There’s a lot of articles which have good headlines and opening paragraphs that get me to click despite not caring in the slightest for the subject matter. Usually I check out a few paragraphs and then look away and never finish it. This time I read the whole, long, incredible thing.

Err, why is that addressed to me? I was saying she should be applauded for being honest. 

I get that, but the commenter was implying she was wrong to speak out in the way she did - it may have been a poor career decision (though as I’ve said, easy enough to cover for should she need/want to), but it was a commendable moral one. 

There’s a decent chance we’ll hear more about it over the next few days/weeks, from her and/or the other cast members (I doubt Miller will comment). It’s possible she is applying a broader brush than necessary, or it’s possible that she’s absolutely on the nose and Woods and the others were complicit in Miller’s…

Yeah, not a good view on it. You’re not wrong that she may be risking her career going forward - but that’s no reason at all not to be honest about her experiences and the impact on her. It’s no reason not to call them out when they should be called out.

That is the perfect description of it, and yes, a little bit disturbing. 

Things don’t change, do they? 

I think that’s fair enough, and Kimmel’s record isn’t exactly spotless - but over the last few years he’s provided measured, carefully considered commentary and comedy on a whole bunch of topics. He’s a long way from his Man Show days, and he’s proved multiple times since that he’s firmly on the side of equality and so…

And we can absolutely call him out when he does something wrong - but this wasn’t it. Colbert’s joke before certainly wasn’t it. Perkins above specifically made a category in his analysis to call out both for this perceived homophobia, indicating it as a habit rather than an exception, which is unfairly casting…

And when we don’t we wind up with Donald Trump. 

But, again, surely that’s only because they happen to be two men? If the joke had been along the lines of ‘Trump getting naked with random Russian men’, that would be homophobic, but ‘Trump getting naked with Putin’, a political leader he’s been established as being inappropriately close with, is surely just built out…

...go on then, make a joke about Trump being obsessed with Putin to the point of sexual without making them gay. Let’s hear it. I would absolutely love to hear how you manage that. 

That really is. I’m sorry that there’s people like that where you were, or indeed anywhere. 

That is a beautiful comparison, thank you (and thank you, Pythons).

Note how neither the punchline nor the setup references, or even relies on, anything about their gender or sexuality.

You think the joke is ‘gay sex is gross and I like to laugh about it’? Where did you get that from? The joke is very clearly, EXPLICITLY, about Trump’s obsession with pleasing Putin, which has precisely nothing to do with his gender. If you’re seeing something else in it, that’s on you. 

With those sort of specifications you won’t have enough ‘liberals’ to actually make any changes for the better, ever. You’re beating up your own side - or at least the people who should be on your side. If you limit your club size based on such stupidly specific qualifications you won’t have a club, and the pieces of…

“Regrettable “Putin and Trump are gay for each other” homophobic cheap shot?”

You’re right, but I still think it was pretty inexcusable to respond in that way. If indeed it was a comment borne out of unconscious sexism (which is, at the very least, debatable), it’s still pretty clear that he is/was a sincere fan of Price, through his past comments (referring to loving her AMA responses the day…

I have been very polite all the way through, explaining my view as best as possible. There’s no call for that attitude.