Louis CK on Tracy Morgan's Comments About What He Would Do If He Had A Gay Son

No Limit

No Limit

Party Escort Bot
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Messages
9,018
Reaction score
1
mxJSF.png


For a little background. Last week at a stand up show Tracy Morgan made a joke about having a gay son. He said if his son came to him and said he was gay and talked in a gay way he would "stab the little nigga to death".

Full story is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/10/tracy-morgans-homophobic-remarks_n_874699.html

I am a huge fan of stand up comedy, Louis CK especially. I always liked Morgan too. But don't agree with Louis CK here. Saying something really dumb and really hurtful then brushing it off as a joke doesn't excuse it. Nor do I think this was even remotely hilarious.

There are kids in this country today that are seriously contemplating killing themselves simply because of their sexuality. And anyone in Morgan's position should be far more responsible, saying what he said is beyond stupid. I don't see how it is all that different from making a joke about killing Obama or how Gabby Giffords got what she deserved.

There are things in this world that people can say which every rational person should recognize as wrong, what Morgan said should be one of them. And I'm a bit disappointed in Louis CK for defending this garbage.
 
lol that was his schtick. he played a guido stereotype despite being jewish
 
No Limit said:
Saying something really dumb and really hurtful then brushing it off as a joke doesn't excuse it. Nor do I think this was even remotely hilarious.

There are kids in this country today that are seriously contemplating killing themselves simply because of their sexuality. And anyone in Morgan's position should be far more responsible, saying what he said is beyond stupid. I don't see how it is all that different from making a joke about killing Obama or how Gabby Giffords got what she deserved.

There are things in this world that people can say which every rational person should recognize as wrong, what Morgan said should be one of them. And I'm a bit disappointed in Louis CK for defending this garbage.
Click to expand...

You're being ridiculous.

He was at a comedy club, not an elementary school. He didn't intend for kids to hear it, and his gay son doesn't exist.

 
I don't think the point is that he doesn't have a gay son.

The Carlin joke (which is actually funny) is nothing like the "joke" he said. First off, what he said wasn't in any way funny (do you disagree?). Second, what he is saying is that there is something wrong with being gay and that if he had a gay son he would not be okay with that. All Carlin is asking is why would you rape a 81 year old. He isn't saying rape is okay nor is he in anyway hateful. Morgan on the other hand was saying being a gay person is wrong which is a hateful thing to say.

There are some things that as a society we should all agree are idiotic to say, this should be one of them. Plenty of kids watch stand up comedy, just because this was at a private club doesn't make it okay. Would your position be different if he had said this on TV?
 
No Limit likes free speech as long as it doesn't hurt anybody feelings :(
 
God you're an idiot. Did I at any point say that he didn't have a legal right to say what he said?
 
You seem to be impyling that there is an objective standard of what's appropriate to say. Where does this objective standard come from, GOD? Even if you and I agree it's bad, doesn't make it objectively so.

Unless he went out of his way to find gays to offend, then I don't see how they are being victimised. Should that kind of joke be allowed on TV, probably not, should he say it in front of kids, certainly not. Whether or not it's funny is irrelevant, whether it's wrong to say, is the question. Under the circumstances, where he said it, in a private club, I give him a pass.

I generally support free speech, how that speech effects children, can be a quagmire at times, as I think they should be protected from adult material. Adults however, if they don't like something, no one is forcing them to listen to it.
 
No Limit said:
God you're an idiot. Did I at any point say that he didn't have a legal right to say what he said?
Click to expand...

Free speech isn't just a legal issue, schools and universities are very fond of telling people what they can say. There are non-legal punishments to saying things, some people don't like.


 
Bad^Hat said:
For the record, he didn't.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ...acy.morgan.rant.apology/index.html?hpt=hp_bn5

I mean, I tend to agree with Louie in principle, but it does sound like it was in pretty bad taste.
Click to expand...

