To those who were offended...

That's a perfect addition to the idea that no one has a right not to be offended. You also don't have a right not to be offended that people are offended. Makes total sense.

Well....quite honestly, I have nothing to say except....absolutely right. Some people act like it's the worst thing in the world that certain groups/individuals get offended when (gasp!) they say offensive things (intentionally or not). It's not a First Amendment issue, really; it's a matter of treating others with a sense of basic human decency. (That Richard Pryor bit really nails it. Even if the word "nigger" CAN be used inoffensively in certain contexts, is it better to make a fuss over our "right" to use it or to take a moment to actually think, realize that that word is deeply hurtful and degrading to many people, and maybe it would be better to just, you know, NOT use it.)

Thanks for discussing something that's bugged me for a long time, Jim: the idea that free-speech is a one-way street. The First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to avoid accountability for what they say. In fact, a large part of its purpose is that it gives everyone the right to criticize everyone. You can go out and say whatever you want in a beauty pageant or a movie or a song , but that doesn't mean nobody will criticize you or boycott your product and/or sponsors.

I learned a different version of the origin of the term. I heard that "faggot gatherer" was a... and yeah, you're way ahead of me on that.

The actual problem is this: why are people so willing to take offense to the things I say when I know that I mean no offense? Why should there be such consequences for something that to me seems harmless? Why is it that when someone says something that seems so innocent to them at the time, other people should come down on it like avenging angels and say that it was unconscionable? Why is it that when something seems so devoid of any real offense, people should be so eager to take offense to it? And why should these people be allowed to censor media and decide what jokes a movie is allowed to tell? And why is it that if a man says something questionable in the workplace, people go to the supervisor, get the man in trouble, make him feel like a criminal, instead of just taking him aside and talking to him on a man-to-man level, with respect?

Now when you say that nobody is stopping you, that's like saying that nobody is stopping you from shoplifting. Shoplifting is inappropriate in every situation, but the point is this: the reality is that there are consequences in place to stop the action. Sanctions. While the reasons not to shoplift are obvious, the reasons not to use some words are more vague. The n-word, in particular, gets thrown around so often by black people that its appropriateness becomes especially vague. People of all races are so on edge about that word. They feel that if they hear it, they should be instantly offended, but you get the feeling sometimes that they do it just to ease their own insecurities about their level of tolerance. (If they punish people who say the word, it must mean that they themselves are not intolerant or insensitive.) In any case, the reality is that people do stop you from saying words like those. Like I said before, many employers will fire you for using those words. That's the big example. And there are any number of other situations where someone who has power over you will impose sanctions.

(And with the n-word, things get especially Draconian. You can say, "The word 'faggot' is...," and you're usually fine. But if you say, "The word 'n---er' is...," you could be in big trouble just for that. In fact, I applaud you for having the courage to go that far.)

People call things gay all the time. The use of it the word to mean "unpleasant," "disappointing," etc. is widespread. It has entered into the cultural lexicon. If people want to reverse the trend, then instead of trying to suppress other people's messages, they should create new messages of their own. You want to tell the world that calling things "gay" is wrong, don't do it by trying make them stop, because then they'll only see you as bullies. Make a message of your own that tells people why they ought not to use the word, and convince them that they shouldn't use it. It's like that old fable. The wind and the sun have a bet to see who can make a man take his coat off. The wind blows and blows to try to rip the coat off the man, but he just clings tighter and tighter to his coat. Then the sun shines down and warms the man, and he decides to take his coat off.

(By the way, the word "lame" is insensitive to people with impaired motor functions. You are fined 25 karma.)

YouTube is being gay; can't watch Richard Pryor. But I have to say that while Dr. Laura says many racist things, and said many racist things that day, the use of the N-word was itself not racist. The observation was accurate: many black comedians do use the word all the time. And I have to applaud John Stewart, too, for being brave enough to use the word to illustrate a point. I personally have been instilled with a kind of paranoia about using the word.

