Justin Theroux: ‘Political correctness has become really insidious’

Justin Theroux_01

First of all, this ^^ photo is crazy, right? It’s like ELLE gave Justin Theroux emoji eyes. He looks like he’s had some “work” done, although I think it’s just Photoshop. Congrats, Justin. You are the opposite of cool now. Anyway, ELLE sat down with Justin for a surprisingly lengthy interview about life, art, street cred and The Leftovers. You can read the full piece here (the article appears in the August issue with Kristen Wiig on the cover). Some highlights:

Why he wears all-black: “Whenever I put on a colored thing I feel like I’m in a costume. Like when I put on a gray shirt.”

Amy Sedaris on Justin: “Justin’s got this dark side—he’ll go there, but more than anyone I’ve ever met, he just really does blossom with sunshine. Justin is like a girlfriend. He’ll do girly things with you: He’ll tan, he’ll put your makeup on for you, he gives great advice.”

Was he good at school? “I wasn’t particularly good at anything academic. Math is still a magic trick to me. Acting was the thing I gravitated to, because I enjoyed it.”

Acting: “Acting is a job of permission. Someone has to give you permission to do it. But I have started to be like, ‘I only want to do things that I want to do,’ and writing has afforded me the luxury. Being handed a well-thought-out, beautifully written piece of material that I don’t have to affect at all, except for performing it.… It’s a joy to read something I have no desire whatsoever to change. Writing is hard.”

The paparazzi: “My life changed a lot. More people are like, ‘Hey, man!’ And I don’t think that’s from my role in John Adams. But it only changed as much as I engaged with it, and I learned very quickly: Don’t ever engage with it. Just JKL. It was a learning curve, but it wasn’t as traumatic as you might expect. It’s just annoying. Occasionally you’ll get a stewardess congratulating you, on, I don’t know, whatever, some three-headed baby we just had.”

The tabloids’ storytelling: “I can’t get over how terrible the narrative is, just how poorly written it is. It’s worse than a telenovela. It’s so dramatic. Like, ‘They’re broken up, they’re together, they’re storming out, storming in, rushing out, rushing in.’ They make every celebrity look like a schizophrenic.”

[From ELLE]

Obviously, he talks about The Leftovers too but there’s nothing new in those quotes so I skipped them. But! There’s a lengthy discussion about how Justin wrote Tropic Thunder (he’s one of several credited screenwriters on that project) and how people picketed the film because of the “full ret–d” jokes. He stresses that the joke was never on the mentally challenged but on Hollywood and actors who take those roles. He blasts hyper-political correctness, saying: “There’s such a sensitivity now. Political correctness has become really insidious.” I don’t know… I think PC culture is a good thing. And it’s always a bad idea for a privileged white dude to complain about how he’s not “allowed” to tell the jokes he wants to tell.


Photos courtesy of Doug Inglish for ELLE and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

224 Responses to “Justin Theroux: ‘Political correctness has become really insidious’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. akivasha says:

    ” I think PC culture is a good thing. And it’s always a bad idea for a privileged white dude to complain about how he’s not “allowed” to tell the jokes he wants to tell. ”

    So on point there isn’t anything left to say :)

    • L says:

      Exactly. Many (not all, but many) times whenever someone calls out political correctness it’s basically them wanting to tell a racist/sexist joke and not get called out on it. That’s what’s changed, you used to be able to get away with it, but folks aren’t putting up with that crap anymore.

      • Jess says:

        Too true. Plus, I’ve seen people complain about people being too politically correct until it comes to an issue they’re sensitive about – then they want everyone to be sensitive about that issue. Yet they can’t see how other people would feel the same way. White straight men, in particular, have no clue how good they’ve had it (although I make it a point to educate as many of them as I can!).

      • MegsOp says:

        Good for you, Jess- I totally agree.

    • Lizzie says:

      I don’t know if I agree. I mean obviously if your being a racist obnoxious dbag then yeah people should get mad.
      But the scene that Justin was talking about was pure satire. Satire on how hollywood thinks playing mentally challenged will get them an oscar. It wasn’t used in an insulting context so I don’t have a problem with it.
      I think people have a tendency to freak out about every little thing, especially on twitter. The world needs satire! Otherwise we all become uber conservative humourless droids!

      Also! EMOJI EYES! HAHAHA! Though he does have nice eyes. Very expressive.

      • akivasha says:

        Good points…and I agree the world need satire :) so it’s a balance we must find

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I think the objection was that he used the word “retarded?” That’s offensive.

      • Algernon says:

        But it’s part of the joke. You can’t take any one element out of it, or else the whole thing doesn’t work. Tropic Thunder consistently satirized the notion of actors taking a real-world, serious issue and co-opting it for their own shallow gain (ie, Oscars). The Kurt Lazarus character was like a leech, latching onto whatever flashy role will get him the most attention, up to and including doing full black-face. And Ben Stiller’s character did the “full retard” role in a blatant effort to gain acting credibility and a failed attempt to win an Oscar. The whole thing is about insensitivity and appropriation. It all makes sense in the context of the movie.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Satire is a minefield and you need to be very very good at it if you want to go there. Certain words, however, shouldn’t be excused or defended in the name of art (or satire). Words have an impact, they can hurt people whether it’s intended or not and we just need to accept that and move on, i.e. not use them. Because do we really have to?
        And would we try to defend it if he had used the n-word? In the name of satire? I don’t believe we would.

        Let’s go with Ice-T here. If you’re not black, don’t use the n-word. If you’re not gay, don’t use the f-word. And so on (I’m paraphrasing). I would go further and say JUST STOP. But that’s not realistic. I’d be fine if people would simply realize that words. Can. Hurt.

      • Algernon says:

        That’s the joke. Words *can* hurt, but these people are so clueless and insensitive they don’t care/realize. They’re wholly self-absorbed and don’t care who they’re hurting in pursuit of their (shallow) goals. THAT is the point, and it’s clear in the movie. Tropic Thunder remains a relevant satire because celebrities continue to engage in appropriation for their own ends, regardless of consequences. Do I think damaging words should be thrown around carelessly? No. But if you’re using them to make a specific point about appropriation and how it contributes to ongoing insensitivity, knock yourself out.

        We’re just going to disagree here. I firmly believe nothing is off limits for art or satire. Placing those kinds of limits is, I think, what Justin Theroux is getting at.

      • Kori says:

        One of the best satires on Hollywood and what roles win awards was on Ricky Gervais’s Extras–the episode with Kate Winslet. And then she actually did win an Oscar for a Holocaust movie.

      • Zwella Ingrid says:

        There is this thing called freedom of speech. We are free to disagree with one another and be vocal about it. We are free to use sensitive language or abusive language. We are free to be PC or say the most obnoxious racist thing our minds can conceive of. We have these choices to make based on our own individual idea of what is morally right. But as long as we have freedom of speech we can express our opinions whether heinous or good. Personally, I value freedom of speech more than I do PC.

      • Kate2 says:

        @lizzie & Algernon-

        I agree 100% about satire. I wasn’t offended by the “full retard” speech because I knew it wasn’t directed at special needs people. This isn’t the same thing as white people being mad they can’t say the n-word. It was satire directed at Hollywood. The great thing about satire is that its entertainment, and you can turn it off when you find if offensive. I also agree that nothing should be off limits in satire.

        @zwella –

        I get what you’re trying to say, but that’s not what freedom of speech is. Freedom of speech simply means that you can’t get arrested for what you say. It was designed to keep the government from throwing people who say anything bad about them in jail forever, i.e. North Korea.

        Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of consequences. You can still get fired, have people call you out, etc. when you say something that someone finds offensive.

        Again, I get what you’re saying, and I agree with your overall point, but I always see this come up whenever someone gets fired or gets a bunch of shit for something they’ve said, and I just feel compelled to clarify when I see it applied incorrectly.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @ Algernon: Well, then we will have to disagree, yes. I simply don’t think the film was that good (I think critics rather liked it, no?) but that’s because this is not a form of satire I consider good. It was too much of everything, they went overboard. They were trying to make a valid point but then they went with broad instead of sharp and yes, maybe you can tell what they wanted to say but to me, it simply wasn’t done well.
        None of that answers my question of “Would you be fine with it if they had gone with the n-word instead?” Yes, you said nothing is off limits but … really? It would be fine? With you maybe but are you telling me that critics would’ve reacted this well?

        @ Zwella Ingrid: Yes. I agree. And? Being allowed something does not mean you should do it.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Lizzie, who wrote: “I don’t know if I agree. I mean obviously if your being a racist obnoxious dbag then yeah people should get mad.”

        I think the point is that most entitled people don’t realize or care when they’re being politically incorrect. They basically want to do/say what they want when they want. If he had mentally challenged people in his life he’d be more sensitive about using the phrase; which ‘is’ political correctness. I’ll bet he’d sing a different tune if someone used his friend Phillip Hoffman as the butt of a tasteless joke about drug addicts.

        The more I read Justin (in his own words) the more I’m convinced he and his fiancee are well-matched.

      • Godwina says:

        “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. You can still get fired, have people call you out, etc. when you say something that someone finds offensive.”

        Kate2 FTW. We have to keep beating this point until it freaking sinks in. I can’t believe how misused and misunderstood that term is!

    • Ag says:

      @akvisha – yeap, that pretty much sums it up.

    • bettyrose says:

      This, exactly. If you feel PC culture limits your art, you probably aren’t very funny/talented to begin with.

