon chose to tell reflects poorly on him, and why it’s okay to criticize him for it.
I know it’s hard to admit when you’re wrong. Keep pretending that you’re right.
I mean, we can all engage in all the rhetorical posturing we like to try to “win” the argument, but everyone can see what Matt Damon actually said (“I retire the f-slur!”) and compare it to what you are claiming he said (“I never used it as a slur”), and decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong. Show, don’t tell.
I’m not claiming he said that he never used it as a slur; I’m quoting him saying that he has “never called anyone ‘f****t’ in my personal life”—which to me is the definition of slur in the context in which you and others condemning him are insisting on using the term. I have said from the beginning—and Damon himself admits as much—that he used the word, just not as a homophobic slur directed at someone. It’s a pretty crucial difference.You’re using slur self-reflexively (and equivocating in doing so, knowingly or not)—you’re parsing it to mean that he’s claiming he never used the word itself at all, which is not what he said—not in the interview (obviously) and not in the subsequent statement. And yes, Damon used the phrase “f-slur” himself, but he also was doing so reflexively—he was acknowledging that the use of the word itself, regardless of context and whether or not he was using it to attack someone’s sexuality—is wrong, and that he would no longer use it, not even while joking with his daughter or trying to point out to her how much progress we’ve made since 2003. I mean, forget all of this back-and-forth. What do you all think the point was in Damon admitting something so obviously embarrassing if your interpretation of his words is correct?
That’s not what a slur is. I’m a fan of the Washington Football Team, and when I’ve used their former name in the past, I was using a slur! When I sang the song, I was gleefully and joyfully singing a slur! I have a lot of shirts and gear with a slur printed across them. Just because I wasn’t directing it at any person doesn’t make it not a slur. A word that is a slur doesn’t become not a slur just because you claim you are not directing it at anyone (also a bit difficult to believe that someone who used that word on any regular basis never directed it at anyone). It doesn’t become not a slur because you use it jokingly. You’re using slur self-reflexively (and equivocating in doing so, knowingly or not)—you’re parsing it to mean that he’s claiming he never used the word itself at all, which is not what he said—not in the interview (obviously) and not in the subsequent statement.
I mean, it is certainly true that he never said the exact words “I have never used that word ever.” But he also never used the words “I have used the word, but never as a slur, because something is only a slur if you direct it at someone, and I have never directed that word at someone.” What he did say, originally, was after his daughter’s treatise, he agreed to “retire the f-slur”, which is basically him admitting that he was using the word as a slur (which is pretty much its only modern usage, unless, like you, you have an idiosyncratic definition of the word slur), and then what he said later is he has never used a slur. Those two statements contradict. But even if they don’t, who cares? If your interpretation is correct, what he confirmed today is that he thought that word was okay to use as recently as a few months ago. If that’s true, the criticism he received for his original comments remains valid because he would be saying that he didn’t realize until months into 2021 that the word was unacceptable to use, which is mind bogglingly and inexcusably ignorant.And yes, Damon used the phrase “f-slur” himself, but he also was doing so reflexively—he was acknowledging that the use of the word itself, regardless of context and whether or not he was using it to attack someone’s sexuality—is wrong, and that he would no longer use it, not even while joking with his daughter or trying to point out to her how much progress we’ve made since 2003.
I don’t know what to tell you. He fucking admitted the way he was using it was as a slur.I mean, forget all of this back-and-forth. What do you all think the point was in Damon admitting something so obviously embarrassing if your interpretation of his words is correct?
I don’t know why the fuck ignorant white men do what they do. I’m assuming, like a whole lot of misguided white assholes, he thought people would be patting him on the back for his growth or something. I know that no one on earth asked for or needed an unprompted Matt Damon monologue to explain to us something we’ve all known for decades. But who cares? I do know what he said, which is that he admitted to using a slur (his words!) one day, and then now is claiming that he has never used a slur. Both can’t be true.
Sigh. More equivocation. I’m done. Someone else can try to explain this to you.
Like I said, we can all do these rhetorical things to pretend we’ve “won” the argument. Everyone reading this cursed thread can compare the things might Damon actually said (“I retire the f-slur”) with what you’re claiming he’s saying that is consistent across both statements (he has never used a slur) and decide for themselves who is “wrong” and engaging in “equivocation.”
“Unless he was referring to a pile of sticks, or trying to bum a cigarette in England a decade or more ago”.Also chunks of meat served in gravy.
“Again, he used the word while making a joke, not as a slur. To be clear: That doesn’t make it right, and neither myself nor Damon are saying that it makes it right.”You know it’s still a slur even if it’s being used in a joke, right? I mean…that’s common knowledge right? We do know, don’t we, that a gay person doesn’t feel less demeaned just because the other person says “it was a joke”?
The listen here is never admit you’ve ever been wrong about anything.
I love how you think some wealthy white celebrity being mildly mocked online is somehow him being “canceled”. As if his career is ruined because people spent a day mocking him for something stupid he said in an interview.With few exceptions, people like Matt Damon will never suffer any serious consequences for their actions.
Who are these “online cancellators” and exactly what headway have they made toward “cancelling” Matt Damon?
Nowhere does it say its something he’s been often saying recently. The anecdote is that he said it in a conversation with his daughter.This is such a whole lot of nothing. People will get upset about anything these days. My god.
And mild criticism at best. Nobody’s “canceling” him. Just some minor jokes at his expense. Hell’s he’s a wealthy white dude, short of him being convicted of a serious felony, he will never suffer any tangible consequences for his actions. Honestly it would have been better if Damon was more self-deprecative about this gaff.
Internet Court! How will you judge the accused?
Everyone is guilty in Internet Court.
If you’re Catholic, that’s a technically an upgrade since you don’t have to go to church on Sundays.
This reboot of ‘Night Court’ sucks.
BURN HIM! BURN ME! BURN YOU! EVERYONE IS GUILTY! RAAAAAAGGGEEEE!
I think the issue is less about whether or not he actively used the slur in his day to day life but that he didn’t realize until this year that it wasn’t ok to say.
Yea, it’s less heinous but he still comes off as pretty fuckin’ clueless (at best)Goddammit jason Bourne. I thought you were a bit better than this.
I mean I’m more concerned about the fact that Stillwater is doing the whole “Trump Voters Are People Too!” schtick and also exploiting Amanda Knox’s story.
Are they not people?
They are not people.
After the Weinstein comments and the Project Greenlight mess, this is about what I expect from him – he is one of the best examples of why actors have PR people. I’m sure some would say, and are saying, that he shouldn’t be judged, but he’s the one who said all this ridiculous word salad in the first place.
“he is one of the best examples of why actors have PR people”
That’s my take away. I don’t think he’s a bigot. I think he’s dumb and should shut up.
Well, that’s true. But then again, in a historic year when “Titane” wins the Palme, a first following Jane Campion’s (and that was only a tie) win for “The Piano”, is it even that critical that we argue over “Memoria” versus “Annette”? And yet, we should. There’s a very real divide in what exactly constitutes avante garde cinema, and even though in my heart I want to fall on both sides, I know that one must choose.
Now I know.
Okay, I could compare and parse his original comments with his addendum, but I actually just don’t give a shit. He’s obviously trying to speak out—in both the original comments from the interview and the follow-up—against using homophobic slurs and he was expressing pride as a father that his daughter, unlike him, knew that it was wrong to use them without having to be told. Rather than dunking on the guy because he’s a clueless celebrity or assuming the worst about him—that he didn’t realize until 2021 that it was not okay to use homophobic slurs (I mean, c’mon, that was obviously not what he was saying) or that he’s trying to score points with whomever—I’m just going to be happy knowing that we’ve come a long way from 2003, like he’s implying with his anecdote about the movie he was in then in which that slur was still being used casually. I’m tired of the circular fucking firing squad on “our side”. There are literal fucking Nazis insurrectionists that have moved the Overton window fully over to the point where they have dozens of apologists in one of the only two major political parities in the United States trying to gaslight everyone into believing that there are not literal fucking Nazi insurrectionists—all of whom will gladly tell you how freely they use homophobic slurs and worse. Accuse me of being a sealion, of whataboutism, whatever—I don’t give a shit. I grew up with lesbian mothers in St. Joseph, fucking Missouri, in the 1980s and 90s. I know the stakes, first-hand, and I can tell you, Matt Damon isn’t the enemy.
“Okay, I could compare and parse his original comments with his addendum, but I actually just don’t give a shit.”
That’s why you spent the following four paragraphs pathetically defending him.
I mean, Stillwater is a “Trump Voters are People Too!” movie that exploits Amanda Knox’s story. I think that’s worth critiquing.I’m tired of the circular fucking firing squad on “our side”.Meanwhile the Democrats kowtow to Republicans with only the barest amount of protest for the sake of “bipartisanship” while the Biden Administration allows ICE to resume fast track deportation flights (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/biden-deportation-flights-covid/2021/07/30/fcead208-f154-11eb-ab6f-b41a066381df_story.html). “Our Side” on the whole only cares about austerity and maintaining the illusion of the status quo. They will talk a big talk about progressive ideas but then abandon them the moment it effects “bipartisanship” and than appropriate grassroots progressive movements to soften their image for neoliberals.
