Via Reason.com (and much of the blogosphere): As he slurs gay men (once again) while justifying himself as pro-LGBT and a friend of GLAAD, Alec Baldwin was called out for his hypocrisy by some conservatives, including those at Breitbart.com. Baldwin responded by slurring libertarians (tweeting, “When did the Breitbart libertarian trash become defenders of gay rights?”). Actually, the late Andrew Breitbart favored gay inclusion in the conservative movement and focusing on fiscal not social issues (although the same can’t be said for everyone now posting at Breitbart.com).
Serial Defamer
ADVERTISEMENT
11 Comments for “Serial Defamer”
posted by Houndentenor on
I have been calling out Baldwin’s defenders all week wherever I find them. This is the third time (the previous two times were tweets, I think) that we know about that he has used anti-gay slurs to insult someone he doesn’t like. I predicted that his temper would get him fired from his still-new msnbc gig within months and now it’s happened. (He’s currently suspended but I think that’s a stalling tactic on the part of the network.) Once was inexcusable. Three times? As far as I’m concerned he no longer exists. I won’t watch anything he’s on or in which he participates. I have blocked out others (Tracy Morgan, for example) for only one incident. I don’t have to put up with that. Baldwin can continue in his inappropriate angry tirades all he wants, but I certainly don’t have to give him an audience. The man needs help with his temper.
As for Breitbart…you are right that there is a very real difference between his statements about gay issues and those now appearing on the website that still bears his name. I don’t ever go over there, so I’ll have to take your word and others about what they are saying. I can’t say as I’m surprised, though.
posted by bls on
I have to say that with this post, IGF has officially jumped the shark….
posted by clayton on
In contrast to Kirk Cameron and Donny Osmond, who defend their statements by claiming to have gay friends, Baldwin wad able to produce one. Not that I’m forging him or excusing him. But it’s an interesting contrast.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, he produced a “friend”…his hairdresser. I had to check to make sure the story wasn’t from The Onion.
posted by clayton on
You are quite right ; a paid service provider is not the most convincing “friend.”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. First off all, I have long since gotten to the point where I have, very, very, very little interest in what Alec Baldwin does. Same thing with a great number of celebrities — who may or may claim to support gay rights. Baldwin was never one of my favorite actors — 30 Rock was fun and funny, but much less often then most people think –. Heck, none of the Baldwins are. I think think of only a handful of films starring the family brothers that I have liked.
2. Alec Baldwin strikes me as the kinda of guy with a short fuse who, if you make him made, probably overcompensates in an order to prove that he is king, top-dog, alpha male or what-have-you…or he just does it to stay in the media. Not trying to excuse it. They way that he spoke to his daughter, was just horrid. But, again, I really do not want to waste much time on whether or not I am suppose to “really, really” like a celebrity. Far too much is spent on intofaintment as it is.
3a. I think that when Baldwin is prepared/scripted he can (and has) done plenty of funny stuff. Likewise when he been prepped, he can express support for gay rights and I suspect he is sincere about his politics. But, again, if someone ticks him off (or he is under the influence) and he feels like someone is emasculating him somehow he clearly goes for the whole crude-macho-bs to regain top dog status.
3b. I do not give money to GLAAD — partly because I am a college student without much disposable income — but (like the HRC) they can do many things well, but they also do something very less-than-well. Having started to read The Celluloid Closet, I can see the progress made in Hollywood and the progress the industry has yet to make. I just do not really see many viable alternatives to GLAAD or the HRC and generally prefer to donate my volunteer time to more local causes.
posted by Houndentenor on
There are a lot of groups both national and local that do far more productive work than either GLAAD or HRC. The centralized approach has never advanced any social movement. Being active locally is a very good thing. Groups like Lambda Legal Defense League have done more for gay rights than HRC. In fact I don’t see any evidence that HRC has ever done anything but throw lavish parties to pat themselves on the back for throwing lavish parties. Local groups on the other hand have gotten state and local antidiscrimination laws and ordinances passed and even employee groups have gotten employment nondiscrimination policies in their companies. Those are real accomplishments and hard-earned ones.
posted by Jorge on
This is not the first such story I have seen on this website about a famous actor using anti-gay slurs. It is one in which said actor is both being held accountable and consenting to being held accountable. This does not always happen.
I’m satisfied with Alec Baldwin’s apology to the extent that it explains that he is just someone with severe character issues. In this situation, quite frankly, if he called a paparazzo a litany of fowl words the guy deserved it.
So this country is at a point where we want to beat up on Mr. Baldwin for the sake of making such language unacceptable, for the sake of the innocent who did not deserve to be called anti-gay slurs by Mr. Baldwin and his imitators. We can do that by making Mr. Baldwin apologize over and over again as he keeps offending gays. That would be a decent way for Mr. Baldwin to serve.
If we are just short of the point where to say an anti-gay slur (and Baldwin allegedly used two) is, like Michael Richards using the n-word, a career-ender, it is hard to blame those who want to reach for justice. It is a change that will have consequences for people. Alec Baldwin is someone who might take it in a good spirit and he is someone who has major flaws. Him being a sacrificial lamb in the name of something greater still makes me uncomfortable. Does it have to be the person who deserves the least pity?
posted by Wilberforce on
American puritanism shows its self-righteous mug yet again.
Baldwin is our friend, no matter what trash he may speak on occasion. He’s done a lot for us, unlike the Breitbarts and Coulters and Palins and Romneys and Gingrishes of this world. They do actual harm, but I don’t see you getting all frothy about them.
I always consider the whole history when people make mistakes. It’s called loyalty, although I wouldn’t expect a crowd of self-serving rubes to understand it. The name of the game in elite circles has always been cut and run, and the quicker and more self-aggrandizing the better.
posted by clayton on
I, for one, have criticized Coulter, Palin, Romney, and Gingrich, so when I criticize Baldwin (and I do), I am at least being consistent.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—unlike the Breitbarts and Coulters and Palins and Romneys and Gingrishes of this world. They do actual harm.
I would agree and I suspect that many folks here, have been critical of them. I have also said here (and else where) that FAR TOO MUCH time is spent on infotainment.