    • homegrrrl says:

      The term “politically correct” was coined by the right as an effort to belittle civil rights progress. I make certain to never use the term “pc” or to degrade the progressive effort to speak more respectfully of diverse populations. I was an adolescent in the 80s and had a vocabulary that was littered with prejudice, and it took effort to clean it up, but that’s what becoming an aware person is all about; I don’t want to perpetuate the culture of ignorance.

      • Kiddo says:

        Thank you.

      • frisbeejada says:

        Great comment – well said!

      • bettyrose says:

        Homegrrrl thank you for pointing that out. I used to make that point a lot in the 90s when the pc backlash started…and somewhere I just burned out on it. Common human decency is not some fringe movement launched by left wing extremists.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Excellent post, homegrrrrl and I completely agree. It costs you nothing to eliminate offensive words from your vocabulary and it shows respect for other cultures and maybe spares someone’s feelings. I don’t understand the resistance to that.

      • Lucinda says:

        Pretty much this. The only people I consistently see complaining about “PC” are white men. It’s a great way to change the subject.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @ Lucinda: Yes. Or “artists”.

      • Godwina says:

        THANK YOU.

      • MegsOp says:

        Yep! Bigots wanna be free! To be bigots and to be ultra privileged, right? Yuck!

      • Chris says:

        Spot on there.
        And any pillock who brandishes the phrase with evident quotation marks around it is suspect in my eyes….they are seeking personal exemption from accepted decencies.

    • Godwina says:

      Yep. Kaiser nails it.

      People railing against “PC” present the biggest and best red flag to me. It’s a public service; I just keep walking. Or flipping “JKL” in Justin terms (gag).

  2. Wallamalooo says:

    Okay then, Justin, instead of thinking of it as ‘political correctness’, try thinking of it as ‘being a decent human being’. Idiot. I have no idea what anyone sees in this moron. Rant over.

  3. Abbott says:

    He looks like that dude ‘Mystery’ from the VH1 Pick-up Artist show. Just needs the fuzzy top hat and binoculars.

  4. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    He just seems like an a**hole to me.

  5. Darkladi says:

    If you want the right to say what you want, accept the fact that others have the same right to react and/or bring consequences.

    • Wallamalooo says:

      This 100%!!! There is such a culture of not taking responsibility and/or thinking of the consequences of our actions/words – it’s frightening. Instead of apologising nowadays, people o to ‘rehab’ – what is that?!?!?! Sigh.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:


    • claire says:

      The annoying part is when people ‘react’ and go full-pitchfork, without any intelligence behind why they’re mad. There is a tendency to focus on a word, without any critical thinking involved in determining the meaning or intent. Take the Tropic Thunder example, or the recent Stephen Colbert satire example.

      • OhDear says:

        But look how Colbert handled it and contrast with how Theroux is reacting. Theroux is making a blanket statement on society based on criticism of one of his works, which was years ago. Colbert – with the restrictions of his character – made a brilliant performance explaining the joke while (1) explaining that it would be offensive taken out of context, (2) being thoughtful and kind to the person who started the controversy and (3) not attacking anyone except for Snyder, the original target of the joke.

    • siri says:

      Thank you!! A lot of people misunderstand the term ‘freedom of speech’, since freedom always also means the freedom of others to disagree/re-act. So, in the end, it also has to do with practicing your freedom ‘responsibly’.

      • Kate2 says:

        You should probably look up Freedom of Speech since you misunderstand it too.

        He didn’t mention Freedom of Speech anywhere, he was surprised and “bummed” that people didn’t get the joke. He didn’t say they couldn’t picket or criticize, just that he was surprised they did since he thought they took great care to aim the joke at Hollywood, not at special needs people. Those people don’t get the joke, they just heard the word and flipped out. And he is allowed to respond to the people disagreeing with him, is he not?

        It also doesn’t have anything to do with being “responsible”. His only obligation to be responsible is not inciting a riot. He helped write a scene that some people found offensive. He has no obligation to those people or anyone else because we have the option to not watch the movie.

  6. Kali says:

    While I agree that there can be a ridiculous extreme of endless Social-Justice-Warrioring for things/people that don’t need it and endless co-opting of people/issues (see: XoJane), I totally think there’s a middle ground of “PC culture” maybe making people stop and think “Do I really need to say this? Can I say this without sounding like a giant douche?”.

    TL;DR – just because you CAN say something is different from whether you need to or should.

  7. TheOriginalKitten says:

    I think he’s right about Tropic Thunder. This is what happens when you take a blanket approach to political correctness without exercising any judgment. Context, intention and who’s saying it MATTERS.

    In Tropic Thunder “retard” was used in a satirical sense to mock actors. I thought the humor behind it was pretty obvious which was why I didn’t find it offensive.

    If we become outraged at everything deemed to be “offensive” in the realm of comedic humor or satire then we won’t have funny movies anymore, no more The Onion, no more SNL. Comedy has always been a genre rife with vulgarity and crudeness–it’s never been a place for sensitivity or delicateness.

    Don’t get me wrong– I think political correctness has value and generates a lot of important conversations, but I also think that we need to exercise critical thinking when evaluating what’s genuinely harmful to society and what’s slightly crass, but ultimately benign. I personally prefer the use of sound investigative judgment with a healthy dose of sensitivity towards cultural and societal distinctions. I think we get to the truth by listening and understanding others, not through incessant moralizing and self-righteousness.

    • mimif says:

      I agree, but unfortunately I think the critical thinkers are far outweighed by their *insert un-PC adjective* counterparts.

      ETA: what does his ring read in the header pic? Please tell me it’s “Justin”, pleeease.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        LOL! I hope it does. My mom would love that..she’s always buying me stuff with my name on it :(

      • Kiddo says:

        Every time someone utters the term ‘political correctness’, it’s like a dog whistle has been activated for a subculture of prejudice and entitlement. I don’t care to be bothered to argue the point for or against the use of the word ‘retard’ in the film, or what the intent was.

        I am just really sick of the term ‘PC’ because it is now a weapon often used to beat down any legitimate protestations of unfair/deeply discriminative language, which often coincides with unfair treatment of certain groups.

        The funny thing is that those complaining most about oversensitivity, or PC culture, are often hyper-sensitive in regard to the sensitivity in the first place. If you think what you did was funny, then stand by it and don’t cry like a baby that people didn’t like it, because then you are one in the same with the oversensitive part.

        And completely unrelated: That dude wears way too much make-up. From the photo, it seems like he is a stand-in for Alan Cumming, in his role for Cabaret.

      • booboobird says:

        Yes, I think him and Jennifer both have those rings. His says Justin and hers of course Jennifer.
        I find him annoying and too try hard for his age.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @Kiddo-I didn’t take it as him “crying like a baby” at all. I think he was making a valid point about some people automatically jumping to outrage before carefully considering what exactly they’re getting outraged about and why.
        And I think if people are completely misconstruing a scene in his movie, it’s his right as an artist to defend his intention.

        There’s a bigger conversation to be had there, and saying that he should stop whining as a way to silence him is really no better than the anti-PC brigade telling people concerned about political correctness to stop crying about their feelings.

      • Kiddo says:

        I never said he should be silenced. If people didn’t get the joke, and he wants them in on it, then explain it for those who don’t understand. If not, let it stand. But he is complaining because he’s calling PC insidious.

        [in-sid-ee-uhs] Show IPA
        intended to entrap or beguile: an insidious plan.
        stealthily treacherous or deceitful: an insidious enemy.
        operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        It seemed to me like you were trying to shut down an interesting point he made, that’s all.
        You realize that he didn’t actually bring it up the topic of that scene in Tropic Thunder, right? The interviewer did.

        ‘Theroux’s aversion to political correctness runs so deep that he is working on an animated series examining the theme—a long-germinating project modeled on All in the Family, but with the Archie Bunker character as a liberal instead of a conservative. “When was the last time you were super offended? I might be like, ‘That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!’ Or, ‘It’s not my thing,’ or, ‘It was a stupid joke.’ But there’s such a sensitivity now. Political correctness has become really insidious.” ‘

        I think he meant political correctness within the confines of comedy. Maybe I’m being too generous but that’s how I took it—and if that’s what he means, I agree with him.

        Within all the different facets of life, I think it’s ok for a realm to exist where PC-ness is not the goal. Comedy exists to make people laugh-that is comedy’s raison d’etre. It doesn’t owe society sensitivity and it doesn’t exist to care about people’s feelings. I don’t see that as inherently bad.

      • Kiddo says:

        I think once you start using the term ‘political correctness’ as a derogatory term, lumped in as the sum of the whole, no matter the context, then it has consequences throughout society, especially since people are framing ‘political correctness’ as a virus that needs to be killed; when it actually has benefited certain segments in society: as in raising the bar on the public dialogue, and how you refer to people in REAL politics such as in government legislation and policy.

        I’m not arguing whether the use of satire or words in comedy should generate outrage, or what is or is not acceptable language, outside the terminology of “political correctness”. But “political correctness” is now a dirty word like “feminism”, drummed into the collective consciousness from those fighting any empowerment to the once historically or currently disenfranchised.

        The terminology of “political correctness” combined with “insidious” argues that there is some nefarious conspiracy to withdraw the rights of the privileged class and power brokers, for no other reason than to subvert their authority and power. Where, historically, it has been a framework to seek equality, not to take over entitlements.