Dr. Laura said she wanted to say what's on her mind without someone getting angry and taking measures to keep her from saying certain things. People can get angry; she just wants a forum where there won't be sanctions for it. I use that word, "sanctions," very deliberately. John cut her off to make it look like she just wanted people not to get angry. The real issue is sanctions. We cannot lose sight of the fact that many institutions impose sanctions for the things a person says while under their banner. If we fail to acknowledge and address that fact, our arguments are weak.

Once again, Ferris Bueller has a message for Sarah Palin.

And John Oliver played a guy named Dick Pants. That's a funny name.

And see? See the reactions of the two commentators to the n-word? That's how I see the situation. People do get too caught up in the words. The context is what matters, and the people are too controlled by buzz words to see anything past them. And yes, Dr. Laura said many racist things, but the word itself was not racist. And people do focus on the word instead of the actual racist stuff. The Daily Show is absolutely right. And I don't know if I can say that word without your gay, retarded spam filters flagging me.

I think we need Kirby1's video to put some perspective on things.

And to all the people who were offended, I am sorry. Sorry that you're a bunch of lame, gay, retarded n---ers.

Terrific post Jim. For those who have not already seen it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo

This is British stand-up comedian Stewart Lee addressing this very issue in a way that is both poignant and very funny.

So it seems it comes down to, as most things do, how a person sees themselves and how they are perceived by others. I think people who would get offended by someone calling them out for using a derogatory term would do so because they feel their own personality is being encroached on. They may hold a view of themselves as not being bigoted and having such knowledge feel that use of a word, within reason, is there right because they would not actually make a judgment based on a person's race or sexual orientation. Thus, someone else's offense would be seen as not only an attack against who a person thinks they truly are, in the privacy of their own minds, not bigoted but as a groan inducing 'come on, don't be a killjoy, I was only joking' judgment against the offended's sensibility. It's an odd aspect of identity, a mixture of blindness and sensitivity, one not learning by influence of the other but battening down the hatches as it were.
But, in the privacy of my own home, man, I am a foul mouthed racist sexist homophobic murder crazed madman. I say disgusting horrible things to my friends. I'm not inclined to any of these states of mind, which makes it a joke, the 'character' of the joke being so completely oblivious. But I wouldn't put it in a movie trailer. I wouldn't yell it out in a crowd. But we're out there, the ones who, like 7th graders, say dirty things we heard off Adam Sandler records in our parents basement.
So rampant Peter Panism is the thing I think will be the downfall of our modern age is essentially what I'm saying.

Bravo! Even better than your first column. I loved the clips; they amplified your point beautifully.

No one's trying to muzzle anyone. But if you use hate speech, and people are offended, be prepared to accept the consequences--economic and societal.

People who complain about "political correctness" are not being honest anyway. They don't have thicker skins than their targets; they just have different sensitive spots.

They sneer when a native American objects to the logo of the Cleveland Indians. They roll their eyes when a gay person objects to the use of the word "fag". They tell everyone to grow a thicker skin.

But then you refer to Christians as "Bible thumpers" or "fundies" and you watch what happens. They start to get uncomfortable. Refer to Americans southerners as "rednecks" and they start shifting in their seats. Call them all "hicks" and "hillbillies" and they start objecting. Make jokes about how they're all inbred and they suddenly lose that sense of humour they're so proud of. Or, as Sarah Palin demonstrated, use the word "retard" and the very same people who scoff at "political correctness" suddenly discover that it's OK to be righteously offended.

Everyone has something they can get offended about. Some people just don't recognize that other peoples' sensitive spots are just as valid as their own.

I'd like to bring up a few points.

1. South Park did a superb episode ("The N-Word") about how white people shouldn't be angry that word offends African-Americans

2. Also, it is very interesting the media can't decide what its position is on political correctness. On the one hand, cartoonists like John K are correct mainstream films have leads which are less "virile" then leads of yesteryear. One thing I disagree with is it has nothing to do with "gay," because homosexuals can be just as virile as heterosexuals. But as you stated, postmodern comedy sees it fitting to make racist and sexist jokes, but claim freedom of speech.

3.Is it condescending to have the token "sassy" female in film, or is it making up for previous wrongs throughout history against women?