It’s not exploiting her story at all.
So critique Stillwater. I have. I’ve had plenty to say about how it’s akin to NYT’s and WaPo’s “Cletus safari” stories that want to do anything but call a spade a spade when it comes to MAGA bullshit. I’m annoyed with director Tom McCarthy for straying so far away from his best film, Spotlight. And I’ve had plenty to say elsewhere about the Biden administration’s failures. I’m with AOC and my home state rep’s Cori Bush in calling out the White House—and Pelosi and the rest of the congressional leadership—for letting the eviction moratorium lapse without a fight. I’m with you on ICE and deportation fast tracking, too.Now what does any of that have to do with dunking on Damon for inartfully saying something and pop culture blogs hijacking it to manufacture snark and outrage again?
I mean that’s a bit of a whataboutism. Allies need to be aware of and acknowledge their own internalized prejudices. The reason why there’s so much infighting on the left is that a lot of white allies tend to talk over marginalized people and act indignant when they receive even the most mild criticism from those marginalized groups for their stupid takes. They than start tone policing the criticism and shouting “Cancel Culture!” to all their followers on social media and start palling around with the right because they’re “nicer” than the “SJW’s”.It’s not so much the left demanding “100 % perfection” at all times, more that you have to be open to criticism of your own biases and be willing to learn from your mistakes and change for the better. I’ve seen time and time again left wing media personalities abandon progressive talking points when they were criticized for a hot take rather than just apologizing. They than go on every goddamn social media platform and news site they can find trying to claim that said criticism meant they were “Canceled!”. Which ironically results in them getting an even bigger following thereby demonstrating they weren’t “Camceled” and it’s just an act to for their brand.
What does any of what you just said have to do with Matt Damon or the topic at hand? Has he talked down to anyone in this situation? Has he yelled, “Cancel culture”? Has anyone in this thread done either?
Per your OP:I’m tired of the circular fucking firing squad on “our side”I was simply trying to explain what that infighting you complained about was caused by. As for Matt Damon, nobody is calling for his head. At worst it’s minor ribbing at his expense and light criticism.Making light critiques of wealthy white people’s prejudices isn’t what’s causing infighting on the left, blowing it up like it’s the worst thing in the world for it to happen to someone is.
And who’s “blowing it up like it’s the worst thing in the world”? I don’t see anyone in this thread other than you and recognitions (not good company to keep) trying to make this bullshit about Damon’s inartful comments into some referendum on whether or not one supports LGBTQIA+ folks. And yes, recognitions and plenty of other people down thread are doing something much closer to “calling for his head” than “minor ribbing” (e.g. this proves Damon is a homophobe, anyone who doesn’t agree must also be a homophobe). That’s bullshit and you yourself have made it much more than that elsewhere. Any you give away the game when you dismissively refer to him as “wealthy white people”. This is all about your posturing. Since this isn’t a story about Marvel comics where you can spam dozens of images up top, this is what you’re doing instead. Get a fucking life.
They will talk a big talk about progressive ideas but then abandon them the moment it effects “bipartisanship” and than appropriate grassroots progressive movements to soften their image for neoliberals.What I don’t get is why this is the case. Who are they trying to please by doing this? Who among the mass of the left at this point is saying “We need to work with the people who have sworn to destroy us”? Democratic politicians should be hitting the GOP as hard as possible at all times.
Biden is paleo-bipartisan in the same way that, say Pat Buchanan was paleo-conservative. They insist that their way of doing things can still work, that their values are still relevant, etc., way after everyone else has realized the truth. What’s particularly irksome is that Biden watched first-hand as McConnell, et al. pulled this exact same bullshit with his “boss”, Barack, for eight years, and things have only gotten more batshit insane on the other side of the aisle since then.
Yeah, it’s important to remember that Biden was in the Senate for a billion years and the Senate has always been an insular, self-obsessed old (wealthy, white supremacist) boys’ club. Most Senate Dems could not give less of a shit if Mitch McConnell fucks them over politically, so long as he calls them “my distinguished colleague” while doing so.
Joe Manchin.
Big money Democratic donors.
Because the centrists have the power.Why do you think the whole Democratic Party gets in a snit when The Squad or any progressive Democrat in any race calls them out. The rank and file Democrats now are just Reagan Democrats.The ideas that we should hold big businesses accountable, have healthcare for all, childcare for everyone and free community college were “Democratic” ideas. Not “progressive” or “leftist” Democratic ideas. This country has veered so far to the right that actual Nazis are mainstream.
What a well-researched point. And for sure it has swayed me to some degree. But I must say, at the core of it, I just find “Annette” to be more of an exciting prospect, in that pure noir-soaked cinematic sense: it looks like it has proper beats, you know? Driving at big emotion, providing evocative imagery, engendering empathy, creating that special spell that only cinema can. Anyhow, that’s my two cents. Not disagreeing with you, just saying.
Because no one from either party with any clout is willing to stand up to their constituents and tell Democrats to “Grow a God Damn Spine” or Republicans to “Take Your Fucking Thumb Outta Your Mouth and Show Some Common Sense.”
Of course Trump voters are people, but a lot of progressives are struggling with the fact that Trump voters are fucking voters. I’m guessing you don’t want a purge, so… what?
The old – and dishearteningly accurate – joke is that if a genie granted the Democrats three wishes they’d negotiate it down to one and then use it on something Republicans want.
i don’t think much of him one way or another, just that he’s extremely bad at PR and this is a funny thing to laugh at for 10 minutes.
I don’t think about him much of the time, either, but he happens to be on the right side of history when it comes to sustainability and providing clean drinking water at a time when the CEO of Nestle has publicly fantasized about his company owning said clean drinking water to such an extent that pretty much the entire southern hemisphere would have to pay him if they want to, you know, stay alive. Charities and non-profits can be notoriously mismanaged—even maleficent—but Damon’s water.org gets a lot of praise from watchdogs and the like: https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/582060131
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/02/02/582664769/fact-checking-matt-damons-clean-water-promise-in-a-super-bowl-adHe’s also pretty openly progressive in his politics, speaking out publicly in support of progressive candidates and causes.All of that is good enough for me to not just make him another celebrity to point and laugh at.
well now i’m laughing at you so it all worked out.
People get to react to this however they want regardless of whether you had a lesbian mom or not
Okay.
tl;dr
If only all of your responses to others were this relatively civilized. This is actually a sign of growth for you. Keep it up, sunshine!
I’m not the guy who just wrote a furious screed in defense of homophobia
No, you’re the asshole who—by your own admission—didn’t read it, so you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about, as per usual. You’ve been a cancer on this site since Day 1, and you prove it every time you pull this post-hijacking, no-room-for-nuance, myopic bullshit. Have a good day, sparky.
So much for civility. But keep stanning for rich homophobes I guess
As if you were ever civil in this exchange.
Michelle Fauxcault just said I was!
I have a few genuine questions for you:1) Do you sincerely believe in the progressive politics you purport to espouse?2) If so, in what way do you think comments like these help your cause? Do you think that your one-sentence dismissive comments of her post will now cause Michelle Fauxcault to reconsider her opinions on this matter, or do you think it’ll probably make her less likely to entertain viewpoints such as your own in future? How do you think these kinds of comments work on people who haven’t thought about these issues as much as she clearly has?
3) Following that, how many people do you think hold views similar to or to the right of someone like Michelle Fauxcault?
4) Finally, do you ever worry that you’re doing nothing to grow the cause you’re ostensibly a part of by pushing away people who, while they don’t match up to your levels of woke, are at least on the left and against the right? Is it more important to you that you insult/mock these people for their incorrect opinions, or that you garner support for your cause and thereby effect real-world change?
Have you ever noticed that when someone says “I have genuine questions for you” it turns out to almost never be true?I’m not wasting my time arguing with homeboy up there because the last conversation I had with him (her, I dunno) they unleashed a torrent of verbal abuse and lies about me because I dared to point out that Dr. Dre was a woman beater. Now he’s mad that Matt Damon got caught lying about his homophobia. If someone gets really upset about rich men facing consequences for their actions, that’s their problem, not mine. And if you stop caring about homophobia or violence against women or any other issue that actually affects real people because someone was sarcastic to you on the internet, news flash; that actually makes you a bad person. So yeah, the tone argument isn’t going to get anything accomplished here.
Which of my questions weren’t genuine? I’m obviously coming at this from a particular angle, but that’s because I’m trying to understand why you post the way you do – a way that’s been criticized by numerous people on this site, not just MF or myself. They might be pointed, but they’re sincere questions. And if you stop caring about homophobia or violence against women or any
other issue that actually affects real people because someone was
sarcastic to you on the internet, news flash; that actually makes you a
bad person. I’m not saying they’ll stop caring about these issues because of you. I’m saying they might not entertain viewpoints such as your own, because of you. We can infer from his/her post that MF does, in fact, care about issues such as you mention but does not believe that Matt Damon in particular is homophobic – or at the very least not sufficiently so that it warrants the left wasting it’s energy on lambasting him. You, clearly, believe that this opinion is flawed – you believe, we can infer, that we should spend time and energy publicly calling out Matt Damon. It isn’t a question of getting MF to care, it’s about getting her to care in the way that you do. In which case, see my previous questions. Or maybe I’m wrong. Do you think that MF’s post indicates bigotry and/or a lack of concern over homophobia, or that it’s reflecting of some sort of core right-wing value?