        If he expects that people should not be sensitive to certain elements of comedy, then he in turn, should take in stride what their responses are instead of having “strong aversions” in response to other people’s ” strong aversions”. No one is stopping South Park or “Eyeball’s” projects, to be clear.

        He can argue his sense of humor and intentions without attaching a loaded term like ‘political correctness’. This brings out the Mel Gibsons and Gary Oldmans and
        that guy in your local government who then think it is their right to argue pejoratives aimed at minorities at work are a ‘joke’, for example. “I was only kidding”, or that free speech equals a free pass on the way you interact with people in every day life and on the job.

        Again, go on with your work. I can like dark humor, I can like offensive humor, if it is done right. But I still think you can carry on with your work, without expecting that everyone will like it, get it, or not take offense. You have no greater right to your sensitivities than anyone else, in other words. It may bother you greatly that people are so sensitive, but if it bothers you greatly then examine your own sensiivity.

        I’m not sure how to make that more articulate.

      • delorb says:

        Well said Kiddo. This attack on PC is meant to take us back to the bad old days. The bad old days when men who looked like Justin could say whatever they wished about women and minorities and we’d better shut up and take it. Well, we won’t shut up and take it.

        IMO, it doesn’t matter if one gets or doesn’t get the joke. If someone found the use of that word offensive, they should have the right to say so. That this writer can come up with no other word to describe how he’s feeling about that backlash against his work than ‘insidious’ is further proof that perhaps his ‘joke’ or writing isn’t as good as he thinks.

    • MrsBPitt says:

      @OKitten…Excellent post!

      • Chris says:

        Brilliant comment Kiddo

        I reckon what ails him is the desire not only to be an edgy hipster but also a guy with an agile mind and a vast cultural hinterland….and yet he comes across as simply vapid, vain, and limited. Trying too hard.

    • Angel L says:

      @ TOK – So true and so well said!

    • Mel M says:

      But in this movie and for most people that saw this movie they don’t see that so they will continue to use the word for laughs. For a parent of a child with disabilities I can tell you that people use this word all of the time everywhere and even when they know I don’t like it. It’s almost like it’s ingrained in our society and people really become offensive if you try and explain why choosing a different word would be better. There are so many other words so why is this one so special that you can’t possibly find a replacement? If anyone is offended by a word then it just shouldn’t be used and that is what I usually see on this site, example: redskins, not every Native American finds it offensive but a lot do so it’s deemed inappropriate as it should be and there are many other examples out there. But this word doesn’t seem to resonate that feeling, there is always the excuse of “well I wasn’t talking about your kid.” or “I was just joking.” Well there are people that will look at my child and call her that in an evil and mean way so using that word is just perpetuating the thought that it’s ok and not harmful or no big deal and it’s teaching others around you that it’s ok. Honestly most people don’t think twice when they use it unlike so many other taboo words. I hope one day we can get to that place where everyone will be called out for using it because no one ever uses it in a positive light, you can’t, they use it to degrade. It is a put down plain and simple.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I understand where you’re coming from-I really do. I feel for your daughter and people are aholes for using that word around her.

        But in defense of the movie, it was mocking people who use that word. The point was to portray an idiotic and insensitive actor who only cares about winning an Oscar and doesn’t GAF about other people’s feelings. If we take a blanket approach and censor characters in movies who use un-PC terms, then we’ll never see an evil character who says bad words or mean things ever again. Sometimes it’s ok to show how bad people are. In fact, sometimes that’s an imperative in great story-telling.

        This is why I think context and intention matters. If the character in Tropic Thunder was a “hero” who used the r-word as slang then that would be irresponsible and cruel.

        Ultimately, I think that blaming kid’s behavior on movies and music misses the mark.
        I started listening to Howard Stern at age 14–this man is not know for political-correctness and I always felt that some of the stunts on his show were disrespectful to women-but it didn’t stop me from finding his show incredibly smart and hilarious as well. So why was I able to continue listening even though I experienced moments where the content of the show made me uncomfortable? Because I understood the larger context of humor.

        IMO, it starts at home-if parents instill a moral foundation in their children, that’s the easiest way to insure that kids don’t become susceptible to outside influences, and that they exercise strong moral judgment based on the individual circumstances.

        And honestly, I think there’s much more value in children exercising their own judgment based on the situation at hand. It shows that they actually understand why it’s hurtful, rather than only recognizing that a term is “off-limits” because society says it is.

      • Mel M says:

        I hear ya but I think you are an exception to the rule. Most kids aren’t that mature in understanding the larger context, at least not any of the ones I know.

        I also wholeheartedly agree that it should start at home with parents and in a perfect world it would but there are too many bad parents and children with terrible a home life, so there needs to be another way to set an example. And absolutely it’s better that they know why using a word is hurtful instead and just saying it is but how many children and even adults do you know that actually know why the N word is offensive? They just know it’s a bad word and people are willing to call them out if they use it. Most people are not willing to call out people that use the R word. All of this has nothing to do with the use in the movie, I’m just talking everyday life.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        You’re right and I see what you’re saying. It’s simply a word that is used all-too-often.
        I also completely agree with you about people making a huge deal about giving up an offensive word, when we have a million other words to use in its place.

      • fairyvexed says:

        There’s another option.

        Maybe people were offended because he’s a shitty writer who always responds to criticism with some poseurism like, “You’re interrogating the text from the wrong perspective.” He seems like the type to not take criticism well, probably because he thinks he’s so much better than anyone else.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @fairyvexed- That’s totally possible and I admit that I don’t follow him. Still for me, that doesn’t negate his point, which I think is an interesting and well-made one.

      • Mel M says:

        Idk, to me it feels like because the disabled don’t have a voice in Hollywood or society in general there is no motivation to change the thinking on using the word. It’s like they think who cares if we offend them, they really can’t do anything to us. Most mentally disabled people are not going to have money that they can consciously use to support or not support who they want in Hollywood or politics. It’s up to their families if they want to take all of that on as an aside to caring for your disabled family member.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Great post. I think whenever there is social change, things probably swing a little too far in one direction before it balances out. I think it’s worth it, but I see what you mean. I think the word “retarded” is offensive in any context where it means mentally challenged, but I didn’t see the skit in question, so I shouldn’t judge.

    • mia girl says:

      @OKitten – I’m with you on this.

    • Sixer says:

      I agree. And would add that satire may often use so-called un-PC tools (language, jokes, situations) to make points that are actually entirely PC. Films like Blazing Saddles or TV shows like Till Death Us Do Part (Americans might not know this one), for example. Context is everything!

      • Kiddo says:

        The thing is, Mel Brooks didn’t cry a river after responses or critiques of/to his work. Some people were offended that he made light of representations of Hitler, and he explained, paraphrased, that making a mockery of him was more fitting, since he didn’t deserve the respect of seriousness. He explained his direction, his take, without lamenting on how HE wasn’t being treated fairly by the ‘overly-sensitive’.

      • mimif says:

        May the Schwartz be with you!

      • Kiddo says:

        Lol. And you.

      • Sixer says:

        Kiddo – I saw what you said above and I agree entirely. You can’t be free to make a joke or make a point through a joke and not allow others to be free to not find it funny. Or even, assuming your intentions were honourable, to not allow others to be free to disagree with your means of making your point. The best you can do is to point out the joke if other people have failed to get it. And if your intentions aren’t honourable, just a cover for the bigotry that you want to express, then you have to allow other people the right to call you a See You Next Tuesday.

        I think I covered all the bases there, right?!

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Mel Brooks didn’t have the forum that celebs today have.
        Who know what he would have Tweeted about or said in interviews if he was a celeb in modern-day society.

      • Kiddo says:

        The point remains. It doesn’t matter what might have happened, it now has to do with what is happening. He is clearly taking offense or is butthurt about butthurt.
        No one stopped him from making the film, nor edited out words. He wasn’t censored. If people didn’t understand the gist, then better to explain it without hyperbole about the sky falling from PC, and proceed on.

      • Kiddo says:

        @Sixer, Brilliantly, as usual.

        BTW, what’s going on with the dog-poop lady? Any DNA analysis, lol?

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        “You have to be sure of what your target is, who the joke is on,” he continues. “I was so saddened that people were offended by the full-r-word scene, because we worked really hard making sure that joke was aimed at Hollywood and actors portraying mentally challenged people. I remember being so bummed out. They literally picketed us. It was like, ‘Really? Satire is allowed to do this!’ ”

        He said he was saddened and “bummed out”. Far cry for being “butt-hurt” and whiney IMO.

      • fairyvexed says:

        Satire is usually punching up, though. PC is all about angry white dudes who resent they can’t be racist and sexist as much as they want to anymore—–like the absolute power isn’t enough, they have to add rubbing salt in the wound to it as well. You really can’t call it satire when it’s the powerful attacking the have-nots. Rich white guys like Theroux make up about 30% of the population, but 80% (or much more) of every powerful group or institution that shapes society. If he finds the criticism of his “art” too onerous he can just wipe his eyes on some thousand-dollar bills and go to a wine-tasting and sniff the brie till he passes out.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        Oh I don’t know. I never saw satire as being gender or class-specific…I’m not sure that it’s all that serious really.

      • Sixer says:

        @ Kiddo – dog poop lady now has a (very) ill husband so she’s been let off the gossip hook!