4. What is Evelyh Mulray hiding?

P.S. I agree with you, but am interested in the hornet's nest created by political correctness. You mentioned this briefly, but I thought it fitting to mention a smattering of issues that makes this such a minefield. As the last question implies, I believe we are in Chinatown. It is important we face those issues, then maybe Disney will relent to release Song of the South to show us the unvarnished truth on our predecessors' beliefs.

Couldn't leave without mentioning the show that dealt with same-sex friendships most honestly

Ren and Stimpy

P.S. That is not a joke.

It takes two to tango, you know. It's true that some people are so callous they won't recognize when their humor is hurting people. And it's also true that some people are so sensitive any humorous attack at all offends them. Neither extreme should define the argument. The best course of action is one the goes down the middle: comedians should take measures not to be obviously offensive, and viewers should take measures not to be offended by where no offense was meant.

There are people offended by the word "niggardly." At some point, everyone hits a threshold where they just have to roll their eyes and throw their hands up in the air. That threshold is different for everyone, but I've noticed that everyone still feels like their threshold is correct and everyone else is over/under reacting.

So far in my observations, I found that the degree of offense shown by an individual will be proportional to the degree of acceptance and/or good perception this individual need from others in order to function in society.

Now I am talking broadly here, not really referring to perceptions of the N or F word or any other use of language as a mean to perpetuate hate and violence.

"You find me offensive? I find YOU offensive for finding ME offensive."

--Eminem

Could we please stop using the term "political correctness"? Please??? It was nothing more than a smear--yes, a smear--created by the right to discredit the left. It implies a unified political movement when none existed.

Scary how well the smear worked.

I'm going to recap what I said earlier and how perhaps it gays might benefit from the word gay as a perjorative (so read the last part).

First I said perhaps the word gay might itself have a negative connotation in origin (like "queer"), meaning "carelessly sexual", so, perhaps it should stop being said (although, I realize that's not going to happen; probably because I'm wrong about the possibility of a negative connotation).

Then I said that basically the word isn't supposed to mean anything bad against homosexuals, and if somebody says "your gay" as meaning a bad thing, then clearly it doesn't really have anything to do with the other uses, like "lame" or whatever, and that person just doesn't like homosexuals or, most likely I think, is a bully who is projecting his feelings of meaningless onto everyone else's meaning, which he (or she) undermines with a everything-everyone-else-does-is-meaningless mindset; so basically, like when the bastard offended me and I looked in the dictionary and wasn't offended anymore, perhaps a look in the dictionary might solve this as it did me (there's still the latter out there who are bullies etc. that are going to undermine the meaning of everything everyone else does).

Okay, now the good part.

Here is a scenario where homosexuals could use the word gay as a perjorative.

Guy#1: oh, my God, that's Gay what you just did.

Guy#2: Oh, I'll show you gay.

And I think we know the happy ending that comes out of this situation.

Here is a scenario where homosexuals could use the word gay as a perjorative and Benefit from it.

Guy#1: oh, my God, that's Gay: what you just did.

Guy#2: Oh, I'll show you gay.

And I think we know the happy ending that comes out of this situation.

Also (adding onto my comments), what was significant about what Richard Pryor said wasn't that he was going to stop calling his brothers and sisters the n-word anymore, it's that the n-word is just wrong.

The reason black people would call each other the n-word, I think, was to take the power away from the word, and the same for women and the word bitch, and the word queer with homosexuals.

That's why I brought up the origin of the word gay, because I wasn't sure if it was another word like queer, that was meant as a negative and they just kind of owned it.

So, that's what i was trying to say, was if the word gay is that bad, as it was (and is) with the n-word, perhaps it should be dropped.

Like I said, I don't know, but it seems there is a possibility of negative connotation, such as with "carelessly sexual."

Maybe the word gay is worse than we thought it was; it seems on investigating, that it might be to me; I originally thought it meant gay as in giddy as a schoolgirl, but it seems it meant perhaps a bit worse...or maybe not; I'm not sure on whether it literally meant careless sexuality or something worse.