To add to that, however, sarcasm might not make a good-faith person stop caring, but it might make organizing, contributing to the discourse and/or doing activism that much harder when you know your views are going to be met with hostility by others within your group, which might be detrimental to your cause in a similar way.And finally: assuming that MF really would stop caring about these issues due to your or someone else’s sarcasm or hostility – is that, then, a victory? If so, how? Is there no response that might have taken her from her (presumed) state of wishy-washy fair-weather progressivism to a more firm stance? Do you think that what you’re doing accomplishes this?
Whatsisname wrote a long defense of a guy who said homophobic things, one full of whataboutism and bullshit. And apparently you didn’t read my previous comment because I specifically said that he appears to have an issue with men getting criticized. Why that is I can only speculate, but again, that’s his problem, not mine. And I’m not particularly interested in the opinions of homophobes or people who defend homophobia, nor am I looking for feedback on my posting style from them. And I love that I keep hearing arguments that oh no, you can’t be sarcastic or snarky on the AV Club website, of all places. And good God, Lemon, I heard you the first time you utilized the tone argument. The below meme is over ten years old, which should tell you how facile and well-worn your big thesis here is:
And apparently you didn’t read my previous comment because I
specifically said that he appears to have an issue with men getting
criticized.I read all your comments including your reply to mine, and you didn’t specifically mention men getting criticized as far as I can see except for the phrase: “If someone gets really upset about rich men facing consequences for their actions, that’s their problem, not mine.” You don’t refer to MF, you only referred to a generic someone.And I’m not particularly interested in the opinions of homophobes or
people who defend homophobia, nor am I looking for feedback on my
posting style from them.Which am I? Has anything I’ve said thus far been homophobic, or in defense of homophobes? As a bisexual, I’m particularly curious about this part. Also, even if you’re not looking for feedback on your posting style, you seem to very much care about progressive issues, the implementation of which is what we’re discussing. Or do you not care about effecting positive change through your words and actions? Is your wokeness, in that sense, purely performative?
And good God, Lemon, I heard you the first time you utilized the tone
argument. The below meme is over ten years old, which should tell you
how facile and well-worn your big thesis here is:Is this meme evidence of anything? Do you think that maybe, since this problem was occurring ten years ago, that might have anything to do with the polarization in our society? I notice that neither the meme caption nor yourself have actually provided any answers to my questions. Could you?
The answer is asking people to tone down criticisms of homophobia does nothing but allow homophobia to flourish and be normalized. And anyone who’s defending Damon’s self-serving bullshit here is contributing to that. So figure out your priorities and make your choice, I guess.
I’m pretty comfortable with my choice since you haven’t really given me a compelling reason to choose otherwise. Of course that’s what you believe. I’m asking whether or not you’ve considered that your actions might have the opposite effect, and whether or not attacking someone for criticising the criticisms of a person – rather than homophobia as a concept – is counterproductive to your goals.
Yeah I’ve pretty much answered this multiple times. Please to read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_policing
You haven’t answered this, which is why I’m still asking. From you posting that article, I can infer that you believe that I’m tone policing. I would draw your attention to this part of the wikipedia article:
Tone policing prioritizes the comfort of the privileged person in the situation over the oppression of the disadvantaged person.In this situation, I – being bisexual, and therefore a target of the word ‘f*g’ or ‘f*ggot’ – would appear to be the disadvantaged person, with my own oppression being the topic under discussion, no? I am, here, arguing that not going on the offensive against reformed homophobes or the people who defend not going on the offensive against reformed homophobes would, in fact, be a more efficient way of ending my oppression. Is this still tone policing, to you? Do my lived experiences in this matter not count? Would you not, in this instance, be the privileged person, and the ‘comfort’ referring to the comfort of you expressing yourself and engaging in allyship under to your own rules, rather that listening to the oppressed person? Or, if you are LGBTQ+, would this not then be just a discussion about praxis between two people both with person stake in the cause of progressivism?
You might also want to take a look at this part:
Critics have argued that tone policing is a flawed concept simply because it is autological, meaning that criticising of tone policing is itself a form of tone policing. As discussed by The Frisky’s
Rebecca Vipond Brink, “The problem with telling someone that you have a
right to express yourself as angrily as you want to without them
raising an objection is that you’re also inherently telling them that
they don’t have a right to be angry about the way you’re addressing
them.”According to this logic, technically, you (by virtue of implication) accusing me of tone policing would, itself, be tone policing. Therefore, the two would seem to cancel each other out, no?
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I am in favor of tone policing – or at least, policing one’s own tone. What arguments against that would you make to me? Assuming that I’ve taken everything in that article into account?
We were talking about dude up top and his ecstatic defense of Matt Damon’s homophobia. You can choose to feel about it any way you like, but I’m not particularly interested in coddling people who are more invested in defending rich men who feel the need to brag about using harmful slurs only to deny it days later.
But what I’m asking you is, have you considered that what you’re doing is only helping to grow homophobia by discouraging people from being allies, increasing resentment against the left – if only incrementally – and thus stunting the left’s ability to combat homophobia effectively? If I am to take this last reply as your response to that, it would imply that you don’t actually care whether that is the case or not. Is that true?
I think you don’t get equal treatment by asking for it politely and appealing to bigots’ better nature. I think if people change their mind about being allies to gay people because someone who says homophobic things is made fun of, then those people are bad people. You of course are free to think differently.
Of course, you’ve made that much clear. I did ask some questions in response to a similar post of yours earlier, but I didn’t get answers to those. I’ll repost them here in case you missed them:however, sarcasm might not make a good-faith person stop caring, but it might make organizing, contributing to the discourse and/or doing activism that much harder when you know your views are going to be met with hostility by others within your group, which might be detrimental to your cause in a similar way.And finally: assuming that MF really would stop caring about these issues due to your or someone else’s sarcasm or hostility – is that, then, a victory? If so, how? Is there no response that might have taken her from her (presumed) state of wishy-washy fair-weather progressivism to a more firm stance? Do you think that what you’re doing accomplishes this?
If your views are being met with hostility from the oppressed groups you’re trying to help, perhaps you should change those views. And it’s a bold assumption that he cares about these issues to any real degree in the first place, so there’s really no accomplishment to be made there.
Are we talking about Matt Damon, or Michelle Fauxcault, here?If the former: he has changed his views. This whole news story is about him changing them. My take is that we should therefore not castigate him for reforming, the same way we wouldn’t castigate an AA member for being an alcoholic in the first place. Whether or not you believe him to be honest is irrelevant; it’s about what he’s putting out into the discourse.If the latter: what evidence do you have that she doesn’t care? And how are her views being met by hostility from any oppressed group on here? You’re the only one attacking her views.In fact, your views are being challenged by me – a member of the oppressed group you’re trying to help. By your own logic, then, it follows that you should change your views. Will you do that?
I feel like it’s a really weird metaphor to compare someone spewing bigoted slurs to a person with a substance abuse problem for reasons that I hope should be obvious. As for our friend up top, the giant amount of unhinged bile they’ve spilled in this thread isn’t enough to indicate they don’t really care about this issue at all other than how it personality irritates them?https://attitude.co.uk/article/billy-eichner-slams-matt-damon-for-using-word-ft-as-recently-as-months-ago-1/25510/https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/glaad-responds-to-matt-damon-f-slur-remarks-this-word-has-no-place-in-mainstream-media/25546/These people seem to think he should be “castigated” and don’t seem shy about doing it. Which members of the group should I listen to, you or them?
As for our friend up top, the giant amount of unhinged bile they’ve
spilled in this thread isn’t enough to indicate they don’t really care
about this issue at all other than how it personality irritates them?No, actually, it isn’t. Her ‘bile’ is directed almost entirely towards you and we’ve established that your posting style is, if nothing else, contentious. Therefore I don’t see how her posts – especially her OP, which is at least thorough and detailed and thought-out, in the scheme of posts – is evidence that she doesn’t care about the issues. I’ve also seen other posts that back this viewpoint up.These people seem to think he should be “castigated” and don’t seem shy
about doing it. Which members of the group should I listen to, you or
them?Me. We’re not talking about Matt Damon here, we’re talking about you. We’re also not talking about castigating Matt Damon here, but castigating commenters that include Michelle Fauxcault as well as a number of other undeserving commenters on here, in the name of ‘fighting homophobia.’ Billy Eichner and GLAAD don’t know who you are, they don’t know how you post, whereas I do. However, I’d bet big money that if either GLAAD or Billy Eichner had the familiarity with you and your posts that I do, they’d say the same thing as I am.
So? Will you do as I ask, and adjust to a more conciliatory and constructive tone in the future when dealing with people you perceive as homophobes or defenders of homophobia?