I agree. I actually hope people give him a chance, I still have a hard time believing that Morgan is a homophobe. But what he said was dumb, and my issue is with people defending it which people should not be doing.

Mr Stabby said:
You seem to be impyling that there is an objective standard of what's appropriate to say. Where does this objective standard come from, GOD? Even if you and I agree it's bad, doesn't make it objectively so.

Unless he went out of his way to find gays to offend, then I don't see how they are being victimised. Should that kind of joke be allowed on TV, probably not, should he say it in front of kids, certainly not. Whether or not it's funny is irrelevant, whether it's wrong to say, is the question. Under the circumstances, where he said it, in a private club, I give him a pass.

I generally support free speech, how that speech effects children, can be a quagmire at times, as I think they should be protected from adult material. Adults however, if they don't like something, no one is forcing them to listen to it.
Click to expand...

I don't claim that this isn't subjective, obviously it is. But there has to be a point somewhere when rational people of this planet agree on some subjective things, and I think we should all be able to agree he shouldn't have said this.

There is a standard out there already for what is acceptable and what isn't, where the line for that standard lies is debatable, but it is there. If a comedian made a joke about killing Obama or how Gabby Giffords deserved what she got nobody would be saying "oh well, as long as it was in a private comedy club who gives a shit?". People would find that person to be a total douchebag that should probably not be hired by a national network that reaches millions of people each day.

And I actually don't see protecting our kids from television as an issue. If something is acceptable in a comedy club I think it should be acceptable on TV, even if it is vulgar or obscene. Your kids are not my problem, as Louie CK would say "they're your shitty kids, you deal with them". What I'm saying is that in this case what he said shouldn't be acceptable in any setting. He certainly has a right to say it, but we should all agree what he said should be condemned.

And like I said above, just because I think this was a really stupid and inappropriate thing to say I don't think his career should be ended as a result. Just don't tell me that what he said was okay, it wasn't.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Free speech isn't just a legal issue, schools and universities are very fond of telling people what they can say. There are non-legal punishments to saying things, some people don't like.
Click to expand...

Well that's really a whole other debate. If the university is private then they have a right to set any rules they want. If its public then thats an entire other debate.

The thing that unozero was trying to suggest, which the likes of Sarah Palin suggest all the time, is that if you criticize what someone says you are against their free speech rights. It's an idiotic condition which apparently he hasn't grown out of yet.
 
He's a comedian and you implied that he shouldn't be saying hurtful things.
You didn't have to spell it it out ,you implied it.
 
Seriously, how hard is this for you to understand?

Free speech is the concept of you being allowed to express just about any idea or opinion freely without the GOVERNMENT limiting what you have to say. But just as you have the right to say what you want to say I have the right to say that what you said is ****ing idiotic and you should not be saying it. And although I disagree with the people calling for Morgan to be fired from NBC those people are not violating his free speech rights. NBC is a private company, they have a right to ignore the people demanding this or they have a right to agree with them and fire Tracy Morgan, afterall he does work for them, not the other way around.

None of this is a free speech issue since nobody is arguing that it should be illegal for him to say what he said. For a right winger that probably has a serious hard-on for the constitution when it suits you I would think you would understand these basic concepts.

Let me know if you agree with this or not.
 
Why is the right to speech only applicable, when the government tries to take it away. What about any other power structures, like corporations, the media, political activists.

Rights are a philosphical concept, they don't inherently exist. Why is it that rights only relate to government, because the founding fathers, said so?
 
unozero said:
it's like your yelling at the screen.
Click to expand...

Define free speech for me.

Mr Stabby said:
Why is the right to speech only applicable, when the government tries to take it away. What about any other power structures, like corporations, the media, political activists.

Rights are a philosphical concept, they don't inherently exist. Why is it that rights only relate to government, because the founding fathers, said so?
Click to expand...

What limits on what corporations and the media can say would you like to impose in the form of a law?

