HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Biden Press Secretary Jen...

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:46 PM

Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki Called Out for 'Homophobic' Tweet Mocking Lindsey Graham as 'Lady G'

Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki Called Out for ‘Homophobic’ Tweet Mocking Lindsey Graham as ‘Lady G’

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-press-secretary-jen-psaki-called-out-for-homophobic-tweet-mocking-lindsey-graham-as-lady-g/ar-BB1dmq34

(From Mediaite).

Before her current role as White House Press Secretary for the Biden administration, Jen Psaki was a paid contributor for CNN. Her prior experience as communications director under the Obama administration led to valuable insights into the messaging strategies and tactics under then-President Donald Trump.

But some of Psaki’s partisan comments are coming back to haunt her, particularly one that is fairly viewed as homophobic.

At issue? The derisive and mocking term “Lady G,” which has been used by some progressives to mock Senator Lindsey Graham, who went from being a vocal critic of President Trump to one of his most loyal toadies during a divisive time in US political history. The idea behind this term is that Graham is closeted, and supportive of Trump because he fears outing. Graham is a confirmed bachelor but has many times denied he is homosexual — as if that matters.

In short, “Lady G” is for many, an offensive term, particularly for those who are fluent in the shifting world of identity politics. In August of last year, Psaki used the offensive phrase in a tweet critical of Graham’s pushing a “bunch of debunked conspiracy theories while questioning” Sally Yates:

only in 2020 does #LadyG get to push a bunch of debunked conspiracy theories while questioning @SallyQYates (aka an American hero)