Right. So someone defending homophobia gets to be as bullying and verbally abusive as they want, and you give them a pass. Someone speaking out against defending homophobia has to be very nice and placate the person abusing them. Thank you, you’ve made your position very plain. I think we’re done here.Oh except I’ll add that I think it’s very entertaining to watch you speak on behalf of Billy Eichner and GLAAD. I’m sure they’d both love that.
That’s a bit of a misrepresentation of the conversation, to say the least. Michelle Fauxcault took your initial ‘tl;dr’ with good humor. She responded less civilly when you called her post ‘a furious screed in defense of homophobia.’ Both of these posts fail to articulate what you thought was wrong with her post, and are essentially ad hominems. They don’t even work as an attack on homophobia, because they’re too easy to dismiss and fail to identify what’s wrong.By ‘conciliatory and constructive’ I mean that your posts should 1) be written with a view to educate rather than upset, 2) that you refrain from any form of ad hominem when you do so, 3) that you give people the benefit of the doubt unless they have EXPLICITLY said something homophobic. (this does not include posts such as Michelle Fauxcault’s, in which she ‘defends homophobia’).
To be clear: I, a member of the LGBTQ+ community, are telling you that your current way of dealing with these things is wrong. You are taking it upon yourself to fight a fight that is not yours in a way that harms the community you are ostensibly defending. I am therefore asking you to change the way you go about things or – if this is not possible – leave comments like MF’s alone altogether.
Will you do this?
No, this is bullshit. Nothing I said deserved the kind of verbal abuse they unleashed on me throughout this post. But you’re totally ok with that, but my very mild criticism is far too hot for you to take. The bottom line is you’re only concerned about “ad hominem” when it isn’t someone who disagrees with you. So why should I take your blatant hypocrisy seriously?
Because you started it with your ad homs. Ad homs that appear to me, as an outside observer, to be deliberately designed to provoke a reaction of anger. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic when it looks very much like you’ve brought this on yourself, and done so willingly.What happened at the beginning on the conversation is clear, with you instigating against MF. In terms of what happens after that, I wouldn’t attempt to parse it any more than I would attempt to parse a schoolyard fight between two kids: because once things are brought to that messy level, it becomes a lot harder to judge whether one blow was excessively strong vs another.
Additionally, what you’re doing here is rather interesting: You’re refusing to make yourself a better ally by adjusting your rhetoric because of your personal issues towards an individual. Does that not, by your own logic, make you a ‘bad person’?
Regardless, my point is general, and goes beyond the scope of this thread. What I am telling you, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, is that the way you advocate is harmful to my community, and it is not wanted, and I’m asking you, going forward, if you are going to change the way you express your viewpoints and counter those of others in the ways I outlined above.
Again, this is total bullshit. I mean it’s nice of you to confirm your total hypocrisy by acting like verbal abuse is somehow justified, but the funny thing is multiple people tried your exact approach and acted in a manner that I would hope you find sufficiently calm and conciliatory, and your buddy there acted just as rude and pissy to them. Where’s your concern about that, huh? You’re a hypocrite and have zero credibility here.
You’re engaging in whataboutism here. I haven’t seen her response to other people. I haven’t seen their responses to her. However, it’s likely that if she’s acting rude and pissy towards them, it’s because you’ve first riled her up, and that – by joining the conversation on your side after you launched the ad homs first – she’s feeling attacked and defensive. Which is exactly the kind of behavioral phenomenon I was concerned that your method of advocacy would cause.
As for hypocrisy, we have a thread full of comments here containing values that you claim to espouse, and I’m witnessing you, in real time, failing to adhere to them. First because you’re refusing to change your views based on what a member of a marginalized community asks you to do, and secondly by refusing to improve your allyship because of personal feelings of victimhood – a classic white supremacist tactic, no? Once again, I’ll ask you: going forward (note the stress on these words) will you change the way you deal with these kinds of people in the ways I outlined in my previous post? I’ll sweeten the deal with you: if you do these things, and still find yourself the victim of ad homs from other people, I’ll defend you. How does that sound?
Wow holy shit. Look at you actively defending verbal abuse and literally saying “you made them do it.” People who you agree with have no agency in your world, huh? Hopefully someday you won’t be telling your kid “well if you only hadn’t made Daddy so angry, he wouldn’t have hit you.” And I love that you’re all over every single comment I make like flies on shit, but when it comes to your pal engaging in the same exact behavior to others who follow the guidelines you purportedly are asking for, you can’t read suddenly. Please. And oh my GOD are you kidding me with this. “I’ll speak out against verbal abuse and bullying, but only if the person I’m defending is very very nice about it and does what I want from now on?” Get the fuck out of here. Your argument is a joke and reeks of bad faith.
Like I said, once things are brought down to the level of ad hom, it’s kind of hard for me to judge. Was Michelle Fauxcault excessively angry in this thread? Maybe. But she also alludes to previous confrontations with you, which I’m not privy to. And, since we’re both grown adults, we also know that there exist ways to psychologically provoke and/or abuse people that don’t involve yelling invectives. Like I said, I can’t judge. But what’s very clear is that, in response to her post, you set things down a bad path by ad homming her OP and then her response to your initial ad hom.
Also, since we and MF are all grown adults, your child abuse analogy is also somewhat flawed (BTW, in that analogy, you – assuming you’re the child/victim – would be the one with no agency). In essence, while she may have been wrong to react the way she did, I’m not quite ready to label her an abuser – which is a fairly serious accusation – the same way I would not call one of two men scrapping in a barfight abusers of one another.
If you feel like a victim of online abuse because of what MF said, then you have my sympathies, and I will give you the best advice I can: turn off your computer, seek some form of psychological counselling to help deal with the trauma, and don’t engage with her. Regardless of who is right or wrong in your discussion with her, this would be the best thing for you to do for yourself.However, my discussion – which has been the persistent through line of our conversation, not MF – concerns you, and your behavior. Will you, as I’ve repeatedly asked you to do as a member of the LGBT community, adjust your rhetoric in order to be a better ally to the community? This will have the additional positive side-effect of making you less likely to be a target of abuse.
Holy shit this is unbelievable. Look at you doubling down on victim blaming as a concept. Like this doesn’t even necessarily relate to me and this discussion; this is just such a window into your general mindset. You just wrote a whole paragraph about how abuse is the recipient’s problem to deal with. Like, do you hear yourself? What kind of person are you?
I’m not sure what you mean there. If Man A walks into a bar and punches Man B, and the two of them get into a fight, and Man B wins the fight by landing harder blows on Man A, does that mean that Man B abused Man A? I would say no, and I believe that most people would say the same. Furthermore, we would probably argue that Man B was the victim, and not Man A. To be clear, you are Man A in this scenario.
Honestly, it seems like this is a disingenuous deflection to avoid addressing the fact that, as an ally, you are failing to match up to your own standards. You’re failing to change your behavior to align with the demands of a marginalized community, and you’re failing to do so because of personal feelings – both signs, in your own words, of a ‘bad person.’ Once again, a member of the LGBTQ+ community is asking you to change the way you advocate for us. Will you do so, in the ways outlined above?
I’m sorry, but I’m still processing the fact that you actually tried to say “I’m really concerned about how mean you are! Like, really, really concerned! Oh but this guy here who’s actively defending homophobia is being mean to other people? Well, you made him do it by being mean to him first!” That’s an actual argument you made. Oh and “don’t speak out against homophobia if you don’t want abuse!” That’s another winner, right there. Whew boy!
That’s not at all what I’ve said, I’m afraid. I’ve said that the manner in which you speak out against homophobia is counterproductive – that’s what’s at the root of this whole disagreement. I also don’t believe that MF is defending homophobia, and I don’t believe that you’ve adequately demonstrated that she has been.
Therefore, will you yield to the opinion of a member of the LGBTQ+ community and change your rhetorical strategies in order to be a better ally, in the ways I’ve outlined above? Since I’ve asked this question 6 times now, and began asking before you brought up MF’s mean comments, I think it’s only fair that you answer this question before we move onto another topic. A simple yes or no will suffice. Then I’ll be more than happy to discuss MF’s comments towards you.
Oh here we go. Now you’re pulling the same stunt they did, saying I should believe you over my own eyes. And still acting like someone has to live up to a certain standard before they’re worthy of being defended of abuse! I am not looking for help of any kind from someone whose mentality is as deeply fucked as what you’re showing me here, or lectures on how to be nicer from a blatant hypocrite. Sorry.
And still acting like someone has to live up to a certain standard before they’re worthy of being defended of abuse!
It’s not about being worthy of being defended, I would defend anyone from abuse if I saw it. It’s just, as I said:
I’m not sure what you mean there. If Man A walks into a bar and punches Man B, and the two of them get into a fight, and Man B wins the fight by landing harder blows on Man A, does that mean that Man B abused Man A? I would say no, and I believe that most people would say the same. Furthermore, we would probably argue that Man B was the victim, and not Man A. To be clear, you are Man A in this scenario. Regardless: Will you, as I’ve asked you to do as a member of the LGBTQ+ community seven times now, adjust your rhetoric in order to be a better ally to the community?
“This will have the additional positive side-effect of making you less likely to be a target of abuse.” Those were your exact words, kid. Talk about bootstrapping. If I hadn’t already, that was the point where I completely stopped taking you seriously, something that’s not going to change no matter how many times you pose you dumb bad-faith question. Take the hint and take the train.
I used the word ‘abuse’ there because you claimed you were feeling abused. It was an attempt to be sensitive to your feelings. It was not victim blaming, if that’s what you’re getting at, the same way that telling someone: ‘If you don’t start fights, you’ll be less likely to get hit,’ is not victim blaming. But you’re right, maybe I shouldn’t have used the word ‘abuse,’ because I don’t believe you were. Because, again: I’m not sure what you mean there. If Man A walks into a bar and punches
Man B, and the two of them get into a fight, and Man B wins the fight
by landing harder blows on Man A, does that mean that Man B abused Man
A? I would say no, and I believe that most people would say the same.
Furthermore, we would probably argue that Man B was the victim, and not
Man A. To be clear, you are Man A in this scenario.Eighth time. And I assure you, it’s not bad faith: I, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, am telling you that I would like you to change your rhetoric in the ways outlined above, in order to be a better ally. Will you do so? Literally, just say yes or no. That’s all it would take.
Lol nope it’s too late to take it back man, you made your point of view on abuse very clear. And what part of “I completely stopped taking you seriously” did you not understand?
I don’t think anyone reading this thread would think that my stance on abuse is how you frame it.
Ninth time. I, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, am telling you that I would like you to change your rhetoric in the ways outlined above, in order to be a better ally. Will you do so?
Lol
Hey, this might come off as a bit random, but are you doing okay? I’ve been following this thread (partly because I got namechecked in it earlier on), and the way recognitions has been coming at you seemed really aggressive to me. Maybe comments like that are water off a duck’s back to you but I know they can get to me and I just wanted to a), check you’re okay, and b), offer some words of support if you aren’t. As you’ve mentioned, this isn’t academic to you – you’re part of the community affected by queer-phobia. I think you’ve tried very hard to be civil and constructive in this conversation, and haven’t gotten anything but harsh words in response. Stay positive and keep doing you.
Hey! I’m fine, thanks. I was warned that recognitions might be a troll
when I started this, and the discussion certainly seems to have born
that out. But I always knew that that might be a possibility. Still, it’s really nice of you to check in and your concern is genuinely warming my heart, so thank you.FWIW: I know that my education-over-anger approach to progressivism isn’t popular with certain commenters on here, but I believe it works. I’ve known homophobes who’ve learned to change their tune, some of which have become card-carrying progressives themselves. I’m not saying that’s entirely down to me, but I know that I was someone they approached when they had issues with these things, and the resulting dialogue certainly hasn’t seemed to hurt. It can be hard when it’s not just academic to you, true, but it seems to be worth it, to me anyway.
Still, I think even those commenters who would disagree with me would stop at defending recognitions or what he does. I think this discussion kinda proves he’s not acting in good faith.In any case, thanks for checking in, and for the kind words. 🙂
So, there is no room for growth and change in your world?
I have absolutely no idea what this is referring to because I can’t tell which comment it’s a reply to. But either way I’m fairly sure it’s pretty dumb.
I don’t mean to interrupt this little tête-à-tête, but since you all are talking about me, I thought I would add my two cents about myself and, while I’m at it, recognitions:1) My politics are pretty goddamn left-of-center across the board, including when it comes to LGBTQIA+ rights, and have been since I was a kid. I grew up worshipping Noam Chomsky (cue recognitions calling me anti-Semitic) and calling myself an anarcho-syndicalist. I’ve mellowed out a bit since then, but I have plenty of bona fides that I can invoke in that regard, up to and including training fundraisers for progressive organizations (Emily’s List, Feingold for Wisconsin, Sherrod Brown for Ohio, Bernie’s various campaigns), as well as the Dems (the DNC, the DCCC, the DGA, the DSCC). Even just looking at my original post, however, my position is pretty clear and it takes real effort to pretend that one cannot be a staunch, passionate advocate of LGBTQIA+ rights and still see that the Damon story is overblown bullshit. As I mentioned in my original post, I was raised by two (feminist, left-of-center, themselves) lesbians in a small town in a very red state. I witnessed—and experienced, myself, because I was the child of a gay couple—homophobia. I do not take the matter—including the use of homophobic slurs—lightly. One could easily infer all of that from my original post, as well, if one is not willfully blind and/or have an agenda of their own that involves deliberately, routinely misreading and mispresenting others’ words on this site.2) Which brings me to recognitions. They’re a troll. Period. To answer your questions, they do not really believe what they espouse, nor do they hope to win over anyone. Folks over at the Avocado proved that to me beyond all doubt using accumulated posts recognitions has made over the years, and that person’s behavior makes perfect sense if you realize that the sole purpose is to deliberately grief people into arguing and to upset them with over-the-top accusation. Notice how recognitions called me homophobic without any evidence other than I was not willing to reflexively condemn a celebrity for inartful comments; recognitions has called other posters here rapists, for god’s sake—people recognitions has never met. Then they feign innocence the minute someone calls out the bullshit. There’s not reasoning with recognitions, there’s no conciliatory process, because recognitions is a bad faith actor who trolls the AVC forums for the lols.
What is overblown about criticizing Matt Damon for defending the use of homophobic slurs just a few months ago?
Recognitions has also repeatedly called you guy and homeboy, which is a massive presumption.I guess they’re going off your profile pic as opposed to your name and making an assumption.So they’re clearly the ones in desperate need of getting their shit together.
Well, yeah, recognitions isn’t exactly well-read, as they have proved time and again. (Notice how all of their political engagement is surface level, I-took-one-sociology-class-my-freshman-year-and-now-I’m-brilliant jejune bullshit). I’m not surprised that don’t get the obvious distaff reference to Michel Foucault or that they’d assume from a pic that is obviously not me that I’m a man. Par for the course with that idiot.Their whole gimmick is pretending that they believe that this site is full of MRA incel MAGA chuds who immediately jump to defend every misogynistic, homophobic, and/or racist statement or act. They jump on anything with nuance, and when that’s not available they just hijack comments and lie afterwards about what was actually said, all in service of presenting a caricature of progressives so embarrassing that they could give James O’Keefe a run for his money. Again, that’s why I’m convinced they’re actually an MRA incel MAGA chud in real life, themselves. Nobody could be that clueless.
This kind of exploded, but… to be clear, I wasn’t attacking you or your politics; I’ve seen your posts before, they’re great, I’ve got no problem with anything you’ve said, I’m only mentioning you because you were the focal point of recognitions’ posts. I would be curious to see that Avocado thread though, any chance of a link?
I was looking for it last night when recognitions tried to say that I made up what I had said about them in our previous exchange. That exchange happened well over a year ago—I know it was before the pandemic hit. I only even mentioned it because of recognitions trying to claim that I posted only one out-of-context screenshot, which is a bald-faced lie. They’re cherry-picking the screenshot of Xanderpuss calling them out because they know Xander no longer comments here.I’ll keep looking for it.
You don’t need to understand why they post the way they do, they’re a disingenuous troll, an obvious and quite blatant racist, sexist, and homophobic bigot in real life. Dismiss their comments with extreme prejudice.
As usual, you’re completely full of shit. You know goddamned good and well I did not defend Dr. Dre—at all, let alone for beating women. (It’s hilarious how increasingly exaggerated your accusations become as people push back against you). You accused me of defending him at the time because I told you to fuck off when you had tried to hijack my comment—as you do—and twist my words and the overall conversation that myself and others were having. In your mind, when anyone disagrees with you, you get to accuse them of whatever extreme bullshit you’re feigning outrage over that day.As for “unleashing a torrent of verbal abuse and lies about me”, you regularly verbally abuse others and lie every day on this site. Every. Fucking. Day. You’ve accused others of being rapists, of being child molesters, and now you’re accusing me of being homophobic—without any evidence whatsoever. We have the receipts. You are nigh-universally loathed here for a reason.I guarantee that you’re some Tucker Carlson-worshipping MAGA chud who’s just laughing at how much you can upset people here. I’ve been on to that for years. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let you call me homophobic and not respond.
Yeah, you got inexplicably furious because someone pointed out that a woman beater is a woman beater and felt the need to write paragraph after paragraph of invective over it, just like you’re doing here. Add your impassioned defense of another man’s homophobia on top of it, and why would anyone think you have problems with seeing other men be criticized? And yeah you made up a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations about me then just like you were doing now. And you were called upon to provide proof, and all you were able to come up with was one screenshot that was taken out of context and didn’t say what you claimed it did. And multiple people told you at the time that it didn’t say what you said it did. And you kept insisting that we should all believe you over our own eyes. But keep deluding yourself that you’re somehow the spokesman for the site and not just a frightened child who can’t bear to see anyone you project on suffer some criticism.