Hey Jim,
Bottom line THE DILEMMA is a lame trailer with a bunch of lame jokes in service of a lame plot concept and what will doubtlessly prove to be a lame movie. The so-called-gay so-called-joke is just a bit more groan inducing due to recent tragic events.
That being said, I think you've really hit on something with the way offenses (real or perceived) can and sometimes do build to an infinite cycle. How many long running feuds (be they between individuals, families, or even nations) are based upon hurts so old and stretching back so far that no one even remembers how they got started in the first place. Inevitably, any attempt at peaceful arbitration by one or the other party degenerates into a "who did what to whom how often and with or without ostrich feathers and lube" game of one-upmanship (homoerotic pun definitely intended).
Sometimes both sides are equally right and equally wrong. Sometimes people see the same word in drastically different ways. Sometimes it has everything to do with context or inflection or other unquantifiables. While this is, has been, and will no doubt continue to be a source of deep frustration and even deep hurt, I think the brighter side is how many of us do manage to agree on what words "really" mean and try our best to use them in a responsible manner.
Joe Rogan made an interesting observation in one of his stand-ups about the nature of language: "I'm making noises with my mouth and you're reading my fucking thoughts!" Simple, but an interesting slant on what, really, is kind of a miraculous thing that a lot of us take for granted.

I didn't know Louis CK was such a subtle actor. The way he says "'Hello'?" is perfect. Would love to see him get some good roles in movies.

For the record, I don't use any of these words and I think it's offensive if it's meant as gay-bashing, but I kind of think it's irrelevant when it comes to when people are using the word not to mean it in that way.

I'd rather attack the mindset behind it, as that is a more effective style.

Well, you might say it's all about perception and the perception of the word is what's behind the mindset.

If the perception of the word is behind the mindset, then it just goes right back to that that is not what it was MEANT to mean: something against homosexuals.

The point being that if someone has this kind of mindset, the slur isn't really the drive behind it.

If it were, then it would kind of be like "The Manchurian Candidate", where they'd be hypnotized to go gaybash upon hearing one of these slurs.

You know, they're playing cards, and suddenly someone throws in the fag joker card and then suddenly they dropkick their gay cousin across the table.

I know I'm saying too much, but in case anyone think I'm being anti-pc, that's not necessarily the case.

I bring it up, because I think we have to ask the question of whether or not this is about being offended or is this about the hate crimes against gays?

I think it's more about the hate crimes, since it was brought up, and not really about being offended by using a word that meant to offend but now means something else entirely in many cases.

Here are more words that might offend but are not used in that sense anymore (to add onto this ever-growing list):

the word jerk and the word suck.

People go around saying people are jerks all the time and they geniunely do not mean it to mean that that person is a masturbator. A lot of families are now using this word and they don't even know that that's what they are saying.

The same for the word suck. Once again, people are saying someone sucks and they geniunely do not mean that that person performs fellatio. Also, it's family friendly: because they don't realize that it was meant to be offensive in that way.

So, if this is all about being offensive, then words like bastard need to be condemned upon as well as the ones I just mentioned.

Should masturbators be offended when someone calls someone else a jerk? Should people who perform oral sex be offended when they hear someone say that someone sucks? No, of course not, once they realize that it is not meant intended to be offensive in that sense.

But another point, a lot of people geniunely don't mean these slurs against homosexuals to mean those slurs, just as a lot of people geniunely don't mean to offend masturbators and oral-sex performers. Yes, sometimes people DO mean to offend in exactly the way the word was intended to offend when they say it. But really, don't people who say these things not even really know? They're going to call people something if we make it socially unacceptable to say these slurs. They'll just say "homosexual" in a perjorative way. Or actually Louis C.K. did a joke about how a stranger told him to "suck a bag of dicks" and another total stranger walked by and said his shirt was "faggy." Anway, these people don't know what they are talking about.

So, once again, is it about being offended or is about the hate crimes?

It seems that it's about the hate crimes.

As it's about that, then I'd rather go after the mindset behind that and have more manners.