        @ all

        I honestly think we’re arguing the same thing from a different corner of the room. But I have taken on board Kiddo’s point that PC has become a derogatory term and that that is not a good thing at all, however much you approve of satire.

        Chris Morris’s Brass Eye on paedophilia and the moral panic surrounding it is an example of a satire that went so close to the bone that it caused MASSIVE debate here in the UK a few years back. I loved it but a great many people here didn’t. Here’s the Wiki link about it:


      • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

        I think there’s general knowledge because it is the show on which All in the Family was based. A lot of episodes have been lost though.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @The Original Kitten, who wrote: “Mel Brooks didn’t have the forum that celebs today have. Who know what he would have Tweeted about or said in interviews if he was a celeb in modern-day society.”

        Mel Brooks ‘is’ a celebrity in modern-day society.

      • Emma - the JP Lover says:

        @Kiddo, who wrote: “The thing is, Mel Brooks didn’t cry a river after responses or critiques of/to his work. Some people were offended that he made light of representations of Hitler, and he explained, paraphrased, that making a mockery of him was more fitting, since he didn’t deserve the respect of seriousness. He explained his direction, his take, without lamenting on how HE wasn’t being treated fairly by the ‘overly-sensitive’.”

        Well said.

    • Hanna says:

      I don’t think political correctness exists. Some people don’t like the word retard. If he has a bone to pick with them, then argue with them. There’s no blanket pass to say what you want and escape scrutiny. There’s no blanket pass to censor everything hurtful. The world is too complicated for that.

    • Kate2 says:

      @TOK – I couldn’t agree with you more on everything you’ve posted in this thread. I’m just blanket approving the whole thing.

    • I Choose Me says:

      I agree with everything you posted!

      I literally scrolled down thinking, if OK’s on here. She will eloquently express what I want to say and save my lazy ass the keystrokes. *Hugs Kitten ’cause she’s awesome*

  8. Jen2 says:

    I was neutral on him, but now..oh brother. He needs to stop talking and just let women talk about his “balls”, whichever set they admire. He can say what he wants, when he wants and I have the same right to call him or anyone else on it if I don’t like it. The privilege goes both ways.

  9. feebee says:

    Yeah, PCness may have gone too far in some respects, but I can’t feel sorry for anyone complaining about it because he can’t use the word ‘r*tards’ in a joke. I don’t get mad when I stop myself from using ‘spaz’ to describe myself being a scatterbrain.

    Words hurt and they reinforce bad stereotypes and ways of thinking that can be detrimental. So, ‘sorry’ if some people called out his movie. The good news for Justin is that he is still fully free to be as un-PC as he likes, he’ll just need to grow a thicker skin.

  10. aenflex says:

    I agree with him completely with regard to PC. Being offended is a choice.

    • Dawn says:


    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      What an insensitive, uninformed remark. So everyone should just say the N word or call mentally challenged people retarded and if it hurts their feelings, tough? That’s their choice? How nice. What a great world it would be if everyone were so thoughtful.

      • pnichols says:

        Agree 100%. All these PC people. Give me a break. Put energy into helping others in the world and lighten up. I like him.

    • Gretchen says:

      Saying offensive things is also a choice.

    • chris says:

      100% agree. if someone wants to be a prick and say offensive things its up to me to feel offended. man some people out there are so codependent to words that they have to take everything personally and to heart. maybe you dont have to be offended ALL F*CKING DAY.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        That makes absolutely no sense.

      • Chris says:

        The other Chris here: don’t agree with Chris at all, FTR.
        One thing….I think he meant ‘invidious’ rather than ‘insidious’. Still think it’s bollocks though.

    • Kiddo says:

      I’m not referencing the specific subject here, as in Theroux’s movie.

      However, how words personally affect one individual and how tough or resistant they are to slurs or name calling isn’t the entire picture of how language can drive behavior. When a group is labeled with a pejorative, and it is accepted as the norm, it changes the course of how society will view and treat that group as a whole. It can have the chilling effect of dehumanizing them, and in such, motivate destructive or unfair actions toward those people. If you call people “savages”, for example, then the perception of that group is not one on equal ground, you have labeled them as subhuman, so treatment of them might be more aggressive. During WWII, the word Jap went from an innocent shortening of a name to a derogatory one. There were rhymes made up with Jap, like “Rap the jap”. It’s a cute little slogan made during a time of war, that made the killin’ easier, since they were reduced to a phrase instead of being people. If you categorize certain groups of women as sluts and whores, it surely changes the public view or opinion on whether they might have been raped, had that been an accusation. Words can be larger than how ONE responds to them. It is how EVERYONE responds to them.

  11. db says:

    Oh please. People have been picketing films since at least the 1930s (Legion of Decency, anyone?)

  12. Logan says:

    Jennifer Aniston or Stephen Huvane who ever is trying to make this guy happen, he will never happen!
    He’s show is flopping really hard every week the rating is dropping like crazy.

    • BadAssCompass says:

      I think he’s really good on the Leftovers and I was ‘meh’ on him judging by the tabloid covers, thinking he’s a pretentious douche with all the girlfriend drama and personal style. He may well be, some quotes here are not helping, but he’s a capable lead, being a successful writer he’s clearly not an idiot, and after seeing some Making of.. interview I found him even likable.. maybe he’s just learning to play the A-game.

    • Becky1 says:

      I agree with @BadAss Compass-he’s actually good on “The Leftovers.” Not of a fan of his personal style but I find him attractive on the show. He may be pretentious but he’s talented and looks really good when he’s not rocking the aging hipster gear.

      That pic is really oddly photo shopped!

    • Emma - the JP Lover says:

      @Logan, who wrote: “He’s show is flopping really hard every week the rating is dropping like crazy.”

      Yep … according to “TV by the Numbers ( website that posts weekly ratings for Cable and TV shows), the July 20, 2014 episode of “The Leftovers” only drew a 0.8 rating.


      • Rana says:

        That is actually not a bad rating for HBO. And it actually rose from last week so i would say HBO is ok with the performance. Especially if you consider the ratings of some of their other shows like Veep (0.5 -0.6), Girls (0.3-0.4), Looking fell all the way to 0.3-0.4. Silicon Valley was getting around a 0.9. True Detective was averaging 1.0 -1.2 during the season and then exploded for season finale. Then you had Newsroom that was also getting 0.5-0.7 rating. If you exclude GOT and TrueBlood (thought TB ratings are not stellar and are quite down especially if you consider it is the last season) they don’t have a lot of show who get bigger ratings than the 0.8-1.0 range. And remember this HBO we talking about they get the most of their cash from subscription and thats why we see low rated shows like girls, looking getting renewed.

  13. lisa2 says:

    It must be like entering a new world for him. He finally gets magazine covers.. where he never did before. People are asking him his opinions and what he likes or doesn’t like.

    all because of who he is dating. I say that because he didn’t get a mag cover for writing or co writing Tropic Thunder. Nor for the minor roles he has played. Things change when you are known now. Let’s see how he handles it. Deserved or not.

    • Kate2 says:

      ? No one gets magazine covers for writing credits or for supporting roles. He’s the lead in a show, he’s getting the covers because of that, not because of his fiance. They’ve been together for 3 years, if this was all about her, this probably would have happened long before now.

  14. Luca26 says:

    Yeah sorry but a son of privilege and BFF of Terry Richardson is the last person who should critique PC culture.

  15. doofus says:

    “and just calling something “retarded”, which is just another way of saying stupid.”

    so, if a PERSON is called “retarded”, it just means they’re stupid? as in, it’s OK to call a stupid person “retarded”? thereby perpetuating the negative usage of the term “retarded”?

    wow. you just made the PC side’s point for them.

    ETA: thanks for deleting that offensive comment, Kaiser.

    • Sal says:

      I know. To me, him saying that just underscores what a soul-less disgusting pig he is.

      • doofus says:

        except that he (Theroux) didn’t say that.

        there was a comment that said that, and it was deleted.

        and I don’t find him to be soul-less or a disgusting pig.

  16. Adrien says:

    I just don’t find straight guys with well groomed brows attractive. Imagine if they shaped Martin Scorsese’s brows into a fine arch. It’s just not a good look on heterosexual males. Justin looks much better with the unibrow.

  17. aang says:

    Always hated his look, men who pay that much attention to how they style themselves turn me off. But in his interviews he seems like an ok guy. The fact that Amy Sedaris likes him make me think that he doesn’t take life or himself too seriously.

  18. Kali says:

    I swear to god, I’ve been looking at this photo for about the last 5 minutes trying to figure out whether they did tightlining on his upper lash line or whether he has just got natural spider lashes. Any people with better makeup skills than me (read: everyone) care to take a guess?

  19. Sullivan says:

    That top photo? He looks ridiculous. The Aniston/Theroux household must be covered in mirrors so they can practice their faces. Sexy face. Smart face. Concerned face. Uh oh, a stray facial hair. Tweezers!!

  20. Ag says:

    “There’s such a sensitivity now. Political correctness has become really insidious.” yeah, like when your photographer friend sexually assaults models and stuff, people free feel to complain and stuff these days, such an inconvenience.

    • Panache says:

      I’m with you in being anti-Terry but that’s not really a matter of political correctness.

  21. Mia4S says:

    Yes some people picketed the movie…a movie which ended up a box office hit and scored RDJ an Oscar nomination. That’s a win Justin, PC culture didn’t harm you one bit. All that happened was people who disagreed with you exercised some free speech. I loved the movie, and I supported their right to protest. No big drama.