Yeah, you got inexplicably furious You keep insisting that I’m furious. I know you do what you do here to grief people, but nope, I’m not furious. I think your schtick would actually be funny if you weren’t such a sad, pathetic little clown. Add your impassioned defense of another man’s homophobia Any reasonable person who read my comment on the Dre article or my comment here would know that I defended neither wife-beating nor homophobia. Both charges are laughable on their face, and as usual, you’re completely full of shit. And yeah you made up a bunch of unsubstantiated accusations about me Nope, again. I had the receipts, as did lots of folks over at the Avocado, and I had just recently read a long thread there about your sorry ass, so I happened to have had screenshots (plural) that I shared when you “called upon [me] to provide proof”…. and all you were able to come up with was one screenshot that was taken out of context Nope a third time. It was multiple screenshots which clearly showed you calling other posters rapists and rape apologists, child molesters and child molester apologists—I even provided a link to the Avocado thread—just like you’re now calling me a homophobe and an apologist (or “stan”, jesus fucking christ) for other homophobes. Your transgressions are on full display just above here for anyone to see. What you’ve done to me today—repeatedly—is exactly what you’ve done countless other times. You denounce in the most ridiculously accusatory terms anyone who doesn’t take an extreme, reflexive stance that you’re feigning to agree with that day. And multiple people told you at the time that it didn’t say what you said it did.The only person I recall coming to your defense at all was igotlickfootagain, and their defense was of you, not your posts in the screenshots. They basically said that because they agree with your politics and have agreed with some of your points about politics that they think that you’re a good person (I wouldn’t call that a ringing endorsement of your character, by the way). And you kept insisting that we should all believe you over our own eyes. Again, I know that you’re just a troll, but really: How effective do you think this is going to be? I mean on me or anyone else here. Like, you’re regularly told by dozens and dozens of people in any given thread how awful we all think that you are. I know that. You know that. You know that I know that you know that. Yet this is the best that you could do? Pretending that “multiple” other posters rallied to your defense? Seriously. That would never happen. We’re all on to you. We have been for a long, long time. But keep deluding yourself that you’re somehow the spokesman for the siteYeah, because any reasonable person would take anything I’ve ever said here as me wanting to be the spokesperson for this dumpster fire (notice my use of the non-gendered pronoun, asshole—you’re off your little alt-right troll game). I regularly call out you and the remaining shit writers here for bullshit like this. You’re the one who likes to parrot the writers’ own statements; you just add your little alt-right troll extreme spin to it. Have fun pretending you’re not really at home humping your Tucker Carlson pillow!
Man, you really need to not start off your near-psychotic rant with the whole “who’s mad? I’m not mad” thing. Like, it’s beyond parody at this point.Lol you did not have multiple screenshots and you know it. It was one screenshot from a comment that Xanderpuss made to me talking about some hypothetical incident he made up. Again, more than one person pointed out to you but you’re still here on your monomanical crusade. And I like that my initial response to you was a mild “tl;dr” and in your fragile mind that’s the “most ridiculously accusatory term” you can possibly imagine. Snowflake much?The funniest/saddest thing about that whole exchange was when you got mad that one of Dre’s victims was made specifically by name. I can’t remember your exact wording, but it was something to the effect that she’d been talked about enough. Despite being beaten so bad she had permanent physical damage and had her career ruined in the process and ended up homeless. See, that’s how little you really care about victims. But anyone who points out what a terrible person you are has to be attacked as viciously and ruthlessly as you can manage. Which, to be fair, isn’t very well, to the point where you have to conjure up some imaginary army that you speak for in the royal “we”. But keep positing yourself as some kind of ambassador instead of just some rando on a website of internet strangers, it’s totes believable bruh.
Lol you did not have multiple screenshots and you know it. It was one screenshot from a comment that Xanderpuss made to me talking about some hypothetical incident he made up. I did have multiple screenshots—and a link to the Avocado thread where others had posted dozens more—but the truth now is the same as it was then. There are enough people here in this very thread (take a gander at how bad you’re being ratioed above, jackass) who have seen what you do, and, again, you’ve done it to me today. Oh, and I this know you’re banking on Xanderpuss no longer being here to call you out for this very obvious lie of yours about him, but there are plenty of other old-timers like me who know Xanderpuss regularly called you out as an obvious troll, just like I am.And I like that my initial response to you was a mild “tl;dr” and in your fragile mind that’s the “most ridiculously accusatory term”
You have since called me a homophobe and a “stan” for homophobes multiple times in this very thread. Anyone will be able to see that with their own eyes, fuckwit.Snowflake much?LOL You’re REALLY letting your guard down now. How many times have you trolled someone else for using snowflake, woke, SJW, etc., claiming that it proves that they must be rightwing because nobody on the left would ever use those terms. The thing is, I actually believe that you meant that about only rightwingers using those terms, and yet here you are using snowflake, yourself. Curious. It’s almost as if you’re just a MAGA chud troll griefing people… I can’t remember your exact wording, but it was something to the effect that she’d been talked about enough.You can’t remember much at all about that exchange—or you’re pretending not to—because everything you said about it is 100% wrong except for that you and I had a little back-and-forth where I called you out for trolling me, just like I’m doing now. I said NOTHING about Dee Barnes—that’s her name, dipshit—being talked about too much, nor would I. That’s all in your little alt-right troll fantasy world. Despite being beaten so bad she had permanent physical damage and had her career ruined in the process and ended up homeless.I love how you don’t even know her name but you’re throwing in this in to create some bullshit reality where you care about her and I was calling for her to get beaten again. Which, to be fair, isn’t very well, to the point where you have to conjure up some imaginary army that you speak for in the royal “we”. One, that’s not what royal we means. Read a book. Two, you’re the one who claimed that you had an “army” that backed you up when I posted those screenshots—screenshots that you yourself asked me to post. All I’m pointing to now is the obvious, verifiable reality that in this very thread dozens of people are once again—as they do every fucking time you rear your rotten little troll head—agreeing that you’re garbage. Keep the pathetic insults and obviously false claims coming. Between those and you ignoring what I’ve pointed out more than once now about you having already called me a homophobe multiple times in responses to other people in this very thread and how that fact points to all the other times that you called people on this site rapists, child molesters, etc. That’s super effective. Nobody will every catch on at all. Nope. We’re all as thick and shit-heeled as you are.
See, your tactics here aren’t even original. It’s all classic bullying and gaslighting. All this stuff about how “nobody likes you” and all the petty, kindergarten-esque name calling, it’s just generic bully tactics. Making up a bunch of bullshit with no proof, that’s also pretty tired, although acting like your continued insistence that the proof exists somewhere despite not actually presenting it is at least somewhat novel, although it certainly makes me hope you don’t have a career in law. But the real tell is how you have to convince yourself that I must not actually mean what I say. Because nobody could genuinely care about homophobia and abuse, right? It must be some kind of put-on, some kind of act. That’s how you justify being dismissive about abuse victims (and then lying about it when you get called on it) and defending homophobia. You’re the good guy! Everybody knows that! And anyone who points out what a shitty, callous, verbally abusive person you actually are, well, they must be bad. Somehow. They must be the exact opposite of how they present themselves. You know this to be true. It has to be. Because if it’s not, well, then you’re just a blowhard snowflake on the internet who can’t empathize with anyone who isn’t just like himself. And that can’t be true, right? Right?
You’re right that I don’t have the same screen shots or link handy right this minute like I did the day when I had literally just read that thread over at the Avocado and could literally check my recent tabs and go grab those screenshots that others had shared there. I don’t carry those around with me ready to deploy them on you the way you try to do with anyone who has previously deigned to disagree with you. (I eagerly await your appeal to ignorance—lack of proof in the moment proves that the converse must be true, right?). But that thread at the Avocado is easy enough for others to find, as is our previous exchange here. As for my part, I actually don’t need them this time. All the proof I need about what a loathsome troll you are is on display in this very thread for all to see. I gave you enough rope and you have hung yourself repeatedly. The next time you try to gaslight—oh, I love the whole tired attempt at reversal, by the way—I have a link to this thread to post:I disagreed with you, and you immediately called me a homophobe with no evidence whatsoever. When I defended myself, you doubled down on ad hominem attacks and lied repeatedly about what I had said in this very thread. When someone else called you out on that, you lied to them about how I am just out to get you because you stood up to me in some earlier thread. When I called you out on that, you escalated the lies claiming I defended domestic abuse. Even here in the end you’re accusing me of not caring about victims that you’ve pulled out of thin air as part of your strawman.To hear you tell it, you’re both champion and victim. Everyone else here, however, does indeed know that you’re a fraud—and a bully, yourself. Have a good night, cupcake!
The funny thing is you’re doing the exact same thing downthread to some poor sap who made the mistake of trying to engage genuinely with you, telling them that they have to believe you and not their own eyes. And when they–at great length and with considerable patience–explain that you simply saying something doesn’t make it true when the evidence against it is in front of our eyes, you get pissy and eventually run away with your tail between your legs. It’s the way of all bullies. That’s why you’re so boring.
You got the “poor sap” part right. He’s equivocating the meaning of slur, knowingly or not. His 500 word posts in which he repeats the same three rhetorical mistakes and leaps in logic don’t change that basic fact.And for someone who is so boring to you, you sure are spending a lot of time and effort trying for your “gotcha” moments with me, asshole. I must really have hit the mark with the MAGA chud characterization, huh? It certainly explains a lot in retrospect.