— Jen Psaki (@jrpsaki) August 5, 2020

208 replies, 6538 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 208 replies Author Time Post
Reply Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki Called Out for 'Homophobic' Tweet Mocking Lindsey Graham as 'Lady G' (Original post)
marble falls Feb 9 OP
lagomorph777 Feb 9 #1
Still Sensible Feb 9 #20
BannonsLiver Feb 10 #139
underpants Feb 9 #2
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #163
TheBlackAdder Feb 11 #199
grumpyduck Feb 9 #3
marble falls Feb 9 #12
Beakybird Feb 9 #4
NRaleighLiberal Feb 9 #7
elleng Feb 9 #16
TwilightZone Feb 9 #18
demmiblue Feb 9 #81
ornotna Feb 9 #113
BannonsLiver Feb 10 #140
Beakybird Feb 10 #146
Post removed Feb 9 #5
Demsrule86 Feb 9 #10
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #11
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #17
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #33
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #39
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #56
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #59
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #62
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #65
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #67
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #70
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #74
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #77
cwydro Feb 9 #111
bullimiami Feb 9 #38
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #42
bullimiami Feb 9 #49
blm Feb 9 #57
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #63
blm Feb 9 #71
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #165
dsc Feb 9 #94
GoneOffShore Feb 9 #98
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #164
StarfishSaver Feb 9 #25
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #37
bullimiami Feb 9 #40
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #45
LanternWaste Feb 9 #102
smirkymonkey Feb 10 #121
dalton99a Feb 10 #136
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #166
Bettie Feb 10 #167
SunSeeker Feb 9 #43
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #48
SunSeeker Feb 9 #61
former9thward Feb 10 #122
SunSeeker Feb 10 #124
former9thward Feb 10 #131
SunSeeker Feb 10 #152
former9thward Feb 10 #158
SunSeeker Feb 10 #159
former9thward Feb 10 #175
SunSeeker Feb 10 #183
former9thward Feb 10 #185
SunSeeker Feb 10 #186
former9thward Feb 10 #189
SunSeeker Feb 11 #190
former9thward Feb 11 #201
uponit7771 Feb 9 #47
JDC Feb 9 #69
helpisontheway Feb 9 #76
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #78
LiberalFighter Feb 9 #95
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #99
LanternWaste Feb 9 #103
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #106
Vivienne235729 Feb 9 #107
Bettie Feb 10 #169
Vivienne235729 Feb 10 #178
Bettie Feb 10 #179
Vivienne235729 Feb 10 #180
Bettie Feb 10 #181
Vivienne235729 Feb 10 #182
Silent3 Feb 9 #109
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #168
Silent3 Feb 10 #172
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #173
Silent3 Feb 10 #174
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #177
SoonerPride Feb 9 #114
kcr Feb 10 #128
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #6
marble falls Feb 9 #19
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #29
Clash City Rocker Feb 9 #8
TwilightZone Feb 9 #14
marble falls Feb 9 #27
LeftInTX Feb 9 #36
bdamomma Feb 9 #9
BlueLucy Feb 9 #13
Stinky The Clown Feb 9 #15
marble falls Feb 9 #30
SlogginThroughIt Feb 9 #31
Stinky The Clown Feb 9 #60
Crunchy Frog Feb 9 #91
crickets Feb 9 #21
marble falls Feb 9 #35
JustABozoOnThisBus Feb 9 #22
marble falls Feb 9 #51
NurseJackie Feb 9 #55
BannonsLiver Feb 10 #142
NurseJackie Feb 10 #151
StarfishSaver Feb 9 #23
LymphocyteLover Feb 10 #153
Lunabell Feb 9 #24
TwilightZone Feb 9 #41
Lunabell Feb 9 #54
cwydro Feb 11 #205
gollygee Feb 9 #26
NurseJackie Feb 9 #28
kiranon Feb 9 #32
OnDoutside Feb 9 #34
arlyellowdog Feb 9 #44
Vinca Feb 9 #46
NurseJackie Feb 9 #50
smirkymonkey Feb 10 #125
dem4decades Feb 9 #52
ProfessorGAC Feb 9 #108
JonLP24 Feb 10 #188
bpj62 Feb 9 #53
MineralMan Feb 9 #58
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #64
MineralMan Feb 9 #73
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #79
MineralMan Feb 9 #84
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #86
MineralMan Feb 9 #88
Behind the Aegis Feb 9 #92
MineralMan Feb 9 #93
marble falls Feb 9 #83
MineralMan Feb 9 #87
NurseJackie Feb 9 #68
MineralMan Feb 9 #75
NurseJackie Feb 9 #82
tonedevil Feb 11 #197
rurallib Feb 9 #66
NurseJackie Feb 9 #105
KentuckyWoman Feb 9 #72
Hekate Feb 9 #80
Buckeyeblue Feb 9 #85
redstateblues Feb 9 #89
tavernier Feb 9 #90
mac56 Feb 9 #96
NurseJackie Feb 9 #97
BannonsLiver Feb 10 #144
Autumn Feb 9 #100
NurseJackie Feb 9 #104
Vivienne235729 Feb 9 #110
Autumn Feb 9 #112
dalton99a Feb 10 #137
Autumn Feb 10 #147
dalton99a Feb 10 #134
Solly Mack Feb 9 #101
Behind the Aegis Feb 10 #123
Solly Mack Feb 10 #126
MustLoveBeagles Feb 10 #127
Solly Mack Feb 10 #130
JanMichael Feb 9 #115
dalton99a Feb 10 #145
uncle ray Feb 9 #116
dsc Feb 9 #117
Callado119 Feb 9 #118
Zorro Feb 10 #119
canetoad Feb 10 #120
dalton99a Feb 10 #141
MustLoveBeagles Feb 10 #129
Marrah_Goodman Feb 10 #132
dalton99a Feb 10 #133
Wounded Bear Feb 10 #135
BannonsLiver Feb 10 #138
NurseJackie Feb 10 #154
Sugarcoated Feb 10 #143
BruceWane Feb 10 #148
BruceWane Feb 10 #149
nsd Feb 10 #150
BGBD Feb 10 #157
TuskMoar Feb 11 #196
Happy Hoosier Feb 10 #155
Marthe48 Feb 10 #156
MoonlitKnight Feb 10 #160
SunSeeker Feb 10 #161
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #162
SunSeeker Feb 10 #170
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #176
SunSeeker Feb 10 #184
Ms. Toad Feb 10 #187
SunSeeker Feb 11 #191
Ms. Toad Feb 11 #192
SunSeeker Feb 11 #193
Ms. Toad Feb 11 #194
SunSeeker Feb 11 #195
Ms. Toad Feb 11 #198
SunSeeker Feb 11 #200
Ms. Toad Feb 11 #203
SunSeeker Feb 11 #207
cwydro Feb 11 #206
SunSeeker Feb 11 #208
JCMach1 Feb 10 #171
mopinko Feb 11 #202
cwydro Feb 11 #204

Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:46 PM

1. This is why we can't engage in such crap. We are supposed to be the good guys.

Hypocrisy will always be outed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lagomorph777 (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:58 PM

20. And we are always at a disadvantage on hypocrisy

because we really care about not being hypocrites.

Other side doesn't give a shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Still Sensible (Reply #20)


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:47 PM

2. Band aid

Just rip it off and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:18 PM

163. If, by rip it off, you mean learn from it, apologize, and move on

I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underpants (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 03:58 AM

199. Yep. Most tweeting are R's. The Reagan Battalion? Reagan was horrific to the LGBTQ community.

.

Apologize and move on.

This is more Republican attacks to foment divisiveness in Dems and we can't be suckered into it.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:48 PM

3. Let him or her who is without sin

dig up old shit to bash people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grumpyduck (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:53 PM

12. Better yet: she says she was wrong, a bit insensitve, apologize and then never does it again ...

... like a Democrat does.

She's been a very good press secretary, no need to put her out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:49 PM

4. Apologize and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:50 PM

7. This.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:56 PM

16. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:56 PM

18. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:32 PM

81. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:16 PM

113. Yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beakybird (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:31 AM

140. Or better still, just move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #140)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:55 AM

146. Yes, enough time has passed. No reason to freshen the mild transgression in people's memories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:52 PM

10. No she is great. She doesn't have to go.

We dont need to bring our own down over a mistake. She can apologize and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:52 PM

11. Are you joking?

If so, you might want to use the "sarcasm" indicator ( ). If not, the punishment you are suggesting does not even come close to the crime, and I found what was said to be distasteful and homophobic, but it is not, nor should it be, a death knell for her position!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #11)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:56 PM

17. Nope. Not even a little.

 

Sorry but she has disqualified herself in my opinion. Skewer me if you like but there isn’t room for this in his admin. Find someone that doesn’t engage in homophobic slurs. I think she has been great but this just is going ti be a stupid side show. Better to cut bait now and indeed move on. I have a feeling that this will not be the last issue with her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:03 PM

33. Um...OK.



Frankly, your suggestion falls along the line of cutting off one's hand because of a splinter in the finger. But, you do you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #33)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:08 PM

39. And if this was Trumps Press secretary?

 

You would just be willing to let it go? Brush it off? And move on? If it were about Pete B?

Come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:16 PM

56. Were ifs and buts, candies and nuts, what a party it would be.

Given this circumstance, yes, I would "let it go" with an apology and acknowledgement of the mistake. If it were about Pete? Why would that make a difference? I have called it homophobic, I just don't think she needs to be pilloried.

ETA: Y'know, with some other comments in this thread, literally EXCUSING the use, and chastising people even calling for an apology, perhaps your efforts would be better afforded on those who can't even RECOGNIZE the homophobia, as oppposed to battling over the "punishment" with those who actually understand the homophobia at play, in her tweet and HERE, in THIS thread!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:20 PM

59. uh huh. Sure.

 

Using homophobic slurs is homophobic.

Using racist slurs is racist.

Using sexist slurs is sexist.