These people that are like this probably are the same people that are going to end man or woman kind.

So, I think the problem is bigger than just the words they use.

I'm a graduate of the Lenny Bruce School of language. Use whatever the hell god damn f u c k i n g (in case there's an evil-word filter) words you want. Of course, when I am President, I will have to be mindful that my choice of words must please people. Like the cheers that spread quietly when Dick Cheney told somebody in congress to go f u c k himself.

I thought "faggot" came from English Public school, the underling boys who, when they were done bringing in the faggots of firewood, were then buggered.

This society is highly superstitious, and it's not just the dumb-asses now being demonized by the People Who Think They're Smart. All confuse words with reality. Their bodies will go haywire when certain taboo words and phrases are mentioned.

Burma Shave

To me the most offensive thing about the trailer for this movie was finding out that Ron Howard is the director. For him to choose crass, formulaic material like this is sad evidence to the growing perception that he no longer takes cinema as art very seriously anymore.

You wrote: "If you want to use 'gay' or 'faggot' as pejoratives, you go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you. You can use them to mean 'homosexual,' or as insults (or both), or you can use them as friendly mock-insults that don't really mean 'homosexual' (just 'lame' or 'cheesy' or 'unmanly')."

But if you use the word "lame" instead of "gay" as a mock-insult, wouldn't that be perjorative against the disabled? And would 'unmanly,' used as an insult, be perjorative against women? (As for "cheesy," I guess that's safe to use, as there is no oppressed identifiable group of cheese-lovers out there to take offense.) Would a football coach or drill sergeant mocking his players as "ladies" during football practice/drills be a misogynist?

I read for the first time the word "GHEY" used as a mock-insult. Not spelled like gay, but pronounced the same and it means, well, gay. Is that offensive?

While I agree that everyone is responsible for what they say and that freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism or consequences, I tire of people constantly being offended like the above tweeter. Even if I personally find the uproar over The Dilemma to be absurd, I can understand people being offended with slurs, especially given the recent tragedies involving gay students committing suicide. However, it has come to the point where anything and everything can and will be construed as offensive. It's come to the point where saying nearly anything or expressing any opinion publicly is tantamount to tip-toeing across a minefield. People’s emotions have largely clouded their reasoning. I believe this is what you were saying in your pieces on the "Ground Zero Mosque", although I did disagree with that particular example. I think this is what the "Anti-PC" crowd, which I would consider myself a part of, tires of: not people being offended, but people being offended by nearly everything. It's come to the point where the things people are offended by don't make any rational sense; sometimes certain buzz-words, like "gay", immediately send people into frenzies regardless of the context. I once had a colleague chastise me for saying I wouldn't romantically slow-dance with another male because I considered that gay. In essence, he was offended that I called something gay "gay".

What’s most troubling to me, however, is how this heightened-sensitivity so often shuts down debate. Its one thing when you’re talking about comedy, but quite another when you’re talking about differences of opinion. Rather than have rational discussions, people are more likely to devolve into emotional fits, or insult, or seek to silence, or simply not engage. Look at the Behar-Goldberg episode on The View, where rather than debate an issue with Bill O’Reilly (which, although technically correct, he was being sophistic about), both ladies stormed out. Here in Canada, you can potentially take people who have offended you to a tribunal and possibly have them pay out big fines for hurting your feelings. Everybody becomes offended, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to deal with your hurt feelings. Unfortunately, everybody’s hurt feelings are getting in the way of rational discussion. Too often those offended seek to insult, humiliate, criminalize, destroy or simply silence those who have offended them. And too often, people are becoming offended by simple differences of opinion. Ultimately, this is sensitivity is stemming from an insensitivity of any view but one’s own. I get offended too, everyone does, but I’m “Anti-PC” nonetheless.

Jim, a nice, thoughtful treatment. The whole issue of political correctness arose from the best of motives, then got completely out of hand. You make good points that help define a sensible common ground.

What gets me is the idea that using the word to mean "unmanly" is a defense. Oh, so you're a misogynist, not a homophobe. Carry on. (of course the two are linked, homophobia and misogyny being the peanut butter and jelly of sexual insecurity.)