Edit: Or I guess the better question about your point would be what laws should there be for what corporations and the media should be forced to say?
 
That's not what I meant. I mean when a corporation and not the government prevents someone saying something, is it not a free speech issue. You said only the government can inhibit someones free speech, but corporations (or in this case, a mob of liberals) can too.
 
Sorry, I edited my post just before you posted since I realized I totally missed your point.

But how would you practically regulate what the media and other power structures must allow to be said? I think the internet is making traditional media obsolete. And I think there should be strong regulations to keep the internet free from prejudice. But aside from that I don't know how you can enforce that private institutions allow certain opinions without having many other side effects. If you have some ideas on this I'm totally open to them.

For example, Im sure we can agree that there some ideas out there that the media and other corporate interests skew and distort or not allow to be heard at all. But how do you legally change that?

Another edit: on your "mob of liberals" comment. Really? You still honestly believe that there was nothing wrong with what this guy said?
 
I have no idea.

I'm just pondering the philosophy of what rights actually are, and I still haven't come up with a definition I agree with. Generally I do my pondering when I'm high, which might be why.
 
No Limit said:
First off, what he said wasn't in any way funny (do you disagree?).
Click to expand...

Not reading it as it's written. With the right delivery, as part of a larger routine... who knows?
 
Mr Stabby said:
Unless he went out of his way to find gays to offend, then I don't see how they are being victimised.
Click to expand...

Hey, gays are stupid and should be killed. I'm saying this in the context of a private forum and therefore they have no right to feel victimized.

Are you ****ing kidding me?
 
Eejit said:
Not reading it as it's written. With the right delivery, as part of a larger routine... who knows?
Click to expand...

I'm no comedian. But considering a number of people, people that paid to see Tracy Morgan (so you know they aren't easily offended), got up and left tells me the delivery didn't make it any less hurtful. Whatever the delivery was the meaning behind it was pretty clear, even if he didn't intend for it to be taken that way.

He was saying that if he had a gay son, and that gay son wasn't manly enough, he would stab him to death. And whatever his intention was with that the fact is there are many kids these days that are killing themselves because of their sexual oriantation, it is a serious problem. And I think he did the right thing, he backed away from what he said fairly quickly. And although him going on a GLAAD tour is probably a matter of obligation on his part it is the right thing to do and says that he realizes what he said was dumb. Which is why I don't understand the people that are defending what he had to say, it was not a good thing to say and even he seems willing to admit that.
 
Bad^Hat said:
Hey, gays are stupid and should be killed. I'm saying this in the context of a private forum and therefore they have no right to feel victimized.

Are you ****ing kidding me?
Click to expand...

Your taking that out of context,as I was obviously talking about Tracy Morgan and what he did.

Let us entertain your stupid point anyway, here we go again with rights, what does that mean in this context, I think they can do what the **** they want, if they want to feel they are victims, they can if they want, I'm not stopping them.

Assuming this private forum has no gays on it, (which I think it does), how are gays victims of your homophobia, if they aren't here to read it? Is it bad becuase the thought is written down, what if you just think it and don't write it down, is that not the same,as them not reading it?
 
I'm not only stoned right now I am also a bit drunk. But you do realize the argument you are making right now is that if a tree falls down and nobody is there to hear it then that tree never fell down, right?

Lets look at a different example. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the Irish people are dirtry ****ing alcoholic pigs that should not be allowed to be hired in this country. We don't need those alcoholic assholes here, they need to stay in their own country.

Nothing offensive about that. And if you feel like a victim just because the majority of my country happens to think that then you need to grow a pair, right?
 
Mr Stabby said:
Let us entertain your stupid point anyway, here we go again with rights, what does that mean in this context, I think they can do what the **** they want, if they want to feel they are victims, they can if they want, I'm not stopping them.
Click to expand...

Badly worded on my part, didn't mean "right" in the way you're using it.