As an non-press secretary individual sure apologize and move on. As the mouth piece of the leader of the free world, that to me says you are not up to the job. Period.

Believe it or not there are non-perfect people that don’t have this crap posted online for others to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #59)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:22 PM

62. Nope.

Cutting one's nose off despite one's face is not the answer. Addressing homophobia, including those who refuse to recognize it, there's the real problem,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:23 PM

65. How about not cutting the damn nose in the first place?

 

This wasn’t said in some bygone era where society was “different”.

Come on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #65)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:24 PM

67. She hasn't cut off her nose.

You're asking for her nose!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #67)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:26 PM

70. No I am asking for a press secretary that doesn't use homophobic slurs.

 

Not a big ask really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:26 PM

74. An actual apology should suffice.

Not a big ask really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #74)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:28 PM

77. For you? Ok.

 

My opinion is different. You won’t change my mind and that is fine. I am done excusing this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:02 PM

111. You've not been paying attention to DU. I've lost count how many people use that slur here.

It’s usually brushed off here as both I and the poster to whom you responded can attest.

That being said, I can overlook it unless more of this surfaces. I hope she apologizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #17)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:08 PM

38. Skewer. +1.

Have to disagree with you.

Insensitive? Yes.
Im with the apologize and move on crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullimiami (Reply #38)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:10 PM

42. And if it were Trumps PS calling Pete Lady B?

 

You would be just fine with it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:13 PM

49. No. I would think it was stupid, tonedeaf and insensitive and if they apologized

I would put that one away in a back drawer.

Not so forgiving the next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #42)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:17 PM

57. He's called LadyG for his faux outrage 'vapors'

that he exhibits that are not to be believed. Pete doesn’t get called Lady Pete because he doesn’t traffic in feigned outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #57)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:22 PM

63. I don't care why he is called it.

 

It. Is. Still. A. Homophobic. Slur!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #63)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:26 PM

71. Nah, it's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #71)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:30 PM

165. Yes it is.

Deliberately mis-gendering someone as an insult is sexist, homophobic, and transphobic. Period. It has no place on DU.

That said, I want people to be open to learning - so I'm fine with her acknowledging and apologizing for her comments, learning from the incident. and moving on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #57)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:02 PM

94. actually no that isn't why he is called that

he is called that supposedly by sex workers. That said, an apology and moving on sounds sufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #94)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:18 PM

98. This

No skewers needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:24 PM

164. Wow. Even some of our best - like Obama -

have stupid mistakes in their past (inviting the infamous homophobic minister to share the platform with him at his first inauguration).

As an LGBT person, what I care about is that she acknowledges it was hurtful, learns from it (about why it was hurtful), apologizes - and then we move on.

We live in a society that less than a decade ago condemned my marriage, and less than a year ago could have used it as grounds to fire me. If the test on LGBT issues is purity, we will have very few people eligible to work in the Biden administration. Heck - probably 75% of DU finds nothing wrong with her comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:00 PM

25. Seriously?

Glad to know at least one perfect around here is perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #25)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:07 PM

37. I didn't call myself perfect in the slightest.

 

Nowhere did I say that. And you’ll notice that I said she didn’t mean for her to be put into exile. If you are the press secretary you have to choose your words carefully. It is literally your job. Using a slur or implied slur is a very very large red flag and shows to me immaturity for this position. She has been very sharp and very witty. And that can be a great thing to deliver points. But not woth this type of language in this role.

If she were a republican I HIGHLY doubt we would all be saying “apologize and move on”.

And that has nothing to do with my own imperfections. I would in no way be qualified to be in that position. She is making the case against herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #37)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:09 PM

40. If she was a republican and apologized it would be the same reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullimiami (Reply #40)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:11 PM

45. Uh hub. Sure.

 

People on this site would be apoplectic. But kudos to you if you would excuse homophobia on both sides of the aisle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #45)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:13 PM

102. And kudos to you as well...

for pretending to know what any given reaction would be by any given demographic in any given scenario.