Jim, what do you think of Looney Tunes in terms of sexuality? As stated by others, gender is very fluid on the show, and it could be argued, the creators are challenging the rigidity of sexuality.

They are also challenging the superiority of a particular "race," because all main characters are bumbling morons or insane.

It seems the trailer tries to rationalize its offensiveness, while Looney Tunes glories in showing its id, and hopefully the audience will realize each of their prejudices is no more reasonable then Elmer's thinking he can outsmart Bugs Bunny

I was thinking the same thing as you -- that the best way to deal with an anti-PC person is to tell them that they can say whatever they want but they can't expect people not to still be offended.

One problem with this is that these are the types of people who generally don't care to engage in advanced, reflexive discourse about what they say and think. They have their positions and morals and nobody can say anything to make them question themselves. Indeed, it makes them uncomfortable to even consider that they should have to do anything or think anything differently than they already do.

The other problem with responding like this is that I think their reaction will be unchanged. Their reason for disliking political correctness is not, I don't think, because they don't like being told what to say what to say and what not to say. In fact, I don't think they care what people feel about the words they say. Their problem, I think, is literally that they hate the very attitude of caring what anybody else thinks about anything. It's like their attitudes toward gay people: it's not just that they don't like people talking about being gay or demonstrating in public that they are gay. These people are literally disgusted by the idea that there are gay people doing gay things when nobody is watching. When that's the case, there's nothing that can be done for them.

But there's still a reason to talk about political correctness. It's so that people, especially kids, who are unsure about right and wrong and about what kinds of words and actions hurt other people will learn. Bigotry, I think, generally doesn't go through phases and die. If it hangs around too long into adulthood it hangs on and dies only when the person dies with it.

Jim -

You can count me among the irritated if not the offended. While I concede that bigots are using inflammatory language under the guise of some free speech debate, I also contend that we live in an age of faux outrage and left-driven censorship. It used to be that the Religious Right had a monopoly of these kinds of parlor tricks, but no longer.

The controversial line in The Dilemma is tame and inconsequential. But, in the wake of Tyler Clementi's suicide, the country is under hypersensitivity high alert and so the war is on to make everything bland, sanitized and toothless when referencing the gay community. I sympathize to an extent, but Cooper is a knowing performer engaging in a kind of objection theater. The same kind of theater that prompted walk offs on The View this week. The same kind of theater that makes Glenn Beck cry. Why do you refuse to question their sincerity?

So, the suggestion that Universal made a "business decision" is misleading. They were merely shamed into censorship by prolific homosexuals in order to avoid the dreaded homophobic tag. That is the greatest public relations fear of a corporation and politician today- being called a racist, misogynist or homophobic. whether the charge be real or imagined. The damage to ones reputation is instantaneous and deadly.

I was also reminded of the Snapple controversy in the 90's when black groups expressed outrage over what they perceived to be a slave ship on Snapple's soft drink bottles. There was also a letter K prominently displayed that was interpreted as a Klu Klux Klan reference. Forget that the ship was actually the Boston Tea Party and the K stood for Kosher, Snapple too made a "business decision" so as not to offend.

Jim, it's ironic that you reference Richard Pryor in making your case because i have often used that same example in making my own. Is it not convenient that Pryor was able to make millions off of the "N" word, selling it to white america, and then renouncing it once the money has been counted? Make us laugh and then make us feel guilty for laughing, but keep our money just the same.

These are Gloria Allred arguments. I don't understand why we want to feed this same machine

I agree, the term gay has been distorted many times over. But, this line, in that particular trailer, doesn't strike me as particularly harsh or insulting. What Cooper and GLAAD are doing is picking a soft target (celebrity white hetero males) to advance an agenda. I don't believe there is genuine upset over this anemic joke, much like we both don't buy into the faux offense of the Ground Zero Mosque protestors.