  22. Bobbalouie says:

    Political Correctness is a form of public brainwashing. Thought police.

    • Sal says:

      No, its a form of human decency.

      • Bobbalouie says:

        When people are controlled and told how to think and what to say…to conform to what standards are set by someone else, that is thought police, brainwashing, propaganda whatever you want to call it. When you are not allowed to express your personal opinions or thoughts and everyone “must” think and act the same way, we are no longer individuals. We are just a herd of sheeple. I have a brain and I will think for myself. I do not need a government to govern my thoughts, actions or speech. I heard about freedom of speech from somewhere I am sure.

      • Kiddo says:

        How is the government telling you how to respond to Justin Whatshisface’s movie, exactly? Is there a law denying access to ticket purchases? Will you be fined if you see it? Will anyone toss you in jail you if you use the word retard?

        The answer to every one of those questions is No.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        It’s not a free speech issue, what you’re really describing here is social conditioning.

        That being said, censorship is not defined solely by governmental intervention. Private organizations are allowed to censor as they see fit.

    • Gretchen says:

      No it’s not. Political correctness is an attempt to make terms that are, or have been, used as slurs against marginalised people less normalised in everyday interaction. Considering how many people (myself included) have been socialised to use vocabulary that exercises privilege and dominance, it’s more of a de-brainwashing.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      When political correctness is presented in terms of “this word is off-limits and no one should use it and it should be forever banished from our collective lexicon” then I see it akin to brain-washing or at the very least, censorship.

      When political correctness is used to explain “this word was historically used to marginalize and mock a group of people/race/gender and when you use it as a slang word to diminish someone, you are perpetuating that kind of hatred” then I think it’s more of a “de-brainwashing”–I love that word, not sure if it’s a real one but I love it ;) .

      That’s the difference for me.

      • Gretchen says:

        Totally just made that word up :)

        I get what you mean and mostly agree, only I do find the whole ‘slippery slope’ into censorship and ‘OMG the world is turning into a totalitarian PC regime’ reaction irritating. If people choose to say offensive shit, that’s their prerogative (and I agree with what you previously posted about context and critical thinking), what drives me nuts is when those people defend their right to free speech whilst simultaneously whining about people exercising that same right to criticise them.

        I love good satire, but people pining for the good old days when folks could use oppressive language without so much as a sideways glance gets them a one way ticket to Gretchen’s Steppe of Banished Arseholes Where it is Very Very Cold and Bleak.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        I completely agree.

        Look, words are not tangible, physical things. We can’t really “remove” them the way we would an unsightly wart. That being said, words can become obsolete and I’m not entirely sure that’s for the best. When we eliminate certain words that are seen as offensive or politically incorrect, then we stop having teachable moments and we lose the valuable historical lessons that accompany the very word we so despise.

        I think that as a society we can learn to be more cognizant of the feelings of others while still exercising judgment and understanding the historical origins and impact of a particular word. Ultimately it is knowledge, not censorship under the guise of sensitivity, that’s the more valuable tool in the fight against hatred and oppression.

        We all have the ability to use offensive language but what defines our moral code, what sets us apart, is the judgment we use when deciding to exercise that right or not.

    • chris says:

      you’re correct.

    • Hanna says:

      If there is a such thing as organized brain washing to make people more pleasant, it’s a total failure. We might as well be talking about Compaq computers. If you want to say offensive things, then it’s a legit career path. You can get a book deal and go on cable news. There is way too much bellyaching about saying something mean and getting the evil eye from your elderly neighbor. Maybe he’s on medication and looks at everyone that way.

  23. Sarah says:

    While I don’t enjoy humor meant to insult a group of people, look back at the really golden years of SNL and standup.
    It was less inhibited, and most of the jokes that weren’t PC were by someone poking fun of themselves.

  24. TheRealMaya says:

    Justin – you are becoming insidious day by day with your I-think-I-sound-cool-but-in-reality-I-am-not poses and interviews. People who are cool don’t say they show it.

    Seriously – Jennifer has managed to find a male version of herself. Someone who constantly talks about looks, fashion and private lives and yet claim that they are private people.

    PS: Funny that they could only pick one movie that Justin was part of the script writers and which was a hit. Everything else he wrote were flops hence not worth the time to mention it right?

    PPS: the Leftovers must be flopping badly since Huvane is pushing Justin in our faces with interviews after interviews about his relationship.

    • Sal says:

      “Jennifer has managed to find a male version of herself.” That is exactly what one of my first thoughts were.

    • Emma - the JP Lover says:

      @The Real Maya, who wrote: “Seriously – Jennifer has managed to find a male version of herself. Someone who constantly talks about looks, fashion and private lives and yet claim that they are private people.”

      This! SO this! :)

  25. FingerBinger says:

    I guess Justin does have a point about political correctness. Everyone gets up in arms about everything these days. There’s no way shows like All in the Family, Maude and The Jeffersons would survive in today’s climate. I think Dave Chapelle’s show was the last of the politically incorrect shows. All those shows were really edgy. They could never get away with any of that today.

    • Abbicci says:

      Louis CK takes on really interesting issues on his show. And he handles them with grace and humor. If you haven’t seen it yet, it is well worth a binge watch.

    • lisa2 says:

      Actually I think those shows could do very well in the culture today. I’m a black woman and loved those shows. Mainly because they were funny. The things Archie said were silly and racist. But in the context of something. They were not some random joke that someone tweeted or said in an interview or magazine. There was a context behind them. And we all knew and understood the Archie character. The fact that he was surrounded by people that called him out on his words was the PC Police on the show. So he never got away with it.

      We just now have too many people saying things to be shocking and for affect. No context just some random thing.

      I find nothing wrong with some PC calling out. Some things are not funny. In bad taste. and as someone above said.. You can say what you want; but be prepared for someone to voice their opinion on it too.

      • pwal says:

        I’m Black and female and watch All in the Family, Sanford and Son and now Maude on Antenna TV all the time, not because they’re un-PC, but because they’re funny and the writing was damn good, especially All in the Family. When these shows were on, I was a baby/small child so a lot of the jokes flew over my head. Now that I’m an adult, the jokes land, but more importantly, you see the nuances of the characters and what they mean to each other. For example, despite Mike being a liberal, he pressed my nerves more than Archie because Mike didn’t walk the walk despite talking (incessantly) the talk. I felt bad for Gloria because placed her bet on the wrong horse. And Archie and Edith are probably my all-time favorite TV couple because they put up with each other flaws and quirks and despite all of Archie’s bluster, whenever Edith put her foot down, he took it seriously, unlike Mike.

        Anyway, people can stomach un-PC things if it’s executed in a clever way. For me, most of the jokes in Tropic Thunder were cheap shots, which explains why I watched it only once. Add to it the incessant pushing of the Tom Cruise dance bit- I smelled a dirty, stinky rat.

      • Kiddo says:

        I have antenna TV and watched these shows in recent years. They were not actually un-PC. They were driven by the movements of the day and reflected the old thinking versus the new thinking within that age. Although it was a more nuanced portrayal of a bigot, Archie was not exactly a hero in his thought processes, but he wasn’t a complete villain either. The viewer was moved to learn lessons from his experiences: through Edith’s never faltering color blindness and pureness of heart, and that even someone who was stuck in some degree of prejudice could find redemption in change and kindness, even if only through his wife, and love of her and family, to acquiesce to their wishes.

  26. Talie says:

    He’s salty about Terry Richardson.

  27. GIRLFACE says:

    I am cracking up about the makeup thing that Amy Sedaris said! Lol.

  28. Liz says:

    Justin is so much more interesting, articulate, good-looking and sexy . He has opinions and is not afraid to share them.

  29. Abbicci says:

    In the immortal words of Jamie Kilstein “the PC police aren’t real. You’re not going to go to jail. You’re just an a-hole.”

    If you can’t write a funny joke that isn’t hurtful or a horrible stereotype the fault is in you and not ‘being PC’ . It’s not the world out to silence you, it’s the silence of people not laughing at your shitty joke. And then calling you on your ignorance.

  30. Dea says:

    Can Jen’s PR team stop trying to make him happen?

    She is getting him magazine covers, layouts, prime time interviews, features on People mag.
    Does he realize he would not even be doing this interview if he was not dating America’s #1 eternal victim?
    Usually new TV stars do not get all this until their show is a hit (unless they are already a star)

    • Josephina says:


      He signed a contract with CAA (compliments of girlfirend/fiance Aniston.)

      NOW he is everywhere, because you the fans want to see him everyday… and gaze at his amazing eyeballs.

      Just joking. LOL.

  31. Jaded says:

    He wouldn’t be where he is today, manicured brows, fake tan and eye makeup, without Jennifer Aniston. Nobody would be listening to his seemingly endless proclamations on everything. He wouldn’t be getting magazine covers with artsy-fartsy, photoshopped poses. He wouldn’t be getting papped with his sleaze-ball pal TR. All of this to say I find something totally manufactured about him, not “real” and “authentic” as he seems to think he is. He’s a douche-hipster wannabe who bought a ticket to ride on the fame express from his girlfriend.

  32. Jen says:

    It’s always white people who complain the most about having to be “politically correct.” How hard is it to just not be an asshole, huh?

    If you’re talking about Tropic Thunder style SATIRE, that’s different, if done correctly. The problem is that large portions of the unwashed masses don’t usually understand satire, and if they hear something like “full retard” they’ll think it’s super cool to use it in real life.

