Willie Ever Stop Hating?

I know I just posted a Howard Stern clip, but the guy does talk about a lot of gay issues on his Sirius radio show.

Lately he has been getting a lot of mileage from an old tape of the esteemed Rev. Willie Wilson delivering a fiery, anti-gay sermon.  You remember the one, don't you?  The one where he said:

"You got to be careful when you say you don’t need no man. I can make it by myself. Well, if you don’t need a man, what’s left? Lesbianism is about to take over our community. [...]

"Anytime somebody got to slap some grease on your behind, and stick something in you, it’s something wrong with that. Your butt ain’t made for that. You got blood vessels and membranes in your behind. And if you put something unnatural in there, it breaks them all up. No wonder your behind is bleeding."

He did also say he wasn't homophobic, so I guess that makes him an OK chap.

When Dave Chappelle was on Oprah last week, she related a story about why she decided not to have KKK members and skinheads on her show anymore: "I was part of the problem. ...  I was giving these people a voice."

So are Howard and I part of the problem by giving fart-knockers like Willie Wilson a bigger pulpit from which to speak?

[Listen – 4:03, 1.9mb, MP3 format]

Comments

[Pam's House Blend]

I have to say -- Willie needs even more exposure; Oprah's wrong on that count -- this guy needs to be embarrassed. The audio clip is outrageous enough, but this Flash animation will have you laughing until you cry.

[Queer Conservative]

Shine the light on people like Willie and the KKK and Nation of Islam. That's the only way to expose them for the idiots they are.

[Donald]

No, let's hear them for all their foolishness.

[anapestic]

It's hard to imagine that any of your readers would hear about something Willie said and become more homophobic because of it, so I don't see how you're part of the problem. On the other hand, I don't see how you solve any problems by "exposing" him.

The calculus may be different for Howard, who, even with his move to satellite radio, still probably reaches a few more people than The Malcontent reaches. And a larger portion of his audience is likely homophobic.

I suspect that, when all is said and done, the fact that people are talking about him makes it easier for him to raise funds among his supporters. There is no such thing as bad publicity for such people. He can now say that he's fighting against people and needs help to win.

[Kia]

That shit is FUH-HUNY.

[Queer Conservative]

What makes a person "homophobic"? Is there a classical definition or is it a "one size fits all" epithet?

[anapestic]

"Homophobia" is generally defined as fear or hatred of homosexuals. Homophobic is the adjectival form. Neither is an epithet. Classically, an epithet is either a term used consistently and metaphorically to describe someone or a term used in place of someone. For example, "the great communicator" is an epithet for Ronald Reagan. In contemporary usage, an epithet is a derogatory person for a persion, usually for a group of people. "Faggot" would be an example.

[Just Me]

I have issues with his take on not needing a man. I think half the problem with women who end up in crappy relationships, is that they tend to overly believe their worth comes from having a man.

I would much rather remain a single woman forever, if my choices regarding a man are limited to losers.

[Queer Conservative]

I would say "homophobe" fits the bill for an epithet these days.

[John]

The Washington City Paper a few months back had one of the best critiques of Wilson and his claims.

Wilson claimed that his son couldn't get a date for the prom because the only girls at his school who weren't lesbians were ugly. The paper went and did a tongue-in-cheek expose on all the pretty, single, straight girls at his son's school. It was brilliant.

[Chad]

Good God, is the site fixed? I typed in the URL and didn't see Robbie's John Waters post and thought I got redirected somewhere.

[Malcontent]

Chad: Smart-ass. :-)

[raymondb.voteswagon.com]

I thought Chapelle was great on Oprah last week, he is out here but he is the man.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

[hank]

Give him all the rope he needs. Phelps too.
BTW. Did he picket the King funeral?
We hear nothing about him.

[James]

Hank,

Yep. The Phelps folks did protest the CSK funeral.

peace

[North Dallas Thirty]

There's a sizeable difference between Phelps and Wilson, hank.

Phelps is a white man, and as such, is not automatically right.

Wilson is a black man, and for that matter, a black preacher, so he IS automatically right. Especially when it comes to Democrats.

Thus, airing Phelps's antics merely exposes potential idiocy to a wider audience for ridicule.

Airing Wilson's antics exposes potential idiocy to a wider audience for acceptance.

[hank]

You can nevershine enough light on the roaches. Black or white.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Probably not; however, Hank, be aware that shining the light on a white roach is "being truthful", and on a black roach is "racist".

[hank]

Well I live in NYC, and we don't see it that at all.

[James]

North Dallas,

But brother I heard many people, black AND white, mocking and criticizing the Rev's comments when they first came out. From NPR's ED Gordon Show to the Washington Blade, a lot of people wondered what the devil was on the guy's mind (aside from homophobia). So I guess I'm confused why you keep insisting that black Democrats can get away with homophobiac comments.

peace

[North Dallas Thirty]

Because I live in Dallas.

T.D. Jakes is an outstanding example, but there are better ones -- the local Democratic Party sabotaging the runs of transgender individuals like Monica Barros-Greene, black Democratic homophobes like Dwaine Caraway, and two-faced bigots like Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is famous for supporting gays when she's standing in front of them and bashing them as societal ills when she's everywhere else. Heck, Ron Kirk is a homophobe by HRC's definition, and nobody says anything about it.

And to expand it to the "black roach" concept that I tried above:

-- Dallas's black police chief presided over scandal after scandal after scandal, but every time, Eddie Bernice Johnson and the Democratic Party, dominated by blacks, said it was "racism" that was causing it.

Google "Terrell Bolton" and "Dallas" and "scandal".

-- While you're there, google "Wilmer-Hutchins" and "corruption", and you'll see how a predominantly-black school district was shielded by Democrats from investigation by using cries of "racism", even as it was systematically looted of millions of taxpayer dollars and students were forced to sit in buildings that were later condemned.

It goes beyond homophobia, James. It is nothing more than the Democrats using blacks as a cover for rampant incompetence and corruption.

[Jamie]

Must be that southern water. ;) I don't know of any Dems near me who give Willy any credence whatsoever.

[James]

North Dallas,

I'm going to have to slightly disagree. First corruption, alas, knows no political party or ideology. History is filled up with Democrats and Republicans who have kept their hands in the cookie jar. This of course doesn't give anyone a pass when they get caught. And your own words undercut your argument. If all of these scandals are getting play in the press, then where is the free pass? And all cities, be it Dallas or NYC, have histories where the politcal machines protect their own. The faces may change, but the same old stuff happens.

We can agree on this, however. The Democratic party does take the black vote for granted, and elections will be much more exciting when black voters decide to make our votes be fought for by both parties (and this is coming from a commie pinko liberal queen...grin).

peace