However, you only highlight right-wing examples in your entries. If we are to suggest that Republicans are using 9/11 victims as political pawns to slight muslims. ratcheting up the fearmongering and xenophobia, then let us also acknowledge that Democrats used Cindy Sheehan in the same manner to protest the war in Iraq or Al Gore shamelessly marketing James Byrd's family to advocate bogus Hate Crime legislation - a flimsy echo of existing, applicable laws.

Moreover, one could easily find a genuinely offensive rap record demonizing homosexuals or point to the flamboyant queen in Tyler Perry's Why did I get Married Too as a far more disturbing presentation than Vince Vaughn's hipster snark. But, homosexual activists are not comfortable confronting prejudice on merit. If they were, they would go after Tyler Perry for his insensitivity or the African-American community at large (primarily responsible for the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008). Yet, one minority will not confront another in matters of discrimination, preferring to find white males to make an example of instead. It's a highly suspect, calculated move worthy of our scorn.

I am surprised that you believe pressure groups cannot impose censorship. Politicians, University faculty, broadcasters - if they run afoul of any of the media's sacred cows, they lose their voice. Any dissenting viewpoint is immediately marginilized by allegations of hate speech. Family Values Coalitions once operated in this way to pressure networks to cancel shows with positive gay characters and single mothers. But, now the tables have turned and the left has usurped that power of influence, which extends well beyond entertainment. The primary difference being, they aim to silence the opposition entirely. To suggest that corporate and media are the true hatchet men underestimates their extensive reach.

I saw the new 'Dilemma' trailer as well and found the omission didn't make a difference either way. Let's be honest - Ron Howard makes such toothless entertainments that his films would never run the risk of offending anyone, so him defending his work was never a real possibility.

And yet I was nonetheless saddened by the compromise because it made me recognize that something like Blazing Saddles could never be made today. Someone like Lenny Bruce would be denied a forum and publication. It's like the Hays Code revisited with every joke now requiring a disclaimer or a qualifier. Luckily, Hollywood still has white christians to lampoon without mercy or restraint because no film critic will dare take up their cause. Easy A indeed.

We should all just agree to stop using the word "gay" when we really mean lame, stupid or boring. I would be interested to learn the history of word and how it changed from meaning something cheerful to everything negative. It is sad. I think people that say gay for everything all the time are just plain dumb and in need of a dictionary.

Phew. What a post! I'm largely pro-PC, but when Jonathan Rosenbaum said in his review of, I think, DO THE RIGHT THING, that, to his mind, there's a PC of the conservatives and a PC of the liberals. In that case, the idea of PCness becomes subjective. Something to ponder.

On a related note, what did you think of GRAN TORINO? That's a film which I thought was anti-PC in many ways and yet advocated communal harmony more than the regular PC movies. Probably Eastwood believes that "to do is to be"...

Cheers!

I think the phrase politically correct has been hijacked by bigots as of late, most recently exemplified in the Dr. Laura implosion. Since those bigots claim to be conservatives, a lot of work needs to be done within the socio-political construct to weed that element out.

At the same time, you have liberal reactionaries calling for the jobs and heads of anyone with an opposing view in matters of social justice. Rather than rational discussion, a whistle is blown with someone called a hatemonger and a rallying cry to swarm the enemy. Keith Olbermann, this means you.

Until we reach the extremists on both sides with logic, we'll continue to succumb to an assault on empathy and grammar. The anonymity of the internet enables the expression of ugliness without any consequence.

I would hope one day we could challenge the offensive party, the offended party and the professional support groups that love them and not be forced into camps when common sense and diplomacy should prevail.

Tony B wrote: "Family Values Coalitions once operated in this way to pressure networks to cancel shows with positive gay characters and single mothers. But, now the tables have turned and the left has usurped that power of influence, which extends well beyond entertainment."
________________

Do you really believe that? The right still controls the airwaves in so many ways. How many on-air personalities can openly declare themselves as "socialists" and keep their jobs in America? How many on-air personalities can openly attack Israel's policies and keep their jobs in America? Bill Maher once lost his job because he objected to the misuse of the word "cowardly", by pointing out that it's more "cowardly" to drop bombs from an airplane than to fly an airplane into a building. The fact that this is obviously true was clearly not a mitigating factor. How many on-air personalities could openly attack Christianity in America the way they routinely attack Islam, and keep their jobs?