It does however beg the question... what specific slurs has she used since her appointment?

(insert fictional reaction by fictional demographic below as well as fictional sentiment on my part as well-- as you've been doing both consistently in this thread)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullimiami (Reply #40)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:14 AM

121. If she was a republican, she would have doubled down and would have refused to apologized.

EVER! Fuck these purity tests. I am so sick of these double standards.

We aren't perfect, but we need to stop hanging ourselves for every minor transgression. Especially when THEY are the ones who are trying to overthrow democracy. We need to cut ourselves a little slack here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to smirkymonkey (Reply #121)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:21 AM

136. +1. Who is their next target in the purification drive?


Remember Al Franken




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:32 PM

166. She said it in August -

Long before she was the press secretary.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #37)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:36 PM

167. I don't know because I have never seen a Republican

apologize for any statement. They double down and declare that they were right or that they never said it.

But, I do see that you seem to be demanding that this incredibly competent and effective woman be removed from her position for one hashtag she used once a year ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:10 PM

43. NO. Jen is not "the devil," for fuck's sake. She was referring to current events.

She said this shortly after the hashtag #LadyGraham exploded on social media in response to allegations made on Twitter by gay adult-film star Sean Harding against Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina (the hashtag, along with the abbreviated form “Lady G,” refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers). https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/

LadyG had become the homophobic hypocrite's nickname on social media, where Jen said this.

And she said this when she was a private citizen, months before she started serving as press secretary, so she was not speaking for the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #43)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:12 PM

48. Oh I see. Because others say it. It's cool.

 

See how that works out with other slurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:21 PM

61. No, she was referring to the nickname given to the hypocrite by male sex workers.

Last edited Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Lindsey never sued Harding for defamation.

Lindsey is a vile hypocrite who has hurt the LGBTQ community. https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/10/16/the-sad-closeted-hypocrisy-of-lindsey-graham/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #61)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:14 AM

122. Public figures can't sue for defamation.

I think you know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #122)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:36 AM

124. Public figures can indeed sue for defamation, they just have a higher burden of proof.

In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot succeed in a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements (in the United States) unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice by knowing the falsity or by reckless disregard for the truth. The legal burden of proof in defamation actions is thus higher in the case of a public figure than in the case of an ordinary person.

Please don't pretend to know what I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #124)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 10:52 AM

131. It was a figure of speech.

I certainly would not pretend to know what you know or more accurately don't know. Name an elected official who has successfully sued for defamation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SunSeeker (Reply #152)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:40 PM

158. Except he didn't.

Jesse Ventura’s $1.8-million defamation award denied in his ‘American Sniper’ book case

Ex-professional wrestler Jesse Ventura won’t be awarded the $1.8-million judgment a jury decided to give him in 2014 as the result of a defamation case against the estate of Chris Kyle, who had written disparagingly about a person resembling Ventura in his memoir “American Sniper.”

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports that on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit threw out the $1.8-million “American Sniper” judgment, saying that the $1.35 million Ventura was awarded for “unjust enrichment” did not comply with Minnesota state law.

The jury in the lower court also awarded Ventura $500,000 for defamation. The appeals court also threw out that judgment, but sent it back to the lower court for retrial.

https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-jesse-ventura-book-case-20160614-snap-story.html

The first thing they teach in law school is to follow a case to its conclusion. Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #158)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:48 PM

159. Except he did. Only the "unjust enrichment" claim was thrown out, not defamation.

That's what the article you quote itself states. Once the defamation claim was remanded for retrial, defendants settled with Ventura for an undisclosed sum. https://m.startribune.com/jesse-ventura-appears-to-have-settled-long-running-defamation-law-suit/461382013/ Follow the case to the end indeed.

Other public figures who successfully sued for defamation include Cameron Diaz and Katie Holmes: https://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-sued-for-defamation/jacob-shelton

Tom Cruise won a $10 million judgment against a gay porn actor who claimed to have had an affair with him. https://ew.com/article/2003/01/16/tom-cruise-wins-10-million-gay-lawsuit/

Maybe Lindsey could call Tom's lawyer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 03:25 PM

175. Not true.

You have to look at the cases, not snippets you get from google. The Court of Appeals threw out the defamation claim and sent it back to the trial court. Settled for "an undisclosed sum" which in the legal world means they gave him $10,000 to get rid of a nuisance lawsuit. The Appeals Court cited SC precedent on the defamation when they tossed that claim. Any lawyer will tell you when you lose at the Court of Appeals you are done.

How much did Tom Cruise get from his suit against "a gay porn actor"? He got jack. Again look at the case. The porn guy defaulted on the suit. Which means he did not bother going to court to contest the suit. Micky Mouse could be the lawyer if no one contests your claim.

Jurors can be dazzled by Hollywood actors, which BTW Jesse Ventura was more than a politician, but when the cases go up they almost always get shot down in appeals.

You are not going to find an elected politician in modern times who ever got anything from a defamation suit. But since you know better why don't you go handle those suits? Public figures and politicians are called every name in the book on sites like these, along with implicating them in no end of CTs. Why are they not suing internet sites?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #175)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 10:53 PM

183. No, what is not true is your claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

I correctly stated the law and gave you recent instances. "Settled for an undisclosed sum" does not mean "$10,000." The defendants were unable to dismiss Ventura's defamation case, so it was not a mere nuisance settlement, your attempt to move the goal posts notwithstanding. They had desperately tried to dismiss it and fought it tooth and nail until they failed. If they had thought it was a mere nuisance lawsuit resolvable for $10,000, they would have done so before incurring hundreds of thousands in attorneys fees litigating it through trial and appeal.

And Tom Cruise got more than "jack"; he got a judicial determination that what that porn actor said was false, which is one of the most important goals of any defamation case. Lindsey Graham could have sued the porn actor who made the allegations against him just like Tom did, and gotten such a determination, but he didn't. Those are facts.

It is a fact that public figures can sue for defamation. Your claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation" is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #183)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:28 PM

185. You are making up everything.

Tom Cruise got a "determination" because the actor did not show up in court. The merits of the case were not made one way or the other. But keep digging.

In every case you presented you left out the conclusions until I pointed them out. So go take these cases, with your expertise you will make a lot of money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #185)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:39 PM

186. I did not make up your wrong claim that "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

You wrote that. And you were wrong.

I did not "make up" any of the cases or their facts. Nor did I make up what the law was. You did that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #186)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:47 PM

189. I deal in the real world, not in the world where you look up the law on google.

In the real world elected politicians can't successfully sue for defamation. You have not been able to show one successful case. I have asked you questions which you have ignored because google does not give you an answer. But again with your google expertise hang out your shingle. I am sure you will do well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #189)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 12:07 AM

190. No, you misstate the law. You said, "Public figures can't sue for defamation."

They clearly can. Then you asked me for a case. I gave you several. Then you moved the goal posts and demanded I provide "successful" cases. I did. Then you changed the goal posts yet again to some unspecified level of success that involves recovering some unspecified large sum of cash.

The fact remains you were caught in an incorrect statement of law, and wasted time in this thread trying to obfuscate that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #190)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 10:58 AM

201. Any lawyer would laugh at your post.

The definition of being able to sue to a lawyer is a reasonable chance of success. Success is defined by any lawyer as obtaining an amount of money which is worth filing the case and dealing with the litigation.

If you showed your posts to an actual lawyer they would laugh you out of the office. Google school does not give law degrees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:11 PM

47. no

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:25 PM

69. Disagree.

An apology is perhaps in order. But that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:28 PM

76. Oh please..the Republicans want her to go. Just as they wanted

Al Franken out and Dems were stupid enough to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to helpisontheway (Reply #76)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:29 PM

78. Totally different scenario.

 

We had non-credible accusations and a photo of a comedy routine in which she played the part. And also an elected position versus one that wasn’t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:03 PM

95. Absolutely wrong. She stays!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #95)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:33 PM

99. ok. Let me know which one of us actually decides.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:15 PM

103. Hence, the irrelevancy of all our opinions.

Which thus leads to the irrelevancy of the OP as well. Unless of course, a distinction lacking a relevant difference is creatively constructed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #103)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:36 PM

106. Well I will drink to that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:44 PM

107. HELL NO. You know what I find more offensive? The incessant and relentless LIES

Of the last 3 WH press secretaries. This is going to come as a shock to some people, but Psaki is not a perfect human being. But overall, she is doing a FANTASTIC job. This is far from resigning from her position infraction. Hell no. Apologize and move the heck on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vivienne235729 (Reply #107)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:38 PM

169. She is doing an amazing job which is why

some people want her removed and replaced with someone less effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #169)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 06:55 PM

178. EXACTLY! This is why I get so mad when I hear democrats repeating RW talking points

I was in a local group and someone was complaining about Pelosi getting her hair done. I nearly lost my shit. LOL They always go after our big guns. Anyone that is a huge asset to us, they focus on them and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vivienne235729 (Reply #178)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 07:45 PM

179. And when there are mountains on the other side

they say "that's just X being X, it's no big deal!".

The double standard makes me so angry and frustrated.

Our side is supposed to be utterly flawless at all times while the other side gets to be horrible all the time and that's cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #179)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 09:10 PM

180. YES! That double standard infuriates me to no end, too. The media

Is equally, if not more, to blame for that. Their unfair portrayal of everything. The latest nonsense that stuck in my craw was the NYT desperate attempt at finding something on Biden and resorted to the Rolex story. That was so pathetic and desperate. And then I think of all the absolutely over the top absurd things trump has done and we never hear the media pick him apart. We need to have some sort of media reform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vivienne235729 (Reply #180)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 09:12 PM

181. The double standard right now, with regard to Unity

We were all supposed to reach out to Trump voters when he won, to understand them.

Now, "Unity" means we're supposed to reach out to Trump voters to understand them and follow their fucking agenda.

WTF? Honestly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #181)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 09:15 PM

182. Lol. Yea. Unreal,huh? I just have 2 words: Screw. That.

There will be no unity until we have accountability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:57 PM

109. This is where the derision for "cancel culture" comes from.

This kind of zero-tolerance reaction to words people say, and being absolutely determined to take maximum offense and demand harsh penalties.

Should people be careful about what they say to avoid offense? Of course. Does language need to evolve to better reflect our values? Yes.

But not everyone, even very tolerant people, sees everything the same way on these issues, and not everyone instantly gets up to speed to achieve Maximum Wokeness according to whatever the most sensitive of sensitive people, deemed to be the arbiters Goodspeak, proclaim should or should not be said.

Lighten up, Francis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #109)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:37 PM

168. Intentionally misgendering gay men is an insult that is as old as dirt.

nance (n.)
"effeminate man, male homosexual who takes the passive role," 1924, from female name Nancy (q.v.), which was in use as an adjective meaning "effeminate" (applied to men) by 1904 in prison slang, a shortening of earlier Miss Nancy, a derogatory term for a finicky, effeminate man which is attested by 1824; Nancy boy "effeminate male homosexual" is attested by 1939.


You don't have to be "instantly up to speed to achieve Maximum Wokeness" to know using a female name (not chosen by the individual) to refer to a gay man is homophobic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #168)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:49 PM

172. But it isn't just misgendering here

It's calling out the hypocrisy of someone like Graham being part of a party that doesn't respect gay rights.

Where the big difference of opinion exists here