    • Monie says:

      If there were a vile word to call Whites other than the laughable “H” word (think sound of a car horn) or C” word (think of saltines), they would be more inclined to clutch their pearls. Those who are not part of groups on the receiving end of slurs tend to think others are overly sensitive. There is no vile slur purely associated with that race so they have no experience feeling the cutting sting of such things. There are some who can empathize and realize that those words are hurtful but there are others who don’t “see the big deal”.

    • Algernon says:

      A large part of the reason people don’t understand satire any more is because we are getting where we don’t allow it because it frequently means using the very words/situations that aren’t, well, politically correct. So many people go off on Tropic Thunder and they *haven’t even seen it*. They just condemn it out of hand, because a certain word was used (somehow the fact that RDJ did the whole movie in black-face never seems to be as big a deal). I had a friend who was militant about hating on the movie when it came out, and I finally made her watch it, years later, and after she said, “I feel like an idiot. They weren’t making fun of mentally handicapped people at all.”

      But we have reached a place where people say, “They say *what* word? Well I never!” and then never find out for themselves what is really going on. As The Original Kitten said up-thread, it’s about context and critical thinking. People are free to dislike Tropic Thunder because they didn’t find it funny, or just plain didn’t like it, but ***so*** many people haven’t even bothered to see it. *That’s* the aspect of PC culture I don’t like. If you’re going to be offended/upset by something, at least understand what you’re really reacting to.

      • Kate2 says:

        Agreed, @algernon. I also think the hatred for this movie (from some) comes from who wrote it as well. Nothing this guy does will ever be ok. The word was used in this movie, he wears skinny jeans and leather jackets, and he has a scumbag friend, so he’s clearly a terrible person. Nevermind how the word was used, the satire wasn’t funny or good to them so its still offensive. Nevermind that someone’s style is personal, and that we could be just as easily judged for the shit we wear, we’re just lucky we don’t have our picture splashed all over the place. Nevermind that he has a ton of other friends that are truly respected throughout the industry and on CB, its the one scumbag friend that defines him as a person.

        These threads are like a case study sometimes. I shake my head at the amount of hatred that comes out whenever there’s a post about him. It would be funny if it weren’t so weird.

    • Kate2 says:

      So the solution is, lets never use any words or humor that other people might not get because they could be twisted the wrong way? Say hello to boring, vanilla humor then.

  33. EllaM says:

    PC is mostly useless because it doesn’t change how people think. In Germany like in the US the PC term for not-caucasian people changes every few years. We went Negro -> Blacks -> Colored -> African American and now it’s PC to combine their descent with German. The football player Peniel Mlapa transfered to an other club today and the news say, that the german-togolese player Peniel Mlapa transfered. Caucasian players like Lukas Podolski or Miroslav Klose are never called “german-polish”.

    After the football world cup, the president of DFB said in an interview, how great the national team is for integration. We have players like Podolski or Klose and players with an migration background like Özil, Boateng and Khedira. The funny thing is, that those three are born in Germany, Podolski and Klose are not, they are from Poland. Neither the news guys nor Mr. Niersbach are evil minded racists, but in their heads there are white people and black/colored people, it’s just not political correct to call them like that.

    It’s like with bleeping out those swearwords. Everybody knows what F*bleep* stands for ;)

    • FingerBinger says:

      I find that there needs to some political correctness in football. There has been overt racism by many of the fans,some of the players and even a few managers. There have been instances of so called fans making monkey noises when black players touch the ball and some fans doing the Nazi salute. I find nothing wrong with people trying to be careful in how they describe black footballers.

    • Pepsi Presents...Coke says:

      Yeah, but there is way too much straight up racism within professional soccer culture and it’s at all levels. At this point, if they don’t address it, they’re agreeing with and fostering that racism. We’ve reached that point. Heck, I’ve only been to a few Arsenal matches, but I reached my ‘fuck this shit’ boiling point early. Not interested. Any and too many.

  34. Kim1 says:

    Amy says Justin is “like a girlfriend” who does “girly things ” like tanning,helping you with your make up.So Aniston is not responsible for the guy liner according to Amy he was already like that.

  35. Jayna says:

    I like him. The one thing I got from his friend Amy is that Jen didn’t change him. He’s always been a metrosexual dude into tanning and such. We just didn’t know it. The rag mags are fake 85 percent of the time when they have sources. It’s laughable really.

    He attends functions Jen needs him to, but he has never ridden on her coattails the way Jennifer Lopez’s dude did, trying to be a star and pushing his mug into every photo-op he could get. Plus, Justin has more talent in his own right anyway. I finally caught his new show. It’s good.

    I am beginning to think these two fit each other well and he is the love of Jennifer’s life.

    • Dea says:

      Never ridden her coattails?

      How in the world do you think he landed magazine covers/spreads? Ellen/GMA/Kelly & Micheal interviews? He used her connections, and would never have gotten them if he was not with her. He is trying to be a star, but it is not going to happen.

      He is not well known enough to be getting these covers, those usually go to household names.

      99% of Americans are saying Justin Who!

      • Kim1 says:

        ITA the future Mr.Jennifer Aniston had never been on Ellen,Kimmel ,GMA prior to 2011.He had never bee on covers of People, GQ,Details or featured in Elle or ,Interview.He was in NY magazine pre Aniston .He was a D list actor despite being friends with Hoffman,Stiller,Sedaris,etc until he hooked up with Aniston.

      • TheRealMaya says:

        @Dea & Kim: The Jeniopaths will never admit to that fact. Justin was nobody in Hollywood despite having been in the industry for almost 2 decades and having famous friends.

        He cheated with Jennifer and then bam he gets a tv show and now magazine covers. He wanted/wants this fame and is a gold digger. It’s not only women who uses men to advance their careers – plenty of men like Justin and Eddie Cibrian do it as well.

    • Jayna says:

      TheRealMaya: Are you nuts? Disagree with my statement, fine, but Jeniopaths? That’s what you are calling me? Talk about too involved and can’t deal with people that disagree with your viewpoint.

      I could care less about this fixation many of you have with Angie vs. Jen and sides and fan girls or hatred of celebs or Jennifer and Justin. I find it bizarre. I barely follow Jen’s career because she’s just not that interesting and like her in some movies and many not so much or can’t be bothered seeing. I can’t even remember the last movie I saw her in. I find her benign, harmless, though.. I post here and there on Angie or Jen’s threads, but not much, because I find the posts exhausting on those threads with this take sides issues of Jen and Angie and all of the over-the-top remarks.

      He has a TV show to promote and that’s why I thought he’s been in interviews. I don’t really care anyway. I tend to want to see the good in people (shoot me), and not everyone is closeted with contracts, not everyone is using someone, not everyone who cheats or leaves a longtime relationship is automatically a bad person incapable of being a good mate or really loving the next one, not everyone calls paps for every photo we see, and, hey, I like Ben Affleck. I just thought I would throw that in there since he gets more hate than anybody on here. LOL


  36. LisaStein says:

    Hyper PC culture is never good. If we are constantly being policed for our first amendment rights, thats a slippery slope. If we can be FIRED from a job expressing anger and rage by whatever means necessary, to me, thats stifling our fundamental rights as human beings. As the west wing once established, the only way we can keep the Washington Post writing whatever it wants is to make sure the Daily Mail can also write whatever it wants. Its a hard pill to swallow but this is democracy. If we want legitimate intellectuals to express unpopular, un Bible belt approved, gay friendly, color friendly opinions, we HAVE to allow for EVERYONE to be able to do the same. Otherwise, it becomes propaganda, and then the bigots have an real reason to say the media is left friendly. Lets not be the mind police. Lets try for better.

    • Gretchen says:

      @Lisa Stein A slippery slope into what exactly? People actually thinking before they speak? I hang out in a lot of social justice circles both online and off and I have NEVER heard anyone calling for censorship of offensive materials. Calls to action usually involve calling out, petitioning, boycotting and protesting, things incidentally also protected under the first amendment.

      If rage is something you want to express in your place of work…um ok…but why can’t the expression of rage be actually relevant to why you are angry in the first place, and not devolve into totally irrelevant racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc slurs?

      How about: Let’s not be offensive a-holes. Let’s try for better.

      • LisaStein says:

        Firstly, I said if one can be fired from their job for expressing their rage NOT expressing their rage AT WORK. Thats the crux of my argument. If you can tweet an angry tweet with a swearword ON YOUR OWN TIME, and be let go from a prominent radio network, I take issue with that.

        Offensive is subjective and also ethnocentric. For example, I think what a certain democratic state in the middle east is doing right now is a violation of human rights, borderline state sponsored terrorism and categorically EVIL. If I name that state in this forum or really, any public forum, it will be considered offensive by too many people even though I think its fine to disagree with a state’s policy that one considers ethically wrong without condemning the religious identity of everyone in that state. An NBA player recently tweeted support for the forgotten state and was forced to take it down due to backlash that may have jeopardized his career that feeds his numerous children.Why?

        And btw, I fully believe it is ones right to disagree with anyone’s opinion and demonstrate or organize. However, I think what theroux was talking about was the fact that in this day and age, even mere intellectual questioning can be framed as bigotry simply because the online community at large is always ready to crucify whomever for whatever slight they think the other has caused. For example, I myself am LGBTQ friendly but I know many people who don’t think one is born gay, that it is a lifestyle that one chooses. However, if they were to say this on a public forum, and held any cultural significance, would almost certainly face a PR disaster even though its not a baseless theory. Why? If we condemn those people who don’t agree with us with punitive measures like losing ones job or blacklist people professionally, how are we any better than the McCarthy era folks?