I know, I know. Everybody’s wrong but you. You, who think the fact that a word is a slur can somehow be divorced by its usage. You understand nothing about the dynamics of these issues, and you betray your desperation to protect your male avatars from consequences more blatantly with each comment.
Never said anything of the sort. I said Damon’s statement today does not contradict what he said in the interview. In the interview he said that he used the term jokingly and his daughter explained to him why it wasn’t okay, and his statement today claims that he’s never used the term as a slur directed at anyone for their sexuality. It seems like it must take real effort for you to be this obtuse.As for his sincerity (since we’re drudging up comments each other made down thread, you claim to know that he’s “clearly lying”), I grew up around friends using the term in much the same way—even in front of my moms—and I recognize what he was trying to explain, inartful as he may have been in doing so. My friends would often catch themselves, apologize, and/or insist that they didn’t mean it as a homophobic slur. I know firsthand that mindset. I’ve spent years engaging with it and trying to combat it. I just don’t feel the need to wear those efforts as some badge of honor. I also know that denouncing people’s ignorance as assumed malfeasance instead of working to help them understand that what they’re saying or doing is hurtful is counterproductive for everyone involved except smug assholes who don’t actually care about the issues but want to look like they do. (Looking at you, fuckface).
It does tho. But I’m not at all surprised to find out you hung around with homophobes and were okay with it
“I know, I know. Everybody’s wrong but you.”Oh, the irony. LOL
What is the meaning of “slur” that I’m equivocating about? This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that whether a word is a “slur” depends on whether it is being directed at someone at that particular moment.
But Recognitions, almost nobody on here likes you, and no one would be sorry to see you stop posting. If you meet an asshole on the street, he’s the asshole. If you meet assholes all day, you are the asshole.
Seeing as you defended Aziz Ansari, I’m perfectly comfortable with not getting your approval.
I figured out long ago that this is a fake troll account. Best to ignore it
Sadly, Kinja has made it impossible for me to figure out which account you’re referring to.
“The guy?”Look at you presuming gender, obviously you’re a terf.This is what you sound like, you fucking hypocrite.
I guarantee this is the first time you have ever cared about transphobia in your life
I’ll have to ask my dear friend whose name you don’t deserve to know.She was on the verge of taking her own life because of her gender dysphoria, I made sure she was okay, contacted her other friends and family to make sure she didn’t actually harm herself.She’s currently transitioning and she’s never been happier, I’m just grateful I was able to be there for her and help her get the help she needed.I’ll ask her if I ever gave a fuck about transphobia while you publicly apologize to Michelle for deliberately Misgendering her, how about that?
Deliberately? I have absolutely no idea what his/her/their gender is and he hasn’t bothered to correct me once so yeah, you’re just mad online for no reason
Of course you didn’t
Hmmm?
Yes THIS! The perfection police who retroactively attact people for things they did 20-30 years ago will have their day in the future when people come for them. They will get canceled for not being perfect when they were young. Form the year 2050: “What you rode in a gas powered car, ate meat, wore leather, years ago, you are now canceled.”
Sadly, real law enforcement do just this. Once you have a record, it will forever be held against you in court on any and all future infractions. I’ve seen a dude trying to dispute a traffic ticket get a drug possession charge from 35 years ago thrown in his face and his claim denied.
“I’m tired of the circular fucking firing squad on “our side”.”You should take enormous pride in it. When conservatives fuck up, all they do is blame a liberal and start fundraising off the backlash immediately. Losing a couple of pinkie toes now and then is a small price to pay for being able to surround yourself with people who are actually self-aware.
Losing a couple of pinkie toes now and then is a small price to pay for being able to surround yourself with people who are actually self-aware.Seems to me like Damon is pretty fucking self-aware here.
You’ve actually laid this out with more nuance and directness than one usually sees here. I want to make a couple brief points in response. First: you could say that in terms of scope and pure spectacle, “Annette” is the clear frontrunner of what to be excited about from Cannes. And I do feel that there’s a legitimate reason to think that we go to the movies to be moved. To be transported. Hell, it’s why I think “Paperhouse” and “Santa Sangre” are the greatest horror films. However, “Memoria” does offer the chance to see something truly novel. Or at least, within the context of not being compared to Weerasethakul’s other films. I do get why people are hesitant. “The Assassin”, for example, is otherworldly beautiful, methodical, and pure, but it also makes no damn sense. Anyhow. It’s nice, in the end, that filmmakers are pushing the limits, one way or another. Let’s hope Maren Ade makes something soon.
At least online, most of the “too angry for context” people are actually the fucking Nazis, trolling.Anyways, well said.
Rather than dunking on the guy because he’s a clueless celebrity or assuming the worst about him—that he didn’t realize until 2021 that it was not okay to use homophobic slurs (I mean, c’mon, that was obviously not what he was saying) It’s not obvious that’s not what he was saying, because that’s literally what his story was! His story was “I used a homophobic slur around my daughter, she objected to it, I initially defended it until she wrote a ‘treatise’ explaining why it was wrong.” Nobody is unfairly judging him here by taking the story HE TOLD ABOUT HIMSELF at face value.
But outrage devoid of context or nuance is just so damn lucrative!
Thank you.
YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY OF NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE MANDATORY TWO MINUTES HATE.REPORT TO ROOM 101.
what’s a sealion in the context you’re using it?(I agree with you btw)
Yeah, that threw me too. I’m a little disappointed it wasn’t just a non-sequitur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
I think I actually believe him and that he’s genuine, and I *still* think he’s kind of an idiot who needs to think before he speaks a WHOLE lot more.
Yeah, my takeaway was mostly “Huh, and we really acted like Ben Affleck was the dumb one in that duo.”
After 25 years with these guys I think it’s safe to say Damon and Affleck yo-yo back and forth as to which is the true talent and which is the dumbass at any given moment.
It can be two dumb ones.
“So, this is a Matt Damon apartment? I thought there’d be, like, equations and shit on the wall.”
Going by this, I’d suggest that his daughter does all of his public speaking from now on.
It’s funny, I just rewatched Entourage a few weeks back. There are a handful of episodes here Damon is in it about investing in water or something. I know the point of the show is the over-the-top-ness of Hollywood, but part of me thinks he was not acting in those episodes.
I have no issues with Matt Damon.
may I offer you a tissue?
she in turn expressed incredulity that there could ever have been a time where that word was used unthinkinglyAnd by “a time,” I assume you mean August of 2021?
This is even worse. I’m a 40 year old straight male who grew up on the East Coast (north Jersey/suburban NYC). I grew up using “f*ggot” as well as numerous homophobic labels and slurs as catchall words for “stupid” and “lame” (itself an ableist term), not to mention more direct and homophobic applications. And yes, I’m embarrassed and mortified now for my casual bigotry back then. I didn’t start to amend my vocabulary until I was 16 and my best friend came out to me. It strains credulity that someone of Damon’s age and background “never” used the word. And I get not everyone is as fortunate to have a friend or family member who can provide the opportunity to empathy and learning. But even so, by the time I hit college in the late 90s/early 2000s it felt like the casual use of these homophobic slurs had fallen out of vogue. And that’s the original head scratcher, that Damon didn’t stop using the term until the last 6 months or whatever timeline he provided. Damon lived through Matthew Shepherd, repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell, repeal of DOMA, not to mention personally working with numerous LGBTQ actors, artists, and creatives in the LA entertainment industry, and was still dropping “f*ggot” bombs?
So now we, or at least I, am left with the notion that Damon (A) was still using “f*ggot” as recently as 2020/2021 and (B) he’s a fucking liar who claims he, a 50 year old straight, white, hetero dude from Boston “never” used the word in his life.
You make a strong point, but in my opinion “Uncle Boonme Who Can Recall His Past Lives” is one of the strongest Palm D’or winners of the last decades, rewarded for its vision, its patience, and its goal: to solve death itself. I personally find that its remoteness is not opposed to poignancy, but I get where those who feel otherwise are coming from.
Wut
I mean, it’s more or less a question of genre and aesthetic. But I kind of want to go deep and suggest it’s a question of purpose. Of intent. Like, have you seen Jacques Audiard’s work? I feel like it’s taken as populist when he’s really more closely an analogue for our modern P. Schrader (aside from the fact that Schrader still is). “The Beat That My Heart Skipped” gets at the core of fragile masculinity so directly. “Dheephan” is more or less a psychologically updated “Taxi Driver”. I know you’re probably like “well, hold on…” but I’ll stake my claim here.
Not today
No, I love you today. I love Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s masterful, monumental “Winter’s Sleep”, Palme D’Or winner, 2013, and I love you. And I wish you well..
I too find it hard to believe he never used it before. I grew up using that word as you did, and I cringe to think about it now. Over all I think Damon is not a homophobe or anything, but I think he’s being disingenuous here.
I’m close to Matt Damon’s age, and I agree that similar words were often thrown around in my childhood. Gay was definitely used as a negative that didn’t necessarily have anything to do with homosexuality. Maybe Matt Damon is the rare exception that never used such words, but I’d be surprised. I think most people said things they regret in the past – I certainly did.
This doesn’t sound like something I need to be outraged about.