Mr Stabby said:
Assuming this private forum has no gays on it, (which I think it does), how are gays victims of your homophobia, if they aren't here to read it? Is it bad becuase the thought is written down, what if you just think it and don't write it down, is that not the same,as them not reading it?
Click to expand...

Hey, since you're trying to talk about Tracy, let's apply this to what he said.

Assuming there were no gay people in the club he was performing at, how are they victims of homophobia if they weren't there to hear it? Whoops, the internet exists. That's how.

Really though, I have no clue where you're going with this rights thing. Does he have the right to waffle off any kind of offensive bullshit he wants? Of course he does, no one's actually arguing against that, not even No Limit. Should he be held accountable for saying it nonetheless? Abso-****ing-lutely. That's um... that's about the size of it, as far as I can tell. Then again I don't have any weed. :(
 
I think people should stop being ****ing pussies.
 
Who hasn't thought about killing their gay kid, honestly.
 
Frankly, my kid being alive is enough for me to stab the little nigga to death.

DOES THIS OFFEND ALL YOU LIVING PEOPLE? Because I am as serious as Tracy Morgan was about it.
 
Bad^Hat said:
Hey, since you're trying to talk about Tracy, let's apply this to what he said.

Assuming there were no gay people in the club he was performing at, how are they victims of homophobia if they weren't there to hear it? Whoops, the internet exists. That's how.

Really though, I have no clue where you're going with this rights thing. Does he have the right to waffle off any kind of offensive bullshit he wants? Of course he does, no one's actually arguing against that, not even No Limit. Should he be held accountable for saying it nonetheless? Abso-****ing-lutely. That's um... that's about the size of it, as far as I can tell. Then again I don't have any weed. :(
Click to expand...

It's not his fault it's on the internet, he didn't put it on the internet, someone else did. If anything it's the person who put it on the internets who is too blame.

No Limit said:
I'm not only stoned right now I am also a bit drunk. But you do realize the argument you are making right now is that if a tree falls down and nobody is there to hear it then that tree never fell down, right?
Click to expand...

Kind of, a tree is a physcial object, so it either did or didn't fall down. Speech is purely suibjective and it needs to find someone to offend before it's offensive.

Lets look at a different example. Let's just say for the sake of the argument that the Irish people are dirtry ****ing alcoholic pigs that should not be allowed to be hired in this country. We don't need those alcoholic assholes here, they need to stay in their own country.

Nothing offensive about that. And if you feel like a victim just because the majority of my country happens to think that then you need to grow a pair, right?
Click to expand...

Your jumping around between being offensive and being a victim. I could find, the statement that all Irish people are morons, offensive, but I'm not a victim because someone said it.

Also, if it's said by a comedian, and not the president, I don't think it's even offensive.
 
Freedom of speech means anyone should be able to joke about what they want, but free speech also means that where those jokes appear to represent genuine views or opinions, those opinions are open to attack. A fundamentalist nutjob can't make a joke about the stupidity of the theory of evolution and get away by passing it off as 'just a joke', since it is not only a joke but a representation of a dimwitted opinion. Discussing whether or not something is 'acceptable' or not isn't very useful imo, since everything is essentially acceptable on the grounds of free speech - the issue should be whether something is 'supportable', or whether a joke represents a view which is outdated, needlessly hurtful, or just plain stupid.

Tracy Morgan joked that if his son got all fruity in his face, he'd stab him. I could find that funny, if it was part of a larger routine that ridiculed outdated or prejudicial values by taking them to outrageous extremes. OK, so what's the context and does it make the joke any funnier? Actually, from reading audience accounts of the act, it doesn't sound that sophisticated at all. It just sounds like Morgan has a bit of an axe to grind about those he perceives to be pansies. Therefore his jokes probably represent values which genuinely would be harmful if they had widespread sympathy. Or to be more accurate: values that have been genuinely hurtful and destructive to minorities in the recent past, but which are less so now because they are on the decline. Judging by his preoccupation with camp behaviour and some of his choices of acting roles, however, I wouldn't be surprised if he was some kind of repressed homo himself.

Anyone should be able to joke about what they want, with the caveat that they'll get the audience they deserve. There are comedians who base their entire act around genuinely bigoted and prejudiced material, except nowadays guys like that struggle to fill out a local bar. No one gives a crap about what these guys say because they're nobodies; they're free to perform to nobody and stay nobodies until they eventually fossilise. I support their right to limit their own appeal by being retarded bigots. Tracy Morgan, on the other hand, is a well known figure with a lot of exposure. He's built big audiences with his mainstream appeal, yet he seems to be performing to them with material which should keep him in the 'nobodies' category. That's why his agents have moved in and made him completely disown the routine - because they know it's PR suicide to be associated with these views.
 
Acceptability is an issue, as liberal activist groups have already decided to ruin his career, unless he goes on an apology tour.


I consider it a free speech issue, if activist groups are campaigning to have someone fired, if they said something they don't like.
 
Mr Stabby said:
Kind of, a tree is a physcial object, so it either did or didn't fall down. Speech is purely suibjective and it needs to find someone to offend before it's offensive.
Click to expand...
Not really. If you say something stupid then you said something stupid. Saying it infront of 500 people or 500,000 people doesn't change that.
Your jumping around between being offensive and being a victim. I could find, the statement that all Irish people are morons, offensive, but I'm not a victim because someone said it.
Click to expand...

Irish people have a strong history in America of discrimination. Obviously not today, but 100 years ago they were one of the most hated groups in this country. They were victims. The argument you seem to be making is that they were victims only because they chose to be victims. And if people were making racist jokes about them those jokes were perfectly okay. It's an absurd argument on your part.

Gays are victimized in our society. They don't get the same rights that you and I do and many people go out of their way to make them feel like they should be ashamed of who they are. Idiotic jokes like the one that Morgan said are part of that.

Mr Stabby said:
Acceptability is an issue, as liberal activist groups have already decided to ruin his career, unless he goes on an apology tour.


I consider it a free speech issue, if activist groups are campaigning to have someone fired, if they said something they don't like.
Click to expand...

And these liberal activist groups as you like to call them don't get the same free speech rights that Mogran gets?
 
No Limit said:
Not really. If you say something stupid then you said something stupid. Saying it infront of 500 people or 500,000 people doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

The factuality of the statement doesn't depend on it's audience but it's offensivness certianly does

Irish people have a strong history in America of discrimination. Obviously not today, but 100 years ago they were one of the most hated groups in this country. They were victims. The argument you seem to be making is that they were victims only because they chose to be victims. And if people were making racist jokes about them those jokes were perfectly okay. It's an absurd argument on your part.

Gays are victimized in our society. They don't get the same rights that you and I do and many people go out of their way to make them feel like they should be ashamed of who they are. Idiotic jokes like the one that Morgan said are part of that.
Click to expand...

I make a big distinction between fire bombing someones house and a joke. None of the other discrimination is relevant to the speech issue.


And these liberal activist groups as you like to call them don't get the same free speech rights that Mogran gets?
Click to expand...

There is saying your piece, and there is pressuring advertisers/broadcasters to get rid of people.
 
Mr Stabby said:
which is the gay one?
Click to expand...


that's besides the point. the fact that he has sons lends more credence to the idea that it was a rant and not a joke

and you seem to think that he shouldnt face any sort of consequences for his actions when I say that's silly as he's in the puiblic eye and for better or worse is beholden to that public. so if people wanna yell racism or homophobia or whatever it's their right because as a celebrity he put himself into that position and everythign he says or does is under scrutiny

I'm not particularily offended by what he said but I'm not single minded enough to think he shouldnt face any criticism. hell the religious crazies are very first ones to scream bloody murder when they believe some celebrity or media group are pushing a gay agenda so it should come to as no surprise when the shoe is on the other foot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top