Left-wing control of the media is a fiction. Sure, there are left-wing individuals working in the business, but the business is run by ADVERTISING DOLLARS, which means that corporate money actually calls the shots. If you want to know what motivates a business, you don't look at rank-and-file employees' opinions; you look at where the money comes from.

My mindset is similar to that of Tony B. I wouldn't say I was "offended" by the "controversy," but more puzzled and vaguely amused that something like this could become a matter of national debate. Really? A minor joke in the trailer of what is sure to be a minor movie sets off . . Anderson Cooper? Who, I guess, is some important journalist guy who guides the world's moral compass? Why would Anderson Cooper get his panties in a wad about this particular juvenile joke? Silly, silly, silly. The amusing part is the way Cooper attacked it . . like he's offering consultation on the studio's marketing strategy. Right, AC . . we'll consult you on all future marketing decisions.

As Tony says, it's all timing. We have some highly publicized and suicides, and all of a sudden we're looking for things to shriek about. Equally tragic suicides happen every day, yet these were gay men who happened to catch the media's attention, so they are apparently more tragic. So AC picked an easy, nondescript target and turned on the self-righteousness. More than anything, it was a lazy way to Strike a Blow for Gay Rights. It required about as much thought and effort as slapping a "I support the troops" bumpersticker on your F-150. Yet, because he has a forum, his lazy, unfocused minor hissy fit gets everyone's attention.

And, full confession, if underneath my smug exterior I am a little offended it's because the implication, intended or not, is that a sad gay kid killing himself is more tragic than some sad straight kid killing himself. I know, I know . . gays face prejudices I can't imagine dealing with on a day-to-day basis. Cruel, cruel world. Yet the reality, enhanced by this ridiculous debate about a stupid Vince Vaughan joke, is that what we as a nation find offensive depends on what happens to be in the headlines any particular day. Hey, maybe I'll get lucky and some demographic I can claim membership in will become the fashionable group to defend.

Maybe this is the best way to put it: I don't plan on killing myself, but if I did, even if I posted my whole sad story on Facebook, the Anderson Coopers of the world wouldn't give a flying fig. I don't fit the profile, so my suffering and demise just wouldn't be interesting. And, if a movie character were to make a joke about my race (white), religion (Mormon), physical ailment (male-pattern baldness), or sexual orientation (straight), I can't imagine anyone with a microphone leaping up in outrage. In fact, I'm pretty sure white dudes and Mormons are pretty well accepted as harmless (or even deserving) targets. And that, Jim, is soooo gay.

I may have posted this before in reference to an earlier conversation on the site, but the late David Foster Wallace had a pretty astute way of discussing political correctness, offensive language, etc. He was no great defender of PC culture, but after acknowledging "there is plenty of stuff for reasonable people to dislike about Political Correctness as a dogma", he suggests,

If it causes you real pain to hear or see something, and I make it a point to inflict that thing on you merely because I object to your reasons for finding it painful, then there's something wrong with my sense of proportion, or my recognition of your basic humanity, or both.

That's from his very thoughtful essay "Host", about political radio personality John Zeigler.

For me, the joke simply wasn't funny. It's amazing how much more is permitted when it is funny. I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but I haven't read all the posts.

Ron Howard simply isn't that good with comedy.

Interesting corollary to your article.

And thus the infinite loop begins in stride

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/10/25/parents-television-council-boycotts/

Michael -

If NPR's firing of Juan Williams didn't underscore my point for you, nothing will. A more clear cut case of left- wing media control I cannot imagine.

And, coincidentally, examples of NPR "analysts" making snarky comments about christians were revealed during this scandal. Shockingly, no one lost their job at NPR for making them at the time. But, express unease about an unfortunate fear of muslims or appear on a right-wing bent, television network and you must be expelled from the discussion entirely. Agree with us or be fired - your call. Not with my public funding, you don't. The rent is too damn high.