        And I am a law student who works with victims of domestic violence in India/Canada who is a woman of color. I am not completely oblivious as to what real offense looks/sounds like.

    • astra says:

      Can’t disagree with this. My problem with “PC culture” and “PC people” is that they use their PC-ness as social status. It’s never been about actually caring about so-called oppressed or marginalized people, it’s simply another way to feel smugly superior to others. I have never understood being offended over words. Why would anyone allow words to rule their lives? I would rather live in a world where people said exactly what they felt and thought, no matter what, than live in a thought policed utopia.

      I don’t think anyone wants to hurt other people’s feelings, but it’s getting to the point of absurdity. If people are so triggered or emotionally scarred or damaged by mere words, then there’s a serious problem, and I don’t believe the solution is to create even more emotionally fragile people and enable their issues. Personally I think the way to do it is to teach people how to deal with non-ideal situations. We have people who are literally triggered by WORDS TYPED ON THE INTERNET. How is this not a serious problem, how is the problem the words and not the triggered person’s inability to accept the fact that real life isn’t always pleasant and doesn’t conform to one’s desires? The fragility of people is incomprehensible to me (and I have not lived a perfect, trouble free life). How are people like this raised? Where do they come from? How do you reach adulthood and not be able to deal with SEEING WORDS, or hearing them? I am not trying to be mean but I honestly don’t understand!

      Oh and I think this whole mindset is ridiculous when compared to people who have had actual tragedies in their lives. If you’re from, say, Somalia and have lived a life of war, famine, murder, and other terrible tragedies, what must you think of people who cannot handle hearing words?

      • Gretchen says:

        But they aren’t ‘just’ words Astra. Every slur I can think of comes as part of, contributes to and perpetuates actual institutionalised oppression eg the school to prison pipeline, stop and search, profiling, rape culture, restricted access to health/social care and education etc. Not to mention hate crimes and murder. Is ‘toughen up kiddo’ really an adequate contribution to situations such as teen suicide as a result of online bullying?

        As an aside, I find the idea that words don’t have power inherently flawed, if that were the case people wouldn’t read books or poetry or listen to ballads.

        By all means people have the right to say and write what they want, but can we stop pretending that slurs don’t in any way contribute to the problem? Do we really have to enable hate speech to dissuade emotional fragility?

      • Kiddo says:

        @astra, I don’t comprehend this mindset of either/or. I can be equally involved in civic or constitutional issues, rights of people, hunger of people, worried about war, worried about children, worried about surveillance, care about animal rights, contribute financially or with time for some or all, and dick around with celebrity gossip, all as one individual. Are you suggesting that people should be one dimensional, and thus only care or have one interest at a time?

        We don’t have to compare everything to the worst of the worst scenarios or limit interest and concerns to one topic as humans.

    • Jen says:

      “being policed for our first amendment rights”

      What you just said is a word salad that makes literally no sense. Employers are legally and constitutionally allowed to fire you for whatever reasons they see fit. You are free to say what you want. Others are free to call you an idiot and fire you if they want. The First Amendment applies ONLY to the GOVERNMENT imprisoning you for your words.

      Why are the people who harp on about the first amendment always the ones who don’t actually know what it means? Like damn, pick up a “Constitution for Dummies” book or something.

      • Kate2 says:

        THANK. YOU. JEN.

        I really wish people would look up what Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment is before throwing it around. Like, open a new tab, and google it. Its so easy.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        @Kate2, I wish they would do that AND read their employment contracts. Employment contracts usually spell out in general terms what an employee can and cannot do and an employer can put limitations on speech in the workplace, and depending on the terms of employment and the job, outside the workplace as well. Additionally, there are other limitations on free speech outside the employment sphere. People can sue for defamation and, for certain terms which imply a person is not chaste, they do not need to prove damages to prevail.

      • Kate2 says:

        Very good points Lilac. I see FOS brought into those discussions as well and its maddening. How many times do you see it brought into conversations whenever a reporter or sports commentator gets canned for being an idiot?

  37. GIRLFACE says:

    I think he’s coming off kinda dumb here.

  38. sigh((s)) says:

    I thought this was Freddie Prinze Jr.

  39. Kelly says:

    I agree with him. And now I actually like the guy. Before I didn’t really care either way.

  40. Tippy says:

    Jennifer once uttered the word “retard” on Live with Regis and Kelly.
    As I recall she received a lot of blowback after the show aired.

    • Josephina says:

      AND she never apologized. She felt that she didn’t need to because she was referencing herself.

      • Tippy says:

        President Obama was also referencing himself when he callously mocked The Special Olympics.

  41. Nia says:

    This may or may not have anything to do with the price of tea in China(politcally incorrect?) but I do sometimes tire of people commenting on my height. I am 4’11′. I usually laugh it off. I noticed that our culture still values height as a desirable attribute. We are sensitive to race, intellectual capability, and some ethnic backgrounds(not all especially not when it comes to Italians, Irish, and Greeks). In addition, many believe that if you come from a certain ethnic background you are financially well-off. No one should be assume anything . The definition of prejudice has changed from its original meaning and that definition should not be used as the user sees to fit a personal agenda. I find the essence of politcal correctness can be offensive such that it tends to pick and choose. By the way I take offense to “vertically challenged”. Stepstools eliminates that issue:)

  42. anne_000 says:

    Tough luck that you can’t say terrible stuff & words about other people without being called out on it, more so now than in the past.

    Then saying one is a victim of ‘political correctness?’ It’s all about you, right? Poor baby.

    It’s about using common sense & common decency. But self-labeled ‘victims’ of ‘political correctness’ would rather turn it around & blame those criticizing the use of derogatory words & actions.

  43. Jordan says:

    He gets more press than Aniston now.

    • kri says:

      Another entrant for the Annual Douche Derby. Congratulations on sounding like a male version of Lana Del Rey, a&&face. I am sure you think you are bucking the “overly politcally correct ” trend by hanging out with such avant-garde artistes like Uncle Terry, and being condescending to “some stewardess” who had the great good fortune of giving you a pillow to put your slimy head on. Get away and STFU. By the way, I cannot believe you and Kanye are not hanging out talking about Art and giving each other facials with skin products from Aveeno.

  44. Penelopeprose says:

    As the mother of a darling little girl with Down Syndrome, I can assure you that that word feels like a slap in the face every time I hear it . I am so encouraged by the many posts that seem to get how demoralizing that word is to the many people in society who are striving to live their lives with dignity while dealing with the challenges of a disability. These people are valuable to their communities and families and this word has been used to marginalize and dehumanize them for years. I feel quite sure that Theroux would have a different attitude if he were lucky enough to have someone with an intellectual disability in his family. He would begin to understand what it means to witness true courage, tenacity, joy, kindness, and grace. Perhaps he might even be inspired to use his talents and energy to produce a movie worth watching.

    • Kate2 says:

      I’m sure your daughter is beautiful and I understand your sensitivity to that word, but it wasn’t used in the way you’re describing. You don’t have to like the movie or the scene or even him but please understand how the word was used in the context of satire, not as an insult to special needs people.

      • Penelopeprose says:

        I have a Master’s in English and understand satire. The problem is that it failed to be successful. It just wasn’t funny. It was cruel. I saw the movie long before my daughter was born, so I know my thoughts were not influenced by my personal experiences. I love satire when it is done well. All in the Family was brilliant and I adore Mel Brooks films. Satire is hard to pull off and only the strongest writers can capture the complexities that make it compelling to the audience. Satire should expose problems and corruption in society and influence change. In my opinion, Tropic Thunder fails miserably.

      • Kate2 says:

        Ok, we’ll agree to disagree then. In your opinion, this movie and this scene was unfunny and cruel. I don’t agree. I guess you’re ok with Blazing Saddles? I do wonder if All in the Family ever made a joke about special needs people. I’d be surprised if they didn’t but I don’t recall. I also wonder why, if your opinion of this movie was formed before your daughter was born and has nothing to do with your opinion, you opened your previous comment telling everyone that you are offering your opinion of the movie and the word as the mother of a child with Downs?

        Anyway, moving on. Thank you for your comments and have a good day.

  45. k says:

    man it must be exhausting to be offended and be a victim all f*cking day long. but i dont pity you because i am free. i dont have to get caught up in words and feel offended. there is a difference between being victimized and victimizing yourself. if someone is trying to insult me my reaction is always pretty much “oh really? nice to know” and i carry on stronger and more determined to make something out of myself. THAT is how stereotypes and racism ends, when people stop focusing on what they are being called and start looking at what they can become.

    • AlmondJoy says:

      K, Do you truly believe that “carrying on stronger” will end racism? Please, tell us how to go about doing that because I’m sure we would all love to see racism end. Can you expound on that statement?

