Jump to content

Hey, Roseanne? Kiss my ass!


KLN

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This is the final warning. One more insult from anyone and this thread is closed. I don't want to spoil what could be a thoughtful, insightful discussion by closing this and I am having alot of patience but it's wearing thin.

Brandeis...you are taking this way too far. Everyone has a right to their opinion. You don't have to like it and you may think it is something that others don't think it is but you are bringing this up in other threads and just aren't letting this go. My advice is just to let it go and agree to disagree. That is an idea that will make this thread better and this whole board better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Did you even see my previous post?I asked for the thread to be closed. I wanted to deny the homophobes a platform for their hatred. But YOU kept it open, and YOU let THEM express even more of their hate. this is the thread that they had to look for but was supposedly "Shoved down their throats"

Yeah, sometimes "having an opinion" makes a person a bigot. especially when they go looking for it, which they did. No one forced either one of them onto a gay themed thread yet both said it was forced on them.

And I have an opinion too. My "opinion" is that they are both bigots. They've had their say about gay people. Is my opinion worth less than theirs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I went back and I re-read this thread. I do not feel that anyone was being bigoted. Both Stephanie & Brandeis have the right to have their opinions on this issue. However instead of agreeing to disagree and moving on, labels were then given to someone who didn't agree. If I agree with Shawn & Roseanne does that make me a bigot? If I agree with Brandeis does that mean I'm a rainbow pusher? No it doesn't.

People should not be defined by their sex, heritage or color. Shawn is gay but he doesn't that that define who he is and what he should fight for. I can see where everyone is coming from in this thread. Everyone made some valid points that if were all more open to accepting others opinions, we would see what a nice thread this can be. I mean, where else can you discuss issues such as this on a soap message board? There aren't many. Politics, religion, racial issues, sexuality issues and others are forbidden on many boards. It is because SON has such intelligent people who can argue their points without letting it get personal, that we continue to allow these threads to be created and discussed. Don't make us have to change that.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I completely agree. You're totally right. Anyone who has to 'fight for equal rights' and all the such that comes with it should be a champion for everyone's causes.

However, my beef with Roseanne's statement isn't the point she was trying to make -- it's the fact that she insinuated that ALL gay men and women are only interested in their own fights, because that's not true. Yes, many only care about their own issues... but not all. She's lumping us all together into the same "I only care about my OWN fight" category, and that's not fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Eh, I sort of feel the same way... and then I sort of don't.

If someone goes around, shouting their sexuality from the rooftops all day long, it annoys the piss out of me. There's more to a person than just their sexuality, the color of their skin, etc.

However, subtlety can go a long way. If someone wants to have something rainbow-related, say... in their wallet, or hanging from the rear view mirror in their car, it's alright. There's nothing wrong with a little pride, or a little presentation in something about yourself. That's no different than a democrat having a democratic-related bumper sticker on their car... we're all entitled to self expression. A little bit goes a long way, though. Moderation! A bumper sticker with some idiotic homo-centric saying? That's what I'd roll my eyes at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you Dusty. It means a lot! :)

I do think that the arguments and views in this thread have been respectable and well thought out.

Look, not everyone is going to agree here, but that's absolutely fine. Frankly, if they did, it'd be far from the stimulating conversation piece that it has become.

I personally don't see how Steph has insulted anyone, she was very eloquent.

On that note:

Just because I call out the faults that many of my fellow gay men and women have does not make me either a bigot or a self loather. I am simply stating what needs to be addressed and focused on more than others. Its okay to be proud that you're gay and be free to share a life thats equal to heterosexuals. But to focus STRICTLY on your private life while pushing more pressing ,and in today's day and age, URGENT matters to the backburner is simply not acceptable. Voting for someone simply because they like gay people as opposed to voting for someone with a plan to really change the world for the better is reprehensible.

When you let your sexual identity become your ONLY identity, there's something wrong. If people didn't want to be known simply as "that gay person", then they should stop talking about being gay every chance they get.

This is coming from a gay man. I am proud. Not self loathing. I am open minded. Not bigoted.

To say otherwise is just not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And there are sadly so many that aren't. And that's why I love this board. If there's a bigot here, I haven't met 'em. We don't always agree. We're like a dysfunctional family. Soaps don't have nothing on SON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I luv Roseanne. :)

And I understand her intent behind what she said. Even if it generalized us gay folk. People generalize all the time. She went back and cleared things up.

As Roseanne once said, "Thank God for gay men. Without them, all us fat chicks would have no one to dance with!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks @Paul Raven  They should have brought Billy back in the early '90s for more drama with Hart and Blake. Maybe Blake would have gotten involved with him to try to ruin him in Roger's eyes, but realize under his sweet nature, Billy was a player himself.
    • Checked. Taggert last date, Wed, 7-19-23, so a long dadgummed time ago.
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Watching the cult of Fetterman collapse is one of the few political bright spots for me. The best part  is watching all the people who built him up now decide they want to tear him down. I'll be fascinated to see how this ends for him. https://buckscountybeacon.com/2025/05/pennsylvanias-democratic-senator-john-fetterman-raises-alarms-with-outburst-at-meeting-with-union-officials/

      Please register in order to view this content

    • Long ago, this Rachel fan channel uploaded a number of clips of Rachel with Felicia during the alcoholism story, and this one in particular stands out for me. 

      Please register in order to view this content

      And then you have this scene, which is the dark mirror of the above, especially the final moment: By the late '80s, especially after Wallingford's death, those times were gone, and Donna Swajeski added further misery to Felicia with the Gold Street backstory. Luckily, after a bit of time the show found a good framing for this new twist on Felicia. The stories with finding and losing a love from her past, learning that a woman she hated was the daughter she'd spent years searching for, sinking into alcoholism, they all fit into the type of material suited for the '40s and '50s screen goddesses.  When Dano tried some of this old weepy type of material when she went back to ABC, it mostly fell flat, as the atmosphere wasn't the same and her character always felt shoehorned in. It worked perfectly at this period on AW because you had Iris, you had Rachel, you had Donna - you had a number of tough-but-vulnerable women of a certain age, most of them grandmothers by this point, but still trying to find love, find themselves. This is what AW could have had earlier if they hadn't dumped Pat and Alice, but better late than never. This is an approach you saw more often on British soaps than on US soaps, which for a number of years respected women in that age group. Both UK and US soaps have done away with this, both countries having the ladies devolve into perpetual ingenues (with added doses of endlessly self-aware camp in the UK) or just being shipped off entirely.  You could even see that on AW with the treatment of Iris (shipped off, never to be mentioned again, too old to return), Donna (repeatedly humiliated and crippled), Felicia (regressed into degrading herself with married John), Rachel (mother to newborn twins, put into lengthy periods of trauma through her new relationship with Carl). 
    • I'm of a certain age where I caught some of Upton's final year and it was not great but Jean Holloway was worse. All I remember is Bambi, Bambi, Bambi!
    • Yes, of course, all of those servants added to the overall picture at AW & also people had relationships with those servants! I like it when Anita asks after one of the servants at the club, how their children are doing & like that. 
    • Great scenes between Marlena and EJ today. Paula and Jeanne are making EJ have more depth than Ron had during his long drawn out tenure.
    • Might as well say it, Minority opinion, granted, but I like Joss & I'm okay with this WSB story & i hope that Emma will be their next recruit & she & Joss can be partners.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy