"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
MSNBC's silence speaks volumes
Tuesday evening, during an on-air discussion about Sen. Larry Craig's arrest, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson recounted a mid-1980s incident in which, according to Carlson, he and a friend slammed a man's head against a bathroom stall because the man had "bothered" Carlson.
While Carlson described hitting the man's head "against the stall," he broke into a broad smile, barely stifling a laugh. At least one of his MSNBC colleagues who were on the air at the same time -- Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough -- laughed out loud. (Neither man was visible on-screen at that precise moment, but the uproarious laughter that greeted Carlson's comments indicate that at least one of them found it hilarious. Watch the video for yourself.)
Carlson's boast that he and a friend physically assaulted a man who he said "bothered" him quickly drew criticism, and Carlson changed his story the next day. In an email statement Media Matters for America received from an MSNBC spokesperson, Carlson said:
Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.
Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.
Carlson's story changed in at least two key ways: In the new version, he claimed that a man "physically grabbed" him in the men's room; and that he and his friend merely "seized" and "held" the man until a security guard arrived -- no mention of hitting the man "against the stall with his head."
Which version of Carlson's story is the closest to the truth? The first version he told, apparently spontaneously and unrehearsed? Or the statement he issued after the first version drew criticism?
It is impossible for anyone who wasn't in that bathroom in the mid-1980s to know with any certainty. And, for the purposes of assessing the propriety of Carlson's comments Tuesday, it is irrelevant.
Let's give Tucker Carlson every benefit of the doubt, and assume that his current version of the event is an accurate depiction of what happened. In that case, his actions in the mid-1980s may have been justified.
But, since we are unlikely to ever learn exactly what happened 20 years ago, Carlson's comments on MSNBC on Tuesday are the most relevant issue, and those comments were reprehensible.
On MSNBC, Carlson did not describe having been "physically grabbed" or "assaulted." He described having been merely "bothered." And he did not describe holding the man who "bothered" him until a security guard arrived. He described slamming the man's head against a bathroom stall.
And, as he did so, he smiled. His comments were greeted with gales of laughter from his MSNBC colleagues.
Carlson's comments, along with the reaction from Abrams and Scarborough, send a very clear message to the viewing audience: If a man is the subject of an unwanted overture from another man, violence is an appropriate response. Funny, even.
Carlson's comments, and the laughter they elicited, are dangerous.
If that seems an exaggeration, remember that Carlson's comments did not occur in a vacuum. Anti-gay violence remains a reality. In June, the New York Daily News published an article about the slaying of Roberto Duncanson:
An indictment filed yesterday added a hate-crime rap to the murder charge against Omar Willock -- crimes punishable by life in prison.
Willock, who is being held without bail in the slaying of Roberto Duncanson, 20, allegedly snarled at the victim, "What are you looking at, f----r?" when their paths crossed on St. Marks Ave. in Crown Heights on May 12, sources said.
Willock unleashed a salvo of anti-gay slurs because he thought Duncanson was flirting with him, they said.
Although Duncanson walked away and stopped to see a cousin near Brooklyn Ave., Willock was waiting with more insults when the victim emerged from the apartment, cops said.
Heated words turned into a fight, and the teen allegedly whipped out a knife and stabbed Duncanson four times. Duncanson died at Kings County Hospital -- where he was born -- about an hour later.
Also in June, The Bloomington (Indiana) Alternative reported:
Thirty-five-year-old, 5-foot-4, 100-pound Aaron Hall was brutally beaten on April 12 for hours by two teens who have described the murder in chilling detail to police. Each says Hall precipitated the violence by making a homosexual suggestion.
The beatings included repeated pummelings with fists and boots and dragging Hall down a wooden staircase by his feet as "his head bounced down all of the steps," in one of the accused's words. He died naked and alone, in a field, where he had crawled after his killers dumped his body in a roadside ditch.
Other examples are depressingly easy to find. Among the most well-known: The Jenny Jones killing in 1996, in which Scott Amedure told his neighbor, both guests on the show, that he had a crush on him. Three days later, the neighbor responded by murdering Amedure.
That is the context in which Tucker Carlson made his comments as his MSNBC colleagues laughed. There are already people who believe that the appropriate reaction if a gay man makes a pass at you is to beat or even kill him. When a national television host smiles while he recounts slamming a man's head against a bathroom stall for "bothering" him -- and two national television hosts laugh along with him -- that sends exactly the wrong signal: one that can reinforce violent impulses in viewers or plant the idea in the heads of those who haven't yet thought of it, and can contribute to a climate of fear that makes many gays feel isolated.
There are already too many lunatics whose reaction to a gay man flirting with them is violence without three national television hosts seeming to condone or even encourage such behavior. And that is what Carlson, Abrams, and Scarborough did. Presumably -- hopefully -- they did so unwittingly. Anyone who has watched more than an hour or two of live television recognizes that people sometimes say things they don't mean, or say things in a way that leaves a misleading impression. Such slips are understandable, and forgivable. Hopefully, that is what happened on MSNBC Tuesday night. Hopefully, neither Carlson nor Abrams nor Scarborough intended to suggest that physical assault is an acceptable and amusing response to unwanted flirtation.
But they did so nonetheless.
And now they must fix it, or stand by it. There is no other choice.
If Carlson and MSNBC don't condone anti-gay violence, they have a responsibility to make that clear. So far, MSNBC has remained silent, allowing its employees' laughter to stand as its final word.
If Carlson and MSNBC don't really think that physical assault is an acceptable reaction to an unwanted overture, it shouldn't be difficult for the network to make that clear.
Or it can let its employees' laughter do the talking.
***
Click here to contact MSNBC. Click here to ask your friends and family to do so as well.
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has called on Carlson and MSNBC to apologize.
What speaks "volumes" is how MMFA is so hot, lathered, sweaty and throbbing when it, um, "comes" to this minor topic.
Thanks, John! Conservatives have been posting repeatedly around here that this isn't a gay issue. Your immature, ignorant response validates those of us who have been arguing it is!
Now go crawl back under your rock.
They should make "Conservatives Only" public restrooms so the rest of us won't be exposed to this lewd and violent behavior.
Dear Conservatives, 'What's the big deal?' Seems to be the basic defense of Carlson here. Well you see, there is a double standard involved. Maybe that's why you're running into trouble understanding this issue. It seems that Carlson and MSNBC are being picked on because these guys happened to be conservative. Well, that's true. But it's also legitimate. Conservatives have created this double standard themselves. They have an open platform to restrict the rights of homosexuals. And the Republican party, guided by the likes of Karl Rove have used people's fear of homosexuality to get voters out to the polls and win power in elections. There is a political/social price to be paid for these divisive tactics. It really ISN'T ok for a couple of conservatives to be on TV snickering about homosexuality because their party uses people's fear and prejudicde against homosexuals to maintain their power. Tucker claims he has nothing against gays, but he is in league with millions of people who oppenly oppress them. So when the story turns to "Smashing his head into a door," and they're still snickering and giggling, there is a real problem there. Until your party stops oppressing millions of people for who they are, and these people are sometimes violently attacked for who they are, you can't go giggling on TV about the gays.
You do know you are an ignorant bigoted moron dont you? I mean it isnt news to you is it?
John:
If this topic is so minor and un-important, then why on Earth did you bother to come here to defend your little Tuckie Boy.
If this issue is so minor why are so many conservatives compelled to make comments about it here at this "Far Left Swamp Pit".
Was it Oh-Really who coined that title for Media Matters?
This issue is huge. It's about the Republican Party in a self-destructive mode of decline. You know it and you proved my point when you come here to defend Republicans who have damaged their own party and damaged the country we all love.
Next time please show me a little honesty.
The "story" is minor. MMFA's reaction is hot, sticky, throbbing, and totally out of proportion to the smallness of the "incident". MMFA's reaction is HIGH-larry-us!
Johnny:
The fact that you responded proves my point that it's important to you.
But i'm afraid that you're in a Galaxy Far, Far, Far Away, so i'll just rest my case.
Be sure to have a great Labor Day!
Sure it is, if you see everything through the lens of ignorance and bigotry. You weird obsession with this imagry makes me wonder, getting a little cramped in that closet is it?
John that's your second post with sexual overtones. You're beginning to sound like other conservatives hiding in the closet. Do you need to make a confession?
Carlson made this whole story up (both versions). He should be kicked off the air just for making up juvenile, homophobic gay-bashing stories. If this event happened, there would be a police report for it. It never happened.
If TC makes the story up then he's no better than that scumbag Dan Rather.
Please, don't ever compare anyone to Danny. Them's fighting words!
OK Johnny:
I'll take you up on that challenge. Put up your dukes. I'll spank you're big fat buttox anytime, and anywhere. No holds barred.
Furthermore, I'll tell you to your ugly face that Danny Boy has loads more credibility in a stark contrast when compared to Georgie Boy (GWB).
When I served the country we all love in the Vietnam War, GWB was cowering in my home state of Texas. Georgie Boy is a coward and a GirlyMan next Dan Rather and most other reporters from both sides of the island.
Happy Labor Day!
John, Dan Rather never actually "made up" that story. He just used bad documents.
That was my first reaction, too. I suspect that if either version of the first part of the incident had happened, and Tuckie had any concerns about other people, which he claimed to have in the 2nd version of the incident, then he would have notified police that an assaulter was on the loose. Why would anyone have gone back to "hold" the assailant when they could have more easily notified the police to act? And in the 1980s, I don't think Tuckie would have had any trouble getting the police to take action.
If he needed to do something in self-defense, he would have done it at the time rather than run off and gotten a friend and returned to bully the alleged perpetrator.
Judge Judy would make mince meat out of these two unlikely stories, and of Tuckie.
Well put, reasoned. Nobody needs to bleed. An appology/clarification would be good, actions beyond lip service, no pun intended, better. Best, I don't know, a more mature approach to what is a sexual identity is my choice right now.
Foser is correct in saying that we don't know the truth here because none of us were in that bathroom at the time of the "reported" incident. In reading the transcript above, we can't even be sure it was a sexual "bothering", however that is inferred because of the context in which the exchange took place on Scarbough's show. Therefore, we can not even be sure the "botherer/victim of assult" was gay. I'd be willing to bet last week's poker winnings that the purported "incident" never happened and Tuckie was letting his imagination run away (as well as his mouth).
Does any of what you wrote lessen the inherently unenlightened nature of Tuck and friends' response to boasts of disproportionate violence against a presumably gay man?
You (and others) assume he was gay, I assume he was a pedophile. Assuming the incident happened (which I doubt), who is correct? Does that make Tuckie's ancedote more palatable? No. Only pointing out that we read/hear what we want to read/hear. You take the context of the discussion and automatically assume the guy was gay, and yet the "bothering" could have been over something besides sex. Did Tuckie lead us to believe that or did our biases lead us to the conclusion we reached?
Now you're being completely ridiculous. So knowledge of the fact that some gay men cruise public restrooms is somehow a "bias"? Tucker was in high school. I suppose you think that if you call the guy a pedophile then that makes Tucker's comments all right? You're the one who's reaching with the assumptions. Tucker told the story in the context of gay cruising, so obviously Tucker "assumes" the guy was gay. Labeling him a pedophile as some sort of twisted defense of Tucker is ridiculous.
Nice one Oscar. Were you being serious? That was hilarious. I guess when it comes down to it we just don't really know anything huh? I post therefore I am. That's all we can really know huh? Anything else is just a mere spekyoulashun upon some far flung considerashun of a who knows what. Gosh, I guess you're right. We should just all ferget about poor ol Tucker Carlson. He may have been talking about baseball or copy machines for all we know. Awesome.
Not so, Oscar. I wrote presumably gay because of the context in which Tuck was speaking. He kept blurring the lines. He beseeched gay rights groups to disavow the actions of men who 'bother' other men in bathrooms. So don't give me that I'm making assumptions nonsense. Tuck gave explicit indications he was talking about homosexuals.
What you are doing is trying to make this something that happened in the distant past, thereby making its negative message somehow negligible or acceptable. That's fine, you may not even realize what you're doing, it's a common eliminationist rhetorical tecnique. Your right-wing brethren do so often it seems acceptable, so I don't blame you directly for resorting to such cheap affects.
This story didn't happen long ago and far away; it just happened Tuesday as far as we're all concerned.
Tuck and pals are regressives, they showed their true nature. Accept it and get on with humanity.
Uhhh...maybe I overreacted to your posts, Oscar. I have all these pages tabbed on my screen and I jump thread to thread. I think I confused yours with another post I have been reading. It's too bad in a way, I think that was a good response to the other poster.
Sorry dude.
Exactly. What actually happened 20-odd years ago is really beside the point. At least one of Tucker's accounts is lie. It really doesn't matter which one. Or both. The point is that Tucker bragged--with a smile on his face--about beating a guy's head against the stall because the guy "bothered" him. And he got laughs.
This idiot is supposed to be doing a news program. I can't believe that people actually want to argue that this is appropriate behavior from someone who pretends to be a newscaster.
That's right. It's another indication as to how close we have come to the threshold of American fascism.
Oh, my God. You guys are way too melodramatic for me.
Excellent point - people like TC should leave the pretending to a pro such as Keith Obermann.
KO REALLY knows how to pretend to be a newscaster.
You win the Non Sequitur of the Day Award. Congratulations!
Oscar:
Shame on your dishonest, futile, idiotic attempt at defending your little Tuckie Boy.
Not one person had to be in that bathroom to know that Carlson proudly smiled as he pled guilty to the premeditated hate crime of gay bashing. He even brought a co-basher along for the fun.
And Then: They laughed about it on air.
And Then: TuckFace tried to cover it up!
And Then: MSNBC did tactful editing.
And Now: They're all keeping quiet.
And Oscar: Has the Gall Bladder to come here and defend his little Tuckie Boy.
I wish I could say "Good Try Oscar," but sorry, it was a bad try.
I will remain at a loss as to how Carlson's on-air account of an incident that happened twenty years ago and MSNBC's subsequent silence forwards the conservative agenda.
Violence against gays is part of the conservative agenda.
The article made this connection very clear. Why did you need me to help you read?
It is? In what way?
In the same way that violence toward non-whites was part of the KKK's agenda? (i.e. literal)
Or in the same way that communism is part of the liberal agenda? (i.e. BS talking point)
Because the Conservative anti-gay agenda is to a) deprive them of their civil rights, b) dehumanize them, c) criminalize their behavior, and d) turn a blind eye to hate crimes against gay people.
In doing so, they open the door to violence against gay people.
First of all, thank you for setting yourself apart from Steeve by remaining civil.
Most of the time, I can't decide whether or not Pee Wee Carlson is a liar or he's just plain stupid. In this case, he's obviously stupid, but as far as the truth, all we have is his word about the incident in question.
Despite the absence of witnesses and police records, and Carlson's numerous statements that he is not anti-gay, MMFA wants to put him on trial for inconsistencies in his commentary (not sworn testimony) over something that happened twenty freakin' years ago and assert that this constitutes news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda. An agenda which, according to what I'm learning from my fellow left-leaning MMFA posters, includes beating people up because of who they are.
"First of all, thank you for setting yourself apart from Steeve by remaining civil," said the man who compared liberalism to communism: "Or in the same way that communism is part of the liberal agenda? (i.e. BS talking point)."
To be fair, Pete may have been saying that the association is a BS talking point of the right-wingers. Hard to understand his point, really.
But, Pete, suppose Tux had been laughing about beating a black man who'd bothered him. Still funny? Or, to put it in a context with which you may have more sympathy, suppose a bunch of liberals on national TV were talking and laughing about ganging up to beat an evangelical Christian who'd tried to proselytize them. Conservatives would be up in arms (and rightfully so, I might add).
You're still not getting it. First of all, Tucker's "word" isn't worth spit. He told two different stories; one clearly designed as a chestpuffing "I'm a he-man who pounds sissies' heads into walls" boast that he and his conservative buddies could laugh about, and the other designed as a butt-covering "I really don't hate homos" defense. The differences aren't "inconsistencies" due to a faulty memory. At least one, maybe both, is a lie. But to say that MMFA wants to hang him for that lie is to miss the point.
Tucker didn't brag and joke about this at the corner bar with his buddies. He did it on a news program. THAT'S the point.
Yes, and Sen. Craig was purposely trying to get arrested to call attention to the fact that gay men are cruising in public restrooms, sacrificing his career for the conservative agenda. Craig is a really great guy for dehumanizing homosexuals and showing them in a negative light by pretending to actually be one. That was a stroke of genius on behalf of the GOP.
It occurs to me, though, that it would be wrong to assume that all men who go after sex in public restrooms are gay. Only the truly homophobic would think that.
oh yeah the big tough repubs responded by defending carlsons honor right. theres not a cojone among the entire lot of them . either the man was 12 or a quadraplegic and this is certainly no disrespect to quraplegics. real tough guy there tucker , how many fights did you have over that he man name.
I am the parent of a child who was born a homosexual, and never made a choice to be that way, as well as 4 other kids who ware born heterosexual and also never chose to be that way.
Here's a question for all those people who were saying yesterday that it's okay to react with violence when a gay man makes a pass at a straight guy.
Would it be okay for the one of my heterosexual kids to make a pass at a gay person, and then be attacked for it?
"But that's different, because it's abnormal to be homosexual, and many people are very upset by the thought of being accosted by a gay person," you say.
That's the point. It is different, and it shouldn't be.
If the guy in the public bathroom physically assaulted Carlson, he should have run away and gotten official help of some kind, and allowed that official help to arrest the man and then allow the judicial system to punish him. It's not the private citizen's right to mete out the punishment.
If Carlson needed to use some physical violence to get away from the guy, then he's allowed to use as much force, but not any more, necessary to protect himself. He's not allowed to inflict pain on someone because it made him uncomfortable to be accosted by a guy in a public bathroom.
It's not funny to beat someone up when they've offended you in some way. If you think it is, you need to grow up. The laughter found on that tape is a sure sign of immaturity, and I am offended that MSNBC has not apologized for allowing that to air once. They had the good sense to not air it over and over again.
tucker in a fight? that dog just aint gonna hunt. if the little pansy's telling the truth he and his minion are guilty of assault . he says the guy they beat up was arrested, and that sounds fishy. at any rate, the little twirp is a homophobe with or without his bow tie and my hunch is he didn't know what to say or how to respond to "so what did you do to the guy?". he pulled the fable of beating the guy up out of thin air, but the part about bringing a"buddy" betrays the fact that he knows he's a sissy. next stop for tucker? fox noise. he'll fit in with fellow verbal pugilists billo, scammity, eddie munster, kilmeade and gerry rivers. common denominator? not a DD214 in the bunch. and any wannabe toughguy repub Iraq war pimper that doesn't have that piece of paper fits right in with the above loudmouths.
IMO, Tucker either made this story up, or embellished most of it.
That aside, I'm certain most of us would never advocate violence in this situation...but let's face it, some folks will react angrily, so how about we get to root of the problem here.
The problem begins with those indulging in lewd acts in PUBLIC bathrooms. Why should the general public be subjected to this?
Simple enough solution:Gay men should stop soliciting or offering sex in PUBLIC restrooms.
Don't want to take the chance of someone pounding your head into a wall?...then go to a Gay Bar & hook up there instead of looking for action in a PUBLIC restroom.
I don't want to come off sounding cold here, but it's really hard to feel much sympathy for Gays who cruise these PUBLIC restrooms because they should be smart enough to know they are taking a chance that someone could be offended enough to slug them.
Jeter, no one (I don't think) on Media Matters is suggesting we feel sorry for people trolling for sex in public restrooms. This story did begin with Craig getting busted for doing just that. The problem really is with the way this story was told. They treated it as though it was hilarious. I keep asking people, what part of it was hilarious? The part about the creep hitting on high school boys in the john? The part about the boy not reporting it but going to get a friend and then attacking the guy by apparently grabbing him by the genitals and then smashing his head into a door? Even if you think he deserved it, what part of this story were they snorting and chuckling about? It's really a disgusting story from every angle. Carlson was then allowed to lie without being challenged on the obvious re-write of his 'true' story and CNN followed up by covering it under the heading 'Bathroom Humor.' No one is defending pedophiles here (I hope). But again I ask what the hell is funny about this story?
Jeter, to many of us it rings familiar. To me, it sounds exactly like gay-bashers in high school and college who talked about, well, bashing gay people for coming on to them. It's true, a pedophile is another matter, but the laughing sure implied that they weren't taking this as a story about a pedophile. They were referring to gay people. Carlson had just said that the gay community should 'disavow' this behavior. And then they're giggling while he talks about smashing someone's head into a door and grabbing him by the "you know." Tee hee. But there's no hostility or derision toward homosexuals in that segment of quality national television?
The only part I find hilarious is the thought of Pee Wee Carlson being tough and physically confrontational. I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe that's why Abrams and Scarborough were laughing as well.
Ok Pete, you may be onto something there. Carlson has this image that they're sort of cheeky about. The frisky little prep school conservative. I mean he started out by playing this up with a bow tie. Maybe that's why they got in trouble with this. They play from both sides of the deck with him. Using him as a humorous caricature while also allowing him to make very serious political and social statements. But you have to see too that they were laughing throughout the whole piece, starting with Craig's 'naughty boy' dialogue. They were laughing at the gay aspect of this story already. So when it turned violent, the laughing started to sound pretty bad to a lot of people. They had decided from the start that they were going to treat this as a funny subject and didn't have the ear to know when the topic was getting serious. But maybe a bunch of conservative men chuckling on tv about the 'outed' Senator need to be a little more careful with their derision, even when it's supposedly being directed at one of their own. No matter how you parse it, you have to admit that this turned into some pretty ugly television.
But you have to see too that they were laughing throughout the whole piece, starting with Craig's 'naughty boy' dialogue. They were laughing at the gay aspect of this story already.
Sundog,
You seem like a pretty reasonable guy so let me ask you this..
You appear to take umbrage with either Dan Abrams and/or Joe Scarborough finding a "Gay" story hilarious.
Did you happen to see Countdown & Olbermann's "Dragnet" skit about Craig's little bathroom adventure? Or all the Late Night host cracking jokes about it? How do you feel about that?
As far as Abrams and/or Scarborough laughing, I agree with others here that believe they may have found the image of Tucker fighting anybody hilarious. I mean the guy is a wimp.
Hey Jeter, what the hell are we doing here on a Saturday night?
I'm sure this issue bugs you because you're sensing a double standard here. It seems there is a problem with Carlson's story because he and Joe are both conservatives. Well, there is a double standard. But it's legitimate. I know that's counterintuitive because the conventional wisdom has it that any double standard is wrong. But conventional wisdom is often wrong.
The problem is that gay people really ARE an oppressed minority in America. They are prohibited by law from marrying the partners of their choice. They are unwelcome in many communities no matter how law-abiding and productive they are. They are even in danger of being physically attacked in certain circumstances just for being who they are. And many people on the Right openly label them perverts and have programs designed to 'reform' them into being 'normal.' Tucker and Joe are on national television representing the Right. They felt they had clearance to giggle at the gays because they started out supposedly laughing at one of their own. And then they didn't have the ear to know that Carlson's story was crossing the line and sounded like thousands of standard BS gay-bashing stories that many of us have heard over and over. Purportedly straight guys boasting about righteously bashing heads of gay men who came onto them. It's obvious Carlson knew he'd crossed the line when he completely contradicted his story the next day.
Jeter, many conservatives here keep saying that this isn't a gay issue. But Carlson had just gotten done saying that gay groups need to disavow the perverted behavior that the Republican Senator had just been caught doing. He made sure it was a gay issue by saying that. Why should legitimate gay groups have to disavow what Craig was doing? Hell, he and his party disavow the legitimacy of being gay and being a good citizen with full civil rights. He went right from addressing the openly gay community to a story where these right-wingers are giggling over smashing a gay guys head into a door. They didn't plan it that way I know. But bungling into it like that was still pretty revealing of the characters involved and probably did warrant an apology, not a re-writing of the story.
One more thing about the double standard. Just to use myself as an example. Hanging out with my friends, some of whom are gay, we will sometimes crack wise about gay stuff. Goofy effeminate caricatures, playing on stereotypes and such. That's because people and our ways are funny. And if we know and trust each other we can laugh with each other. My wife and I joke about wearing shirts that say Breeders for Gays because of how ridiculous it seems that these people we love are seen as being Wrong in a fundamental way. Carlson and Scarborough can say they have nothing against gays. But they represent the Right and help give political power to people who most definitely have something wrong with gays. It really aint OK for them to be giggling on national television while telling a story about attacking a gay person no matter what the supposed circumstances were.
Sundog,
What are we doing here on a Saturday night? Years ago I would have been out with friends at our favorite bar till closing. And now, years later with nothing much on TV to watch I sit here typing. We just spent the day at our eldest son & wife's home where they threw a big Labor Day cookout for both sides of the family, my wife has gone to bed to read, & I decided to check out what's been going on here since I left Friday afternoon ;-)
You really didn't answer my question about Olbermann's bathroom skit [unless that's what you meant by double-standards] I'd really like to know how his poking fun at Gays sits with you.
I'm not like some on the Right. I've no issue with Homosexuality...only that it not be carried on in PUBLIC rest rooms. I don't really care one way or the other about Gay marriage. But I see no big deal in Gays being able to wed.
We have a Gay couple living around the corner from us. Both work for the airlines [no not as flight attendants, though both began their carreers that way, but as supervisors] We met them through our next door neighbor who is a flight attendant with American Airlines. Anyway we were introduced to them at a cookout next door about 10 years ago. I'll admit I was a little standoffish at first. But the longer I knew them the more I got to like them simply as people. We are great friends now. Now these two guys have been together something like 15 years. I asked them not too long ago about whether they wanted to tie the knot legally [We are in Massachusetts, where Gay marriage is legal]...and guess what they said. It floored me. They said no, as devout Catholics they would not wed because the Church does not ok it.
As far as Craig goes, I doubt he would have been vilified by most Republicans just for being Gay. It was his lewd behavior that got him booted. Some, including myself believe that Vitter may have deserved the same fate. But then again, I though it was wrong for Teddy Kennedy to continue in office after Chappaquiddick.
Congressman David Dreier of California is a Republican Gay man. I don't see a crusade by his fellow Republicans to get him kicked out of office.
I don't know why they were laughing at Tucker. I still maintain they could have been laughing at him, not with him.
I don't believe MSNBC needs to issue a statement about this incident. I'm all for being sensitive about others feelings, but in this instance without absolute proof of what exactly Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough were laughing at, I say it's simply time to move on.
Holy cow Jeter, now this is getting complicated. I can't speak for Olberman's bit. Didn't see it. Not much of a fan. But having actual credibility on an issue DOES free you up to joke with people more because it's obvious you're not coming from a place of hate or approving of people attacking someone. Maybe Olberman's bit came out as mean-spirited but I don't know. I definitely know that Carlson and Scarborough have zero credibility in that regard. Just saying you have nothing against gays when you help bring to power people who openly oppress them kind of diminishes your being 'ok' with them. Republicans wouldn't have been running the government so much recently if it hadn't been for courting the votes of people who openly fear and denounce homosexuality. It's well known that Rove was a master at tying in anti-gay rights ballot issues in places like Ohio and other swing states where getting the serious right-wing 'Christians' out to the polls could swing the election. Don't you see that this is why they are pushing Craig aside so quickly? You cite a gay Republican that the party is ok with. That's because he's from California! He won't have any problem holding his seat. That's all that's REALLY important to the party bosses. (of either side) Craig is from a far more conservative place where the Republican governor will replace him with a Republican. By the time of the election Craig is old news. They don't kick out everyone for being gay or for misdemeanors. But they will kick them out if their position threatens the party's hold on a seat. There aren't really any 'values' behind the party's decision other than that.
And your neighbors sound sort of sad to me. I can't imagine staying in a religion that considers me a sinner not for my actions or intentions toward others but simply for who I am. I have to wonder if any of these priests think to read the New Testament. I can speak to this because I was raised Catholic. Twelve years of private school. I suppose I'm cool in the eyes of the church. Married, law abiding (mostly), two great kids, love my Catholic mom. But they sure aint getting me or my kids. A huge, rich institution that places men as more worthy than women in the eyes of God, preaches against birth control in places of staggering poverty and claims to be based on the teachings of Jesus. Get where I'm coming from?
One more take on the whole Carlson thing. Have you heard the old Supreme Court definition of pornography? "You know it when you see it." Well for many of us I think the bit on MSNBC was gay-bashing because we know it when we see it. You can bring up that he was underage in his story or that other people laugh about gayness. But I've just heard it too many times. I was on the football team of a Catholic high school fer chrissakes. Carlson goofed into telling his story because they were in the good-ol-boy mode. You know the story probably wasn't even true the way he told it and then he had to deny it the next day. Why do guys like this tell stories like that? From my experience, they feel threatened by homosexuality itself so they tell stories where they violently conquer it. The perv in the john doesn't have to be a real guy and he probably wasn't. What's important is that Tucker grabbed him by his "you know" and smashed his head into the door thus clarifying his manhood and leaving no doubt about him being 'that way.' It all ties together. Fear of homosexuality often leads people to fear homosexuals. That's why I see the Republican moralists take on it to be such a problem. It creates an ingrown tension in a lot of people that sometimes leads to violence. It's a weird issue but it is a civil rights issue. And because I believe that the original ideals behind America are great, I believe that institutionalized bigotry against gays will eventually go the way of 'colored' drinking fountains. Amen.
I saw the Olberman bit. It had nothing to do with making fun of gays unless my radar has gone bad.
And it certainly had nothing to do with Olbermann beating a man's head into a wall.
Simple enough solution:Gay men should stop soliciting or offering sex in PUBLIC restrooms.
So you think that Craig should not have been given a fine, but rather that the police officer should have kicked his ass?
I just got done responding to another poster that it's part of the conservative anti-gay agenda to (in part) turn a blind eye toward anti-gay hate crimes. I turn the page on this discussion, and what do I find? Someone suggesting that a gay person is the cause of someone beating him up.
No question that people should refrain from lewd behavior period. But the response to such lewd behavior doesn't involve physical assault PERIOD.
So you think that Craig should not have been given a fine, but rather that the police officer should have kicked his ass?
Aw Marv you really disappoint me. Where did I say or imply such a thing? Geez man we finally agree to treat each other reasonably & you go & post this B.S.
I turn the page on this discussion, and what do I find? Someone suggesting that a gay person is the cause of someone beating him up.
In a perfect world everyone would react to this situation by simply finding a cop, or just saying No Thanks, or maybe Get The Hell Away From Me. Sorry Marv, Gay folks that cruise restrooms aren't exactly saints. They don't deserve to get pounded...BUT we don't deserve walking into a PUBLIC restroom & being accosted by some pervert looking for sex in the bathroom. And yeah..that is perverted behavior.
No question that people should refrain from lewd behavior period. But the response to such lewd behavior doesn't involve physical assault PERIOD.
Who said it did? Certainly not me. But the reality is that some will react angrily. So if don't wanna chance getting your head pounded into the wall, then knock off looking for the sex in the restroom. PERIOD
Stop cruising restrooms because it's so acceptable for men to walk into the local sports bar and make advances on other men. Just like all the breeders do it right?
Nonsense. You mentioned getting to the root cause, well the widespread intolerance of open homosexuality is the cause. Until homosexuals can be as open and equal as heterosexuals in this country we will have people resorting to covert hook-ups.
Roundhouse,
Are there signs up at Sports bars prohibiting Gays from making advances on other men? Nobody is stopping them. That is the stupidest excuse/argument I've ever read for justifying cruising restrooms for sex.
Where is it written that Homosexuality must be accepted, tolerated, or celebrated? Who the hell made those rules? Each of us must decide for ourselves what our views are about that lifestyle. Some may find it disgusting. That doesn't make them a bigot. That simply means they have a different opinion. It doesn't matter if everyone accepts Homosexuality, as long as there are Laws on the books that treats all citizens equally. Including protecting their civil rights.
Homosexuals are not confined to the closet. Look around you buddy, they are out there in the open. Many are successful, wealthy & no one is stopping them from participating as equally in this society as any other American. Those that wish to stay closeted do so by their own volition.
Roundhouse, you can enforce laws, but you can't enforce opinions. So get off your high horse.
You just make it too easy.
There are all kinds of signs that tell us gay men are not welcome to pick up men at the local sports bar. It's writen all over the faces of bubbas, it's that look that says what are you lookin' at fa**ot. Gay men are tortured and beaten to death in our country for looking crosswise at good god fearing men, so get off your high horse boy.
Homosexuals are driven into the shadows and you know it. Don't ask to find root causes if you don't want to hear any reasons but your own.
And where is it written that homosexuality must be accepted? (notice I ignored your ridiculous 'celebrated' strawman) I don't know? Where is it written that all men are created equal...that all men are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hell I don't know, do you?
Well, how holier-than-thou of you, Jeter. The simple fact is that NO ONE--EVER--deserves to be physically assaulted for being "hit on". It doesn't matter where it happens. Public place or not, it doesn't matter. If a gay man approaches you, YOU don't have the right to assault him if YOU feel "offended". Think of it like this: How many straight men would consider it appropriate if a woman punched him in the face or sprayed him with mace because SHE didn't appreciate his advances? I'm not suggesting the man in that situation is planning to do anything inappropriate; he simply can't seem to get it through his skull that the woman is just not interested. Would you think it acceptable for a woman to act in this manner? (And, let's face it: There are plenty of women who have to deal with jerks like that in nightclubs and bars.)
Also, I'd like to point out that it's far more likely for a closeted gay man (usually one who's married with children) who'll hang out in the "public places" than openly gay men. (There is a gay subculture that does actively seek out public venues--including toilets--but those men tend to be better able to discern who is and who isn't likely to be accepting. They're also guys who are far more able to pick out the undercover cops.) However, for decades, the public restrooms were one of the few places that gay men (including the closet cases) had a chance to hook up; of course, they were also more likely to wait until there was less likelihood of anyone underage being around; public toilets in parks or rest areas were rarely used, except by cruisers, between 9pm and 6am.
Your lack of sympathy is quite typical of people who are still willing to subscribe to the "gay panic" defense. Just because little Tucker wasn't convinced of his own manhood didn't give him the right to assault this alleged man (if, in fact, the incident did occur).
I would ask that you remember Matthew Shepard who lost his life because of a couple of cretins who wanted to "rob a gay man" and, after selecting him, *they* pretended to be gay to gain his trust, only to savagely beat the poor young man and leave him for dead. Shepard's attackers also attempted the "gay panic" defense; fortunately, no one believed them. Unfortunately, that can't be said for hundreds of other gay men and lesbians through the many decades.
This is too much. Normally I enjoy reading Jamison Foser's stuff...obviously a talented writer so when I saw his posting about that punk Tucker Carlson I thought I was going to get some insights that were well thought out and incisive.
Instead I got an undeserved diatribe about a kid being harassed in a bathroom stall by a perv back in the eighties. If it happened to me I would have kicked the guy in the nuts and I'm as Liberal as they come.
I'm sorry, I could care less if you're gay or from another planet altogether, the simple fact is when people are threatened by those who wish to use them for unsavoury purposes, they need to get a wakeup call - Don't Touch!
In fact I think Tucker Carlson needs a kick in the nuts too but just for being a loudmouth punk and for a myriad of other reasons, the very least of which is his revelation about a high school object lesson that he learned in his formative years about sexual deviants (Gay or not) in public washrooms who prey on the innocent. What he did was as natural a reaction as is possible for a normal well-adjusted teenager and by no means abnormal.
Now I know know what right wingers mean when they talk about political correctness run amok in America.
Get over it Foser, if it was your kid that did it, you would have been proud of him for standing up for himself and not allowing himself to be objectified by an obviously aggressive pedophile.
And lest you think I'm a redneck, I just wanted to say that I have been a democratic socialist my entire adult life, but the stuff you talk about here is just way over the top.
So, Tucker Carlson in an interview about Sen. Craig, pretty much said that he was hit on and propositioned for sex, when he was younger... that he came back with a friend and the hit the man against the stall (sounds like they beat the man, and then detained him)... and then pressed charges (citizen's arrest for insult? after the assault?!).
Everyone is crying out for a public apology... I have to say, that for one to say that you are NOT anti-gay, anti-gay rights, and then turn around and say, but hey I beat a gay man once... and then I called the cops to have them arrest the man I just beat... [implying -because he said he that I was cute, and asked me if I wanted to ___] ...THAT is what qualifies as a HATE crime, in most books... and it's just plain wrong to do two hateful things to the same person, anyway that you look at it (assault him, after being insulted and then have the poor horn ball arrested to boot).
But YES, sex in public restrooms is nasty, even though I suppose I could understand a consenting, commited couple not being able to wait (straight or gay)... at least I agree on that statement.
-Jim, BigHigTX
I am flat-out stunned that MMFA continues to go down this road. Oh, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance has called on Carlson and MSNBC to apologize? Well La Dee Frickin Da. What about Carlson being a minor getting the moves put on him, that doesn't count for anything? No apology's required for that little slip up. Oops, sorry well no big deal.
MMFA, you've got your priorities upside down in a big way on this and you look more ridiculous by the day. Might as well keep it going.
No police report, no charges filed, Carlson was the victim first, Carlson was underage, yet Carlson gets ALL the blame from the geniuses that know everything that happened twenty years ago based on Carlsons sketchy account that gets scrutinized to the nth degree!!! And you know why Carlson changed his story? Because you were all scrutinizing it like he was under oath or something so he figured he better be clear about what happened.
If MSNBC and Carlson have any sense whatsoever, they will tell this pathetic website and everyone asking for an apology to kindly pound salt.
Never seen you be such a pathetic sniveller. Sure. Carlson was "bothered" so in your sick and twisted world that justifies going to get a friend and assaulting someone. I say take YOUR sick and sad valueless opinion fold it till its all corners and deposit it where the sun never shines
You're right, Solon. I haven't responded this way before. That's because I haven't read such a bunch of disingenuous nonsense on this website before. You can keep claiming all you want that this was an "assault" and I will keep claiming that that is not proven. And I will continue to be right about that. So you go ahead and crucify a guy for an unproven claim and I will continue to call you and this website out on that.
Keep twistin' bruce. You're the one who doubts Tuck's veracity and yet you defend his righteousness.
How noble. Stand with the liar.
And you're intentionally glossing over the fact that NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE IS SYMPATHETIC TO SEXUAL PREDATORS you stink bomb. Our problem is with Carlson's street justice mentality. That and the fact that he and his cohorts think it's fine sport to get some buds together to beat down a fellow citizen instead of just getting the damn cops involved. It's dangerous, thuggish and damned authoritarian to forego law and order to mete out one's own justice. But hey, that's conservatism for ya.
Talk about disengenuous, Bruce.
No, I'm just asking for fair treatment and he's not getting it from a website that should know better.
Tucker gets "bothered". What that means we don't exactly know. He comes back 25 minutes later with a friend and the guy is still there. Did they know he would still be there? How could they know that? Is it logical that the guy would still be there if he wasn't up to no good? I don't hang out in bathrooms, I don't know about you. So Tucker and his friend do something about it, and remember he's a minor which I've acknowledged in other posts means I'm giving him some leeway with regard to his behavior. I don't expect minors to have everything figured out which is why we deal with them differently in the legal system.
Now, when Carlson and his friend restrain the guy it would make sense to me that the guy would try to get away. So his head might have been banged against the wall during a struggle. It might have been accidental. That's one possibility and nobody knows exactly how it went down. And that's really my overall point, that nobody knows exactly what went down but he is being crucified around here as if you do. It's extremely weak.
The weakness is all yours my friend. You don't even think this happened and you still want to give the liar the benefit of the doubt.
But worse than that you trying to cast this incident as some long ago and far away cautionary tale. No, these weren't teenagers boasting at a sock hop. These were respected (in some circles) adult (in some circles) men sitting on national TV laughing about seeking out a person and beating them. That's not acceptable, that's not what I teach my children to do. I tell them to run to the police straight away because that's what the law prescribes.
And as for Tuck's 'clarification,' it isn't worth the paper his bosses handed him to read from.
You would have to ask the ones laughing exactly what they were laughing about. IF they were laughing about a guy getting his head bashed in then I agree that isn't funny. But Tucker comes across tomes across to me as a non-aggressive guy so in my mind it's equally likely that they were laughing about that fact that he was fighting with anybody, if it actually happened.
I'm finished with this, so there's your Labor Day present.
BRUCE:
Hey Bruce, maybe you're right!
Maybe reality is false! Maybe the truth is a bald faced lie! Maybe Tucker Carlson is not an adult. And just maybe TuckFace didn't confess to a hate crime on national TV with pride and a smile on his Big TuckFace.
Maybe they were laughing at something else on the set, other than the hate crime Tucker so proudly shared with us all.
And Bruce, maybe you're not being honest. Because I will tell you to your face that you have a right to your opinions, but you have no right to your falsified realities.
I hereby strip you of any and all credibility that you maybe thought you had in your possession.
Please. That's lame and you know it.
Lame? Not really.
Bruce made a perfectly reasonable deduction about what Abrams and/or Scarborough might have been laughing about.
Sorry but the idea that Tucker would be a tough guy is hilarious.
I can now add desperate to the lame excuse.
So how often did YOU get a buddy to go to the bathroom with you when YOU were a teenager so the intent is pretty clear. Since you are playing the you-dont-know-what-if game here about was he trying to get away. I guess I will too and say you dont know what if the guy only bothered Tucker by saying something suggestive? You like steambaths? Nice tush kid. That is creepy, it deserves the attention of the authorities if it FEELS creepy but Tucker turns this bothered into getting his buddy. GRABBING HIM BY THE YOU KNOW, and hitting his head against a wall. Whatever is TRUE this is the first version he told. A flat out gay bashing fun time for Tuck in the old park. NO mention of police the first time just a little grabbing by the you know and hitting his head on the wall. I WOULD give Tucker some slack about HOW he handled it as a teenager but the POINT is he TOLD the story a few days ago and it was all about wasnt it fun and games that time I recruited a buddy to help me do a little gay bashing. He isnt youthful now. IF he had any reason to feel there had been a youthful indescretion, that he would handle it differently NOW that certainly could have been part of his story after all HE was telling it and this is the point. You tell a story, for a purpose, to make a point or to amuse, and you tell it in a certain way emphasizing this like grabbing the guy by the you know, or that like he was BOTHERING me, WHAT was the POINT of the way Tucker told the first version of THIS story and WHAT was he trying to convey and WHAT kind of person tells THAT story THAT way to illicit WHAT response? You know there was that time when I got a buddy of mine to go to a bathroom where a guy bothered me grabbed him by the you know and hit his head against the wall. Good times, what a laugh. Ah to be young again.
What would you have done, tough guy? Gone for tea?
I just don't have a problem with it. Call me a neo-con, I don't care. I just think there's reality and there's online punditry. Few things in reality work out like they do in the auspices of blogosphere scrutiny.
The law says we have a right to defend ourselves and our property. The reaction that Tucker had in getting a friend to mop up was quasi-heroic in my mind, because it may have prevented someone else from being messed up horribly physically or emotionally.
Hey Bruce, women have to deal with sexual advances all of their lives. You telling me that little Tuck couldn't deal with that? You guys expect us to deal with it. Why not Tucky? I've never have to resort to violence (except for the violence from the rough side of my tongue). No dirty jokes, J2, my little eclair.
JJ, I had a guy come on to me in college okay, and I just said "no thanks". I'm not a violent guy and have never been in a fight in my life. But we don't know what TC meant by "bothered" in all honesty. If guys are grabbing you then you certainly have my permission to get physical back. Women shouldn't have to put up with being grabbed, no doubt about it.
As I said before, my complaint is the rush to judgment around here and I strongly disagree with that.
Gee, Bruce, just one come on. You guys have it good. If only Tucky was as intelligent as you. If he was really scared, he would have gotten help from an authority or reported it. He did violence in a pre-meditated fashion by coming back (according to his story). It was HIS story. If you don't want any judgement passed, you don't tell about a pre meditated crime on the freakin' air. If it didn't really happen that way, he's still guilty of bad judgement and furthering violent rhetoric (on the national airwaves). And I don't read here where ANYBODY is condoning the behavior of the person who "bothered" poor little Tuck. You've been here long enough to know better than that and are being dishonest.
On second thought, this guy did more than come on to me, it was more like sexual harrassment. He got very specific about what sexual acts he would like to perform on me. He was an acquaintance that I agreed to let stay in my dorm room one night because it would save him hotel room money. I had no idea about his sexual orientation but perhaps he took my generosity the wrong way.
Either way, I found out years later that he had died from the AIDS virus. Now, upon hearing that news, that certainly brought me back to the night he propositioned me and how things might have gone the wrong way had he not taken no for an answer. I could have been exposed to the HIV virus right there.
So yes, I think if a guy said the equivalent to you what this guy said to me, I think it would bother you quite a bit. At least it should.
Sorry you experienced sexual harrassment. I've experienced a fair share, not one encounter. Of course it bothers one. Sheesh, that's not the point.
Sorry Julia, I'm sure women experience what I did fairly regularly. I understand that their are a fair number of male a-holes out there. I wish my gender was more evolved.
But please don't accuse me of being dishonest here because I'm being very honest. In my honest opinion, this website is taking what was a mistake and turning it into a Federal case. It was a mistake. It was a mistake for Carlson to go back with his friend and assault (even though I dispute the term "assault") the guy (if the whole thing actually happened), it was a mistake for Tucker to relay the story on the air, and it was a mistake for anyone to laugh about it. That's the way I see it.
I think people make mistakes all the time. I don't see this whole thing as a conservative anti-gay "it's okay to beat up the gay guy" moment. Tucker absolutely disavowed that in his statement. I see it as poor judgment on several peoples part that has been interpreted in the worst way possible by this site.
Whatev, dude. Nobody said the perpetrator was not at fault. That was the dishonest part of your appraisal.
And if a guy GRABBED YOU that way Bruce what would motivate you to describe that as being BOTHERED?
You would have to ask Tucker that. Obviously, he clarified his statement the following day if you care to believe it. My guess is he didn't think his first version would get scrutinized because he probably assumed nobody pays attention to what he says.
Julia my little dumpling [I'm changing food groups-I've tired of pastry] some woman react to unwanted sexual advances by spraying mace into the eyes of the jerk. And they have every right to do so--as it could prevent a rape.
Now I don't believe Tucker's tough guy story for one minute, the guy is a wuss & his alleged pounding of some Gay guy isn't funny. But what Abrams and/or Scarborough were laughing about might have been the image of the bow-tie sissy pounding anything but sand ;-)
J2, I said I was gluten free and I meant it. Now down on the ground or I'll have to go and get a friend to come back and grab you by your dumplings and..........?
1. Pair your dumplings with a delectable rosemary encrusted chicken.
2. Pair your dumplings with a Texas sized chicken fried steak, Mmmmm that's more manly.
Either way, you're goin' down.
BTW, "bothering" didn't exactly sound like a sexual attack. If someone sprays mace/pepper spray into the face of someone making a sexual comment, I'd think the other party could file assault charges. We're not talking about rape here from the way TC told it. Like I said before, he wasn't so afraid that he got authorities involved. His little feelings were probably hurt 'cause he's probably not all that secure about his manliness. Now with a manly man like you, you'd probably tell him to take a hike. I'm with you that little Tuck is telling tales though.
It doesnt matter. Tucker is a professional broadcaster. HE brought this up, this story. Now either the first version is true in which case his actions were reprehensible. To find a friend and beat a guy because he felt 'bothered'. OR the second version is true and you have to wonder what the agenda is to change being sexually assaulted by a predator into being 'bothered'. Why tell a serious story about the capture of a dangerous guy into a jaunty little gay bashing story to amuse the peanut gallery? In EITHER case, whether or not he made the whole thing up doesnt matter, his first version was meant to be an amusing jaunt down memory lane about that time he went a gay bashing with his buddy. Told for the amusement and humor value. I cannot believe you see nothing wrong with that if you dont, I will continue to point out its churlishness
I am flat-out stunned that MMFA continues to go down this road.
And I'm stunned that you of all people would take the side of a possible gay basher.
Oh, wait. I'm not.
Oh, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance has called on Carlson and MSNBC to apologize? Well La Dee Frickin Da. What about Carlson being a minor getting the moves put on him, that doesn't count for anything?
It's like the last few days of discussion didn't happen. Or maybe you just didn't bother reading anything that you didn't agree with. Nobody thinks anyone should be in a bathroom making advances on a teen, or doing anything illegal for that matter. Our problem is with the violence that Tucker allegedly brought down on this person rather than bring the police or other authorities into the situation. That you don't get that STILL... well, I was gonna say I was shocked, but again, I'm not.
yet Carlson gets ALL the blame
That's just a plain old garden variety LIE. (Again, not shocked.) Carlson gets the blame for HIS illegal actions. The supposed "botherer" gets whatever blame is due to him for whatever illegal actions HE took.
And you know why Carlson changed his story?
Because in retrospect he realized how wrong his original version was. You seem to be a little slow on picking that up, because you keep defending his original story. Even Carlson knew enough to drop the part about slamming the guy's head against a bathroom stall door.
If MSNBC and Carlson have any sense whatsoever, they will tell this pathetic website and everyone asking for an apology to kindly pound salt.
If your actions after having repeatedly been told to pound salt in a variety of ways after we've read your posts is any indication, MMFA will keep coming here for a long time.
It appeared to me that Abrams and Scarborough were laughing at the absurdity of lil' Tuckers story. I believe that laughter was at Carlson's expense, and far from an indication of approval.
What irritates me is how certain posters here keep "suggesting" that maybe it wasn't a gay sex issue, and instead was a pedophilia issue, seeing as how (F)tucker says he was a "teenager" at the time. But what I really hate is how most Republicans believe that all pedophiles are gay, and that all gays are deviants. In fact, just a couple days ago, I heard Tom Delay on Fox News comparing Barney Frank to Craig and Mark Foley. There is a distinct difference between being an upstanding American who happens to be a homosexual (Frank) and being a perverted person who seeks anonymous sex with strangers in airport bathrooms (Craig), or a pursuer of underaged boys (Foley).
The problem is that Carlson would be no more emotionally equipped today to fend off an unwanted sexual advance in a restroom than he did when he was a teenager. His pathetic contrived story of getting a friend to go back with him and beat someone in a restroom is sad tribute to what his life has become - a manufactured drama played out on cable TV.
MSNBC and the other news outlets need to apologize for putting people like Carlson and the other high school misfits like Abrams and Scarborough on TV, and commit to us that they will return to journalism. For God's sake - we have a US Senator who has plead guilty for disorderly conduct, hid it from his wife, family and colleagues, and we are discussing who picked on Carlson when he was a teenager? Leave that crap for O'Reilly and Limbaugh to comment on. They cornered the market on world-class dysfunctional behavior when something makes them confront their own questionable masculinity.
Even when I was in high school, I could handle a cruise better than that. "That's flattering, Mister, but you aren't a rapist, are ya?" "No, no, no, never ..." "No harm done, Mister, but you're livin' dangerously. Take better care of yourself."
Or in the same way that communism is part of the liberal agenda? (i.e. BS talking point)
I think that the MSNBC guys were laughing about Tucker because he doesn't look like the kind of guy that would slam anyone into a bathroom stall, gay or otherwise.
Look. he says he was GRABBED and ASSAULTED in a bathroom. If anyone does that to me, I'd have the same knee-jerk reaction. You don't know what that guy is after - sex, money, credit cards, whatever. The idea that protecting oneself and one's property is tantamount to gay-bashing is absurd.
"At least one of his MSNBC colleagues who were on the air at the same time -- Dan Abrams and Joe Scarborough -- laughed out loud"
As well they should. His story was absolutely hilarious and not offensive in the least. Talk about political correctness at it's worst. A guy gets hit on by another man in a bathroom stall and he's not allowed to do anything about it? Good grief. You guys get offended by everything.
Uh, well not to point out the obvious, but under the rule of law (something you conservatives usually worship at the altar of), no, you aren't actually "allowed" to bring back a buddy and beat somebody's head against a wall.
Rino, it's in the details. But you scum defenders are not really interested in details are you? He got away unscathed the first time and he pre meditates a crime and comes back to bash a guy's head - doesn't go to an authority or report it so he wasn't so scared (except maybe scared of being gay?). The only thing laughable in all of this is that you think this is about us being "offended", which means you don't get the point by a mile.
What we social liberals/progressives don't accept, probably at a biochemical level, and what authoritarians live by, is that any deviation from conformity by an individual causes that individual surrender their right to empathy.
That's why the guys on this thread want to focus on the sexual advance as a perversion and not Tuck's own perversion of the law.
The man in the bathroom is dehumanized, unworthy of empathy or equal protection under the law. It also absolves Tuck of any wrongdoing, since the other guy was a pervert he had it coming.
After all, these authoritarians may be porn addicted, fornicating, twice divorced churchgoers but they're not queer. That would be a real sin.
You are sick and depraved. Of COURSE it is offensive. This is the REAL definition of PC to conservatives its not enough they have the RIGHT to act like jerks. They want a reason why CALLING them on acting like jerks is wrong.
First off I’ll through out the obligatory pre-defense of my position, by sating that I am extremely leftist (probably more than the employees of MM), for gay marriage, against all forms of discrimination and absolutely hate Tucker Carlson. However this thing with Tucker is not a big deal, and the fuss being made I feel reflects badly on the “left”. It plays right into the stereotype of the over reacting, uber-sensitive wussy liberal. First off, this was not a hate crime! Tucker did not accost this man just because of an “unwanted overture”, it was because said overture was in the bathroom! Now I don’t know what it’s like in the girl’s bathroom (other than it’s a lot cleaner, smells better, and for some reason you get flowers and even a chair?), but in the boy’s room, there is an assumption that your not going to get hit on while your reliving yourself. Now I know a lot of people do not enjoy reliving themselves in public restrooms, (hell I know girls that won’t poop at their boyfriends house) so the comfort level for a lot of people in the bathroom is already low (I don’t mind some idle chit chat), so why is no one here mad that this guy was going around hitting on people in this situation? Now I know about all the social, religious, family, ect.. pressures that can force someone to resort to this as their main venue for courtship, but we do have to all get along in a society, and one of the main rules is no hitting on people while they’re crapping.
Now as for Tuckers reaction to it, well I’m not sure what to say here…except get over it. Gee he slammed this guy’s head against the wall, so what? I’ve had my head slammed against all sorts of things for all kinds of misunderstandings, and if I didn’t slam the other person’s head back, I got over it. Now I know that this is hard to understand, but boys play rough. I’ve watched several of my best friends and roommates just have at each other. Fighting, throwing crap, trying to run each other over, and in every situation, once they tired out, we all had a beer together and laughed. So Tucker slammed this guys head against the wall…good, maybe he’ll learn not to do that in the bathroom. I’m not saying here that violence is a solution, but it’s not always a problem either. He didn’t beat the guy up, drag him behind a truck, or hurt him seriously, so why the big deal, is the left really full of a bunch of wimpy crybabies? That’s the way this looks to most people.
And come on lets be honest here, this is Tucker Carlson, how hard of a slam could it have been?! My 60 year old mom could beat the crap out of Tucker, and she has a bad hip! This uproar also smacks of hypocrisy, how many men have been slapped by women for unwanted advances? Hell mostly in appropriate situations too. I myself was once slapped by a lesbian for an “unwanted overture”. Should she lose here job now, or make a public apology? Was that a hate crime then? No and neither what Tucker did was and everyone who is not trying to use this for a political end knows it.
I can’t believe this turned into such a long rant about bathroom etiquette, and fighting. My main point was supposed to be that making a big deal out of this just makes the left look bad, and I don’t think MM should be a part of it. I’ve been able to overlook the double standard that seem to exist on this site. It seems that only the “right” is ever to be held accountable here, while the most blatant lies about the economy and jobs for one get spewed from democrats everyday, go unchallenged. As I said earlier, my politics are very left, but I am not a democrat. I’m starting to fell that this site is “democrat” not “progressive”. Just another cog in the DNC taking shots at the “right” while covering for democrats, it’s why a lot of people on the left see no difference between to two parties and I wish MM would start to help push the Dems in the right direction, not just point at the right.
QUOTE
___________
Carlson made this whole story up (both versions). He should be kicked off the air just for making up juvenile, homophobic gay-bashing stories. If this event happened, there would be a police report for it. It never happened.
- steve expat
___________
I agree.
Carlson probably grew up a chronic liar &, of course, he continues it on TV.
I don't even care about the lack of a police report; Carlson just comes off as a frat boy bullsh*tter when he says anything.
He just wanted to impress Joe S. & Abrams with a fabricated gay-bashing story.
Judging by the laughter, seems he was successful.
Agree Dag...
Carlson is a sick, frat-boy turd. I believe he probably made up both stories.
A sick, frat-boy, gutless turd. The lowest sort or vermin.
The only problem? MSNBC hasn't the balls to fire him.
Let me get this straight...a lewd homosexual, trolling for sex in the restroom accosts a teenager. For his troubles, he gets roughed up and held for the police...yep...sounds like the punishment fit the crime.
Don't bother with all the deflections about violence against gays that is trying to be pinned on Carlson and the other laughing heads...this is all about the harder than prehistoric granite woodrow that mmfa has for Carlson.
After all, Carlson's antagonist could easily have been Larry Craig...and mmfa and its legions would have shown little outrage...you know it and I know it.
This is a nothing story with a shelf life of about 30 minutes...except for mmfa's futile harping.
According to Tuckers self serving SECOND story. The first version isnt anything like that. In THAT one its just this amusing little story about getting a a buddy to help him bash a gay guy who, according to his own description, BOTHERED him.
Wesley's crystal ball...
Isn't it amazing how Wesley knows all the details and motivations of Tucker's bathroom encounter from 20 years ago?
Why...Wesley must have been in the next stall!!
Sometimes, conservatives are truly laughable.
I can tell you for a FACT that the issue of men making unwanted passes or advances happen ALL the time to women. If every woman in the United States attacked a man for making an "unwanted advance" at her, the hospitals would be past capacity in NO TIME FLAT! I was told as a child, then as a teenager that if someone made a pass or a physical advance towards me to get away from the guy, call the police, notify any authority figure near me, etc. etc. I was never told "and if a man makes a pass at you, go get a friend and beat the holy crap out of him." No SANE parent would teach their children such a thing!
There is no place in our society for this kind of "blind rage seeks target" behavior. Carlson made it clear that violence is the logical reaction to the situation and THEN got support from at least one of the other MSNBC guys as the audience heard him laughing away.
And NOW it's spread all over the news, internet, etc.
Do they not remember what the two men who killed Matt Shepherd used for their defense???
I remember ...they said that Matt made a pass at one of them. They responded violently and look what happened! I don't know anyone who wouldn't agree that what happened to Matthew was sick, twisted and VERY WRONG!
(BTW, I've never believed that Matt made a pass at either of them but that's beside the point...that is the excuse they gave in court)
These idiots gave people all over the country the impression that violence IS a solution when it's NOT!
In summary I ask the question, why is it ok for a male (of any age) to respond violently when propositioned? It's clear to me that it's NOT ok for anyone to use violence as an answer to the problem so what's with these guys??
Message for Jamison Foser and the rest of you at MMFA that keep dwelling on this: GET A LIFE!!
Message for Interesting...
Get another website and Get A Brain.
Hi Un-Interesting-Observer:
Will you Please take two steps back and take a hard look at yourself. You're in big time denial and dishonesty.
Republican power is in decline. You've lost both the House and Senate. By extention you will most likely lose the White House in 08. Your Politicians and pundits have damaged your party and the country we all love.
But instead of being outraged at Republican's who have hurt your party you come here to defend them.
My heart is broken over the damages done by the Republican's that you are defending. And you say we at this WebSite need to get a life?
You should start a new life to take back your party from what it has become. Now, if you like what it has become then you're the one who needs to GET A LIFE.
Happy Labor Day - Sam I Am
Sam--Your spelling and punctuation reveal that your intelligence/education level is insufficient to elicit a response from yours truly--in other words, I shant waste another second on you. Happy labor day to you and your family.
In other words, you're another elitist Republican fundamentalist ensnared by the reality that conservatism is crumbling upon its own damaged foundation.
So you feign a superior indiffence and never once consider that you are the problem.
I am normally loath to do this but if you live in a glass house you should not throw stones. 'Shant' [sic] should be 'shan't' and Labor Day is usually capitalized. I'm not sure you should be correcting anyone's spelling or grammar. Besides demonstrating arrogance you are just being rude. We all cut each other a little 'slack' on grammar, spelling, and typing around here. Sam's post was quite clear and I do not see it as a personal attack. Your response was uncalled for.
Hi OBSERVER:
Now that YOUR spelling and grammatical errors have been corrected, will you please address my legitimate, respectable and honorable comments.
You said MMFA and the posters here should all "Get A Life" - I'm simple asking you to consider my comments and be respectful enough to reply. Everyone is waiting???
BTW, I Capitalize and do other effects to Highlight certain words and titles. I don't use a spell checker and I'm not the least bit worried about any of that.
I made straight A's thru college in English and Grammar and I used to be a disgusting Grammatical Purist until the day I found out people hated me for correcting them all the time. So I quickly stopped.
If you should decide to ignore my comments, then I will have effectively soundly defeated you and your "Get a Life" comment.
CheckMate!
I don't think you really have clue on how to respond because you know in your heart of hearts you are wrong. But please, Go For it.
That's why your here! To defend what you said! I won't hold my breath. And like I said before - Have yourself a great Labor Day.
Sam I Am
Sam,
Pay no attention to Sister Mary Interesting Observer.
Just before she gives up her losing argument, she picks apart the spelling and choice of words in the post that she replies to.
She's been doing this for awhile now.
No one except Sister Mary really cares about spelling or grammar, only the content.
I guess were lucky that she doesn't hit us with her virtual ruler.
Thanks For The Tip KING!
I hope you're enjoying this Labor Day! I will cancel my diet today so I can have all the unhealthy food that I enjoy so much.
But I didn't know Un-Interesting Observer is a female woman? If I had known that I would have been much "Kinder and Gentle" with her. Sister Mary?
Mary, if you're still around, I forgive you if you're "Bothered" by me in an way, but please don't hit my head against a bathroom stall. Just kidding Sister Mary and I hope you're also having a nice Labor Day.
Sam I Am
Have a great Labor Day too, Sam.
I have no idea what gender our friend Interesting Observer is. But the poster in question does remind me of a few nuns I had in school.
you are so over the top. just because you push it does not mean anybody cares. if a man made unwanted sexual advances against a woman and the woman pushed the man he would have it coming. the only thing dumber than tucker carlson telling the story is you idoits making a big deal about it. News flash, no one has watched msnbc since april........
I do not know if Mr. Tucker's actions (at the time of the event ) fit the criteria for gay bashing (i.e. hate crime) but his description of the event clearly renders it an Assault and Battery... which is reason enough to warrant _some_ consideration, albeit belatedly. He should not be crucified for this revelation. But, he and others should be tarred and featherd (figuratively, of course) for their obnoxious lack of professional, journalistic, ethics.
99 comments! Well, lets make it a hunnert.
I have a little trouble visualising bowtie boy, Tuckie-Pooh the little blue-blood preppie with the Peter Tork hairdo getting physical with the alleged gay man after his alleged come-on. First, this whole story smacks of fantasy. Though I expect he was the target of trolling gays on more than one occasion with that early trademark getup of his, kind of the equivalent of one of those teen hetero-porn highschool plaid skirt, kneesocks and a training bra costumes that tend to tittilate.
Of course, he did say he ran for help, so perhaps one or two of his straighter friends held the guys arms while Tuckie -Pooh bitch-slapped him.
If this even happened outside the realm of his wildest dreams, I would speculate his own arousal made him very fearful and angry.