      • k says:

        @almondjoy thank you so much for responding so kindly and with such an interest to actually discuss my different point of view!

        in my opinion racism (or any adversity for that matter) is a two way street. over coming challenges is what life is about and it gets to a point where you have to decide. will i let this define me or will i overcome? do i just accept what they say about me and get comfortable being a victim? laugh it off? its about perspective. say i was in an abusive relationship – for example – and my whole time in that relationship i would ask myself “why me? poor me.” there comes a time that where i have to face reality and realize that the only element in this situation that can change is me.

        in this scenario, i am being victimized, for sure, but its up to me if i want to continue to victimize myself. i have a choice – stay or go. people will always be ignorant, fearful, envious and prideful. that’s human nature. what really matters to ME is how i conduct myself. do i respond with dignity and grace? or with blind emotion? i don’t get caught up in what other people think about me anymore – my racial background, my point of view, sexual orientation, how i dress, my sense of humor, my weight, etc. i do me. and as i keep the focus on myself and not other peoples nonsense, i grow as a person. but if i focus on what they say about me i probably would have gone insane a long time ago. this is not an across the board, huge way to end anything but it starts with the individual – me!

    • Rachel says:

      @k: You’re an idiot.

      Don’t take offense though. Wouldn’t want to be a victim now would you?

      • k says:

        @rachel: your reply says more about your lack of self esteem than my comment. shame you feel that way. have a good day :)

  46. Penelopeprose says:

    I can assure you that I am not a victim. Neither is my daughter-she is a hero.

    • AlmondJoy says:

      I can only imagine how beautiful your daughter is and the joy you’ve experienced while raising her.

      • Penelopeprose says:

        Thank you Almond Joy! She is the heart of our family and brings out the best in everyone she meets. She was born prematurely at twenty eight weeks and weighed only two pounds. She is five years old and is doing great! She is the only girl out of five, and her brothers spoil her rotten. She goes to pre-k in the fall and knows her abc’s and counts to twenty. She is sassy, beautiful, and very wise. I know she will be able to do great things in the world.

      • AlmondJoy says:

        Penelope, that is so sweet!! Brings tears to my eyes. I’ve worked with all types of children, but have never had the privilege of teaching a child with Down Syndrome. I am so happy for you! She sounds lovely. I pray that she continues to grow and flourish 💕

  47. LT says:

    Is complaining about having to be PC even a thing anymore? Who does that? It’s so dated. The only people I know who actually use the term “PC” are people who seem to be stuck somewhere in the early 90′s.

  48. Blue says:

    I agree that PC culture is a good thing. I feel like people who are against it just want permission to say potentially horrible racist, homophobic and sexist things. PC culture protects those who need it the most. Justin just went down a few notches in my opinion. This is a man who is friends with Terry Richardson after all.

  49. Penelopeprose says:

    I was only responding to your comments about Tropic Thunder being a satire. Although I never said I liked Blazing Saddles specifically, it is important to remember that it was made in 1974. It satirized racism and the blatant prejudices that existed in our country at that time. The fact that it could never be made today, and that some scenes are uncomfortable (even unwatchable), shows that it did its job of pointing out an injustice and prompting a change in society. If you were trying to insinuate that I am a racist in any shape or form, you have the wrong girl. My dad worked as Lyndon Johnson’s lead legislative liason (whip) on Capitol Hill in the Sixties, and was directly responsible for getting the Civil Rights Act passed. He spent his life fighting injustice and taught me to do the same. The injustice that Tropic Thunder is trying to point out is unclear to the audience and that is why it is not a good satire. I doubt many people care about the plight of actors seeking challenging roles to win an Oscar. Perhaps, a satire of over-forty actresses searching for interesting scripts might be more interesting because it at least addresses feminist issues. Incidentally, I do think that people with disabilities have been exploited by Hollywood because they are an easy target and have no real power. If someone could write a successful satire that exposes this injustice I would be the first to commend it. I don’t recall All in the Family ever using a joke at the expense of the disabled community. If Archie Bunker ever make such a joke, than I trust that his creator, Norman Lear, knew what he was doing in exposing intolerance and bigotry.

    • Kate2 says:

      I was not insinuating anything about race. You said you “adore Mel Brooks films” so I assumed his most famous, Blazing Saddles, would fall into that category. But I probably shouldn’t make assumptions like that so I apologize. I brought it up because it has a character named “Mongo” in it and he is a violent special needs man. I found it strange that you’d be ok with that and not a 30 second speech using the “r-word”. I don’t know why it would matter when it was made. I get the times were different but offensive is offensive and that’s why its used in satire. If it was used in that movie, it was meant in a satirical way, just like the “r-word” speech. So I’m confused as to why that’s ok but the other is not.

      The point I’m making here is that art, including satire, is subjective. Your opinion on what you think everyone else cares about is irrelevant. And while the joke didn’t land with a lot of people, it did for a lot of others including myself, so your declaration on why its not good satire is also untrue, because the joke wasn’t unclear to a lot of people. I’m sure there were plenty of people who didn’t get Brooks or Lear either and they’re considered to be genius (an opinion I agree with).

      The reason I even responded to your original comment was because I didn’t think your interpretation of his intention was correct. I don’t think he was trying to be cruel any more than Mel Brooks or Norman Lear. However, you seem convinced that it was, so I am not going to continue to try to convince you otherwise. I probably shouldn’t have tried to in the first place. Again, its all subjective. Its art. You’re entitled to be offended.

      Again, thanks for your comments, you seem like an intelligent person. Have a good day.

      • Penelopeprose says:

        I appreciate your comments and agree that art is subjective. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree. You seem like an intelligent person too, and I enjoyed our discussion. I also wanted to add that I think Wes Anderson does an interesting job with satire. Have a nice evening Kat2!

      • Kate2 says:

        For some reason I don’t get WA. Not that I don’t like him or respect his talent, but I think the humor goes over my head, lol. I may need to revisit his work. I did like Moonlight Kingdom.

  50. Josefa says:

    While I agree about PC culture not being such a bad thing, I do think people coud start growing a thicker skin and not get so offended by everything. I lived for a couple of years in Spain, and people often insulted me on the streets and stuff. They called me “india”, “sudaka”, and told me to go back to my jungle. I always thought, India? Well, yeah, I have blood of south american natives. So what? Sudaka? Well, yeah, I do come from South America. So what? To go back to my jungle? Gladly! Much better weather and fruit. But let me finish my semesters of studies first.

    It DOES sound insensitive, but I do feel like getting offended by things is, indeed, a choice. It’s not like choosing your jeans in the morning, but one day, stop and think about these insults people say to you, and you’ll probably realise words are only as ofensive as you want them to be. I always associated this with growing up, but I’ve seen millions of adults still get horribly worked up by simple words (understandably so, though).

    I am NOT excusing the behavior of the people who just carelessly say insulting things in the name of “humor”, btw. I’m just giving people a suggestion to live happier lives.

    • Candy Love says:

      I get what your saying I really do and I’m not a person who is easily offended but how is growing a thinker skin living a happier life?

      So an asshole can call me the N word, C word or R word and I should just sit back and take it? Saying offended things is also choice, why not hold these assholes accountable for their actions and let them know it’s not ok to treat people like that.

      • astra says:

        How do you think they should be “held accountable”? Imprisonment? Massive fines?

      • Josefa says:

        @Candy Love –
        When offended by things, people tend to get angry or sad. So not getting offended could lead you to live a happier life, I think.

        I’m not saying people should just take the insults in at all, or that the people saying them shouldn’t be condemned. Maybe I worded that wrong. But in general, the “PC” discussion is reduced to wether the offensive part is too insensitive or the offended part is being too sensitive. I’m saying it can be both. For one, I don’t see how the use of the word “retard” in Tropical Thunder was offensive, given what the movie was about.

        But people have different sensitivity levels and that’s alright. Not everyone should share my stance. I know it’s hard to just stop being offended by something.

      • Candy Love says:

        @ Astra Well for one being called out for their BS, in a work situation written up and so on.

        @ Josefa I can’t comment on “Tropical Thunder” because up until is post I’ve never heard of the movie. Like you said everyone has a different sensitivity level so I guess we should just respect that.

      • I’m afraid I cannot agree with Kaisers stance on political correctness. Theroux is not speaking as a guy who wants to tell a racist joke at a party, but as a writer. I think satire is one of the most socially important forms of comedy out there. Yes, it needs to be done right, but it is supposed to make you uncomfortable, that’s the point. It holds a mirror up, and exposes our flaws and hypocrisies. Political correctness often functions as a way for us to feel virtuous about our own approach to social inequity-as if by not using certain words our role in such things simple ceases to exist. Using Tropic Thunder as an example is a perfect opportunity to see this in action. What are the complaints…the simple use of a word. People have very good reasons to not like that word, but that is an emotional response. If you can put that aside and look at the whole picture in context, is it not more offensive that there is a trend in Hollywood that actors portray a mentally challenged person for the sake of personal accolades? THAT is what the satire is pointing out. Satire can be very challenging to one’s sensibilities, but I do believe that the world needs this kind of extremism in art.

  51. Jenny12 says:

    He will put your MAKEUP on for you??

  52. TheOriginalPuppy says:

    Pft. Stop caring so much about what people think. There’re a lot of bigots around true. But there’re also a lot of sanctimonious windbags whose purpose in life is to find people they can accuse of being bigots. Who was it that said “The more I embrace humanity the less I like people in particular.” I agree.

  53. Ann says:

    White men stereotyping women, gay women and men, minorities: haha, jokeyfunny, don’t be so thin skinned, why don’t you get a sense of humor, you bitches, hahaha, see how “funny” and “edgy” I am?

    Women calling men out on actual issues (like male violence, etc.) with actual numbers to back up: MAN HATERS!!!!!!!