I present to you Mr. Show, once again way ahead of their time. This is perhaps the funniest clip illustrating the very phenomenon of trying to turn gay people straight.
"I wasn't completely cured of my gayness, no one could help me, so I became a therapist, and now I'm completely cured and happily married and I never look at handsome boys except in my glorious dreams."
@Richard Lawson: I appreciate Mr. Chen posting the video - don't think I would have seen it otherwise. I think the humor's more palliative than offensive though...imho anyway. If you can't laugh about the crazy shit in this world, what can you do?
@Richard Lawson: Really? Calm the fuck down. First of all, don't demean him by calling him "kiddo". Second, the word "fail" lost its edge about a year ago. Finally. Going. Like. This. Just. Makes. You. Look. Like. A. Tool.
@Richard Lawson: That picture may be silly (though it's not like it's doctored) but I think the substance of the post should prevail. Which I think is very much pro-Maddow and very much anti-Cohen and his ilk. So I really don't see how the kiddo failed.
@Richard Lawson: That photo wasn't from Saudi Arabia; it was from Iran – as in "irangayteens1.jpg" – and the two weren't hanged for being gay, but for rape.
This is a serious issue, yes; but Adrian's reporting reportage, on a less-than-serious site. Aside from the lead photo, I can't find any offensive snark discrediting what Maddow had to say.
@Richard Lawson: People dying in Uganda isn't a joke but Richard Cohen is. His quackery was ultimately the focal point. Their interview really showcased what an idiot he is. There's nothing serious to be said about it. Rachel was a strong wind blowing down a straw, straw man. And that, while usually boring, was in this case at least useful in that anyone who wanted to hold up his book as a testament to how gays can change, could see him debunked from all sides. Win on this, kiddo. Win.
@septiums: Richard doesn't work here anymore, which like so many others means that he finally has the outlet to firmly bite the delicious, delicious, salty hand that was feeding him for so very long. Regardless of the fact that he WAS Adrian not so very long ago.
@Richard Lawson: First off, that photo was a change I made because of some technical issues and we've way overused that poster of her show. So you can blame me, not Adrian.
Second, though, as deadly serious as Uganda is, this post wasn't about that: it was about Rachel Maddow taking down a quack "gay cure" expert. I don't know a better way to dismiss those fucks than with humor.
@Richard Lawson: I think you've over-reacted. As to the "offensive" picture, which I assume is of Rachel Maddow dressed as Harry Potter for Saturday Night Live (or some similar situation), well, if the Inspector Brown outfit fits, wear it.
@Richard Lawson: Personal opinion: I love it when Rachel Maddow comes out looking all casual and even butch, and then proceeds to blast people out of the water. I think if she was comfortable enough to let that be how she portrays herself in an image that she knew would be public, then we should respect and honor the fact that she is brave enough to NOT feel the need to lipstick-it-up in order to be taken seriously. Because that is bravery.
If this was a photo of her in a suit and some makeup, or if her figure in that lead photo was replaced by a man, would it be offensive to you?
I agree it was an over-reaction. But, have you read some of the comments over at Richard's new home, tv.com? The commenters are cut from a different, bile drenched cloth than over on this end of the intertubes.
Reviewing those comments provides some insight into the mindset that defeated California and NY's Bills on same sex marriages.
@blackbird_pie: Yeah I'm not getting the picture issue either. If we're talking about the one that's up there right now, swap out the button down for a t-shirt, the microphone for a clicker, and that's this straight gal on any given Sunday. Jeans, sneakers, no makeup, glasses, maybe a bra, maybe not.
@A Message To Rudy: @blackbird_pie: @chickachicka: @misslinda: @resipsaloquacious: @blackbird_pie: @RollsRoyceRevenge: @Gabriel Snyder: @The Real JR: @Pope John Peeps II: @Pope John Peeps II: @WackoJacko: @ndhapple: @septiums: @Atilla the Bun: @2012isfakeyouidiots: @bleublau: @hughman: @tehcutie:
Yeah, the real lesson here is this: Richard really must stop leaving comments on a blog he likes when it is 3am and he is drunk. Apologies to Adrian. Yeesh. [slinks off in embarrassment]
@Richard Lawson: I share every drop of your outrage over the proposed legislation in Uganda, and by homophobic fuckwads like Richard Cohen. But when I saw this last night, I was squealing with delight as I watched Maddow rip this idiot a new one.
I was glad to see this segment up on Gawker today.
@Richard Lawson: For the record, i wasn't disparaging your comment. I just didn't know what the picture reference was since when I was around when the post first went up it was just a screen shot of the interview. Then people were talking about Iran or something so I had no idea what was going on.
But in short, the whole content of the interview would have been more than infuriating to me if it weren't so fascinating. Rachel is beyond a talking head because she can debate someone without having to resort to Rush tactics, and it goes to show how TV has devolved so much that watching her is brilliant.
@septiums: Just FYI, the "they were hanged for rape" spin was invented by the Iranian government after it started to receive international criticism for the hanging. It's a total Winston Smith whitewash.
@Richard Lawson: Y0u have nothing to apologize for (even if it's a mock apology). Trust me, people here are outraged by what's going on in Uganda and by this Cohen idiot too. Besides, all you did was drunk post a comment. It isn't like you did it while driving (you didn't, did you?)
i really feel bad for that guy. he was absolutely, positively, definitively dominated on every rhetorical level. to me, he came off as the embodiment of the self-hating maximum homo and his hypocrisy was recorded for posterity on basic cable. oh cruel fate.
That perpetual smile on his mug is particularly unnerving. Too bad she couldn't make that magically disappear like his homosexual tendencies (allegedly) did.
The more important question is can you make straight people gay because I have some people on my team that I would like to send to the other side. Will his book tell me how to do that?
Rachel is almost a brilliant interviewer. She has GOT to let go of her passions, though, if she's ever going to be taken seriously.
She doesn't take anything this man has to say at face value, and reverts to condescension when she can't score a point. She couldn't get him to say something heinous like 'fags are evil' or 'homosexuality is a sin'. She was flabbergasted by the fact that he stuck to his line that he's only interested in helping homosexuals who want to be straight; so, she indulged her disgust.
The same thing happened when she interviewed Tim Phillips. He was just as polite and unflappable as tonight's guest, and she lost it saying, "I personally think that you and the folks that do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans` fears."
Granted, she doesn't lose her cool. She never blusters like Bill-O. Never gets blotchy, but she does show her hand. Sadly, her lack of restraint undermines her otherwise formidable skills as an interviewer.
@jodru: Wait, but that's what's good about her. We're not talking about a good interviewer who needs to mainstream in order to get on TV. She already has her own show. She doesn't need to mainstream for anybody. And the absolute worst thing you can do is let guys like this off when they put on their fake moderate images for blue-state viewerships. The most abhorrent thing about this guy is that he insists on playing himself up as this guy who just wants to give homosexuals who seek a way out of homosexuality an option. Because he's sitting there asking us to not pay attention to the inflammatory statements he's made, and all of the vulgar appeals he tosses out in the company of those who already agree with him. Too often we let figures like this get away with maintaining the images that are most convenient to their ends, regardless of whether those images are reflective of reality. Kudos to Maddow for not letting this guy do that.
@jodru: I disagree, mainly because I think treating these jackasses with any shred of legitimacy is exactly what they want.
There's a difference between discussing something that you disagree with, but who holds rational views (even if they're counter to your own), and trying to have a discussion with someone who's actively, happily illogical and unreasonable. And make no mistake, this guy's views are neither rational nor reasonable.
This absolute voidoid of a human being is living proof that if your message is toxic enough, if it is bereft of all logic, reason, and empirical data, and if you bear an uncanny resemblance to a modern-day cultural icon (in this case, a grown-up Alfred E. Newman), your fifteen minutes of infamy will burn brightly.
Can you imagine a world in which anyone, with the possible exception of the Society of People for Whom There Is Absolutely No One to Love Them, would cite this nuclear waste dump of a man as a corroborating source?
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
This is a serious fucking issue. This is not a joke. People in Uganda are dying.
Have you seen this photo from Saudi Arabia? These lives aren't jokes. People are really being killed for this shit.
There is nothing funny about this. Not. One. Fucking. Snarky. Thing.
I get that you're the new nighttime kid and figuring out what's funny or not and that Gawker 3.0 doesn't really have a threshold, but this?
Fail on this, kiddo. Fail.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Get over yourself.
12/09/09
12/09/09
This is a serious issue, yes; but Adrian's reporting reportage, on a less-than-serious site. Aside from the lead photo, I can't find any offensive snark discrediting what Maddow had to say.
And really? Calling a co-worker a fuck? Really?
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Second, though, as deadly serious as Uganda is, this post wasn't about that: it was about Rachel Maddow taking down a quack "gay cure" expert. I don't know a better way to dismiss those fucks than with humor.
12/09/09
12/09/09
If this was a photo of her in a suit and some makeup, or if her figure in that lead photo was replaced by a man, would it be offensive to you?
12/09/09
I agree it was an over-reaction. But, have you read some of the comments over at Richard's new home, tv.com? The commenters are cut from a different, bile drenched cloth than over on this end of the intertubes.
Reviewing those comments provides some insight into the mindset that defeated California and NY's Bills on same sex marriages.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
Yeah, the real lesson here is this: Richard really must stop leaving comments on a blog he likes when it is 3am and he is drunk. Apologies to Adrian. Yeesh. [slinks off in embarrassment]
12/09/09
I was glad to see this segment up on Gawker today.
12/09/09
But in short, the whole content of the interview would have been more than infuriating to me if it weren't so fascinating. Rachel is beyond a talking head because she can debate someone without having to resort to Rush tactics, and it goes to show how TV has devolved so much that watching her is brilliant.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
[www.theonion.com]
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
She doesn't take anything this man has to say at face value, and reverts to condescension when she can't score a point. She couldn't get him to say something heinous like 'fags are evil' or 'homosexuality is a sin'. She was flabbergasted by the fact that he stuck to his line that he's only interested in helping homosexuals who want to be straight; so, she indulged her disgust.
The same thing happened when she interviewed Tim Phillips. He was just as polite and unflappable as tonight's guest, and she lost it saying, "I personally think that you and the folks that do what you do are a parasite who gets fat on Americans` fears."
Granted, she doesn't lose her cool. She never blusters like Bill-O. Never gets blotchy, but she does show her hand. Sadly, her lack of restraint undermines her otherwise formidable skills as an interviewer.
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
12/09/09
There's a difference between discussing something that you disagree with, but who holds rational views (even if they're counter to your own), and trying to have a discussion with someone who's actively, happily illogical and unreasonable. And make no mistake, this guy's views are neither rational nor reasonable.
12/09/09
Can you imagine a world in which anyone, with the possible exception of the Society of People for Whom There Is Absolutely No One to Love Them, would cite this nuclear waste dump of a man as a corroborating source?
Oh, the humanity...