A) has anybody looked up the joke from “Stuck On You”? Because I am too lazy to.B) everybody else has noted this, but he is a guy from Boston saying he never called anybody a f*g in his whole life? That is a clear lie. Maybe he is saying he never directed it at somebody as an insult…maybe…but he sure said something looks “fa**y” or did the “want a hug? f*g!” switcheroo at some point.
Honestly, I thought he dropped one at the start of THE DEPARTED when he was ragging on the firefighters.
Colin Sullivan did that.
Looks like his daughter did NOT like them apples!
^ should be the top post
What’s her problem with Gwyneth’s kid?
“I have never called anyone ‘f****t’ in my personal life and this conversation with my daughter was not a personal awakening. I do not use slurs of any kind,”
Nah, that’s bullshit. He’s a straight white dude who’s been pretty lucky to have a pretty wealthy career. His mistake isn’t admitting he used the words…it’s admitting that until only recently he did.Like, when I was a young stupid white guy from a small town I went to college and used a few words I shouldn’t have (“r——d”, “f—”) and I made stupid insensitive jokes about different less privileged people.But that was stupid of me, and I lucked in to a group of friends that were like “dude, that’s bullshit…knock it off…” and helped me grow and realize I was a buffoon and needed to do better.Don’t lie about your past ignorance. Because I know what he’s saying is bullshit. Instead just be like “Yeah it was incredibly dumb of me to have taken this long to figure it out. And while I can’t take back the hurt my past words have caused I can ensure I do better in the future.”
I mean he’s clearly lying. One story has him saying it as a joke, he gets the backlash and suddenly the conversation was a beautiful Afterschool Special teachable moment instead. It’s bullshit.
Fair enough, but consider that Carax is one of the few modern filmmakers who can incorporate music into a non-musical film with the same power as the conventional “people just start singing” conceit. I’m talking Bowie’s “Modern Love” in “Lovers on the Bridge”, and, hell: Kylie in “Holy Motors”. I know we all have a lot of feelings on this issue but I’m really hoping we can set them aside and have a reasonable discourse here.
I did not understand the point of Holy Motors at all
Guess what? I love you, regardless. I. love. you.
Well, this just got awkward. Boundaries, people!
I’ll tell you what didn’t have boundaries: the electrifying performance by Mimi Rogers in Michael Tolkin’s “The Rapture” (1991). Standing as a female-led retort to the “Bad Liuetenant”s of its time, it is a shocking, poetic, haunted film. Perhaps the most profound exploration of the American relationship to faith, desire, and madness. Additionally: I still personally love you. I think you’re just lovely.
But now you do. <3
That’s the part that confuses me. So did he tell his family a joke where he used the slur, or didn’t he? Or was it a joke about the word but not using the word?
As an anti-cancel person generally…there’s no way this is true. A guy growing up in Boston in the 70s and 80s never used that, even to refer to another straight guy of being “lame” or “annoying”? I’m 20 years younger than him, and can’t claim that, and while it’s not an excuse, I don’t know many other people my age who could.
I usually don’t get involved, but I just can’t hold back this time. So, like, are we more excited for “Annette” or “Memoria”? I hear you all re: puppet babies – that’s a stretch, and magical realism can be hat-on-a-hat, but we’re all Leo Carax fans, right? Still, Memoria offers the more challenging, but possibly transcendent experience. I know, I know – it’s a sticky area! But you don’t all have to be so reasonable about it, speak your truth.
It’s more a question of when Damon stopped using the slur, not if he did. The masshole culture (of which he takes pride in) practically dictated its use. The only thing this sketch is missing is them using the f-slur.
But it’s good that he’s taking a stand now.
This is just like that whole thing with Liam Neeson. Some people don’t realize how bad their cute little anecdotes come off after they’ve put their foot in their mouth. I don’t think Matt Damon is some slur spewing homophobe but this overly written and edited with a thesaurus gripped tightly in hand statement is more sus than the original interview. Just let it blow over. Trying to fix it just keeps the story alive.
Fear of being canceled for using that word in the past?
He shouldn’t talk about burning sticks of wood that way.
He shouldn’t talk about British cigarettes that way.
The other day I went to spend the afternoon with a friend of mine, who happens to be homosexual. We thought it would be a day for a bonfire, so we piled up faggots and got them burning with some kerosene. We had a few drinks, some laughs, it we getting toward suppertime and the fire was still going so we cooked the faggots in gravy that I’d picked up on the way. When we’d finished our simple meal he asked me if I’d like to bum a fag. I said no thank you, I’d quit and intended stay quit. He shrugged and tapped one out of the pack. As he lit it, I said that this had been a gay old time, but I really had to be getting home to my wife. He told me it had been good to see me, but he was glad that I was excusing myself early since he had a long night planned of going out to hold and kiss men.
I honestly don’t know, but is Matt Damon a bad guy? I have never thought/understood that he was a total POS. I guess he has the Weinstein associations, but that is a problem for a lot of people in Hollywood, isn’t it?
Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. I’m not even sure what it means to be a “bad guy.” He’s pretty clearly clueless and tone deaf, and has that white man thing where he spends more time telling everyone within earshot how committed he is to listening than he does actually listening to anyone, as evidenced by the fact he thought this story was a good thing to share.
I seem to recall something years ago where he basically mansplained cultural appropriation to a woman of color on like a talk show or something.Edit: Not exactly, but this is what I was partially remembering: https://www.vox.com/2015/9/14/9325989/matt-damon-diversity-project-greenlight
I mean, it’s Boston. Just a couple weeks ago I was walking down the street in the financial district wearing a green floppy fedora with a perfectly acceptable green raincoat and suit, and some guy from a passing car yells out at the top of his lungs “Nice hat, faggot!!”. It was like 2 in the afternoon..
It sounds to me, ThorC1138- and I may be off base – like they were more or less hoping for a conventional win, like when Ken Loach takes the Palme, something with a digestible and acceptable message whose artistic side serves a mild but broadly acceptable political theme. I think, in a funny way, “Annette” falls more in that realm this time around. But feel free to call me out! “Memoria” may well prove to be the humanist anthem of the year.
I want the end of that story to be the fedora guy yelling, “Thank you!”
Heavens to Betsy!
Honestly, I’m not even mad – I’m just so incredibly baffled that it (allegedly) took him this fucking long to realize this.Perhaps Matt Stone and Trey Parker actually portrayed Damon accurately in Team America.
That he’s the homosexual lord of the underworld?
Just to be clear, Damon *does* realize that the R-word is bad, right?
That word was hurled at everyone in middle school, and none of us – even the confused closeted kids – had any idea it was anything more than something on the curse-scale between “shit head” and “fucker.” As a gay man just a little younger than Matt Damon, I don’t know one LGBT+ Gen Xer or Millennial unwilling to discern nuance, especially when it comes from the past.
Look at early South Park episodes. Stone and Parker liberally used that word to show what uncaring and clueless little shits they were as kids. Matt Damon was one of those kids, probably even a bully. He began high school at the height of the AIDS crisis when news channels were comparing gay men to literal vampires, and I’m sure that affected him as much as any other child at the time. Kids are dumb, especially teenagers. But they’re sponges for information, even misinformation. I would be curious to hear his joke, or why any adult felt it was appropriate to use that word in a joke with his child (I’m also kind of curious if it’s actually funny). But people are allowed to evolve and slip up, even celebrities. He obviously raised a good kid who would have never elicited the same kind of reaction had she been raised in a homophobic household.Damon isn’t an enemy, and forcing apologies from apologetic allies and those who occasionally slip back into bad middle school habits while trying to better themselves will never win us any favors. There are bonafide Nazis in the United States right now who attribute that word to people they want to extinguish. Those are the Bad Guys. There’s an unsettling lack of discernment between what appears online, especially in forced apologies, and what one actually means, and that’s nuance. Ignoring that could very easily undo any progress we’ve made. How else can we really know who the “Good Guys” are when we all vote in a vacuum?Let’s keep our eyes on the goddamn prize.
Look at early South Park episodes. Stone and Parker liberally used that word to show what uncaring and clueless little shits they were as kids. There was literally circa 2015 where Parker and Stone, who are two cishet dudes, tried to claim the slur now means people who own Harley’s. Which is not how slurs are re-appropriated, primarily because two straight libertarians do not get to decide what is and isn’t a homophobic slur.
2009. Thanks for the reminder. Queuing it up now. A decade later and I’m still laughing at “bike curious.” I’m also laughing at the notion that Stone and Parker are completely straight. They came out as “a little bit gay” before Ellen, and have done far more to challenge the stigma of homosexuality. They are not the enemy.
Matt Damon, STFU.
The AV Club has gotten stupid.Eyes on the prize, people.
Well is “cocksucker” to be tossed out of his vocabulary too? I’m old and don’t know what swear words to use anymore.
I have never called anyone ‘f****t’ in my personal life
I mean, the original interview is from a British newspaper, who have a rich history of misquoting people and/or taking them out of context.I don’t know why anyone wasn’t suspicious of the original article in the first place.
Real Departed Heads already know:I explained that that word was used constantly and casually and was even a line of dialogue in a movie of mine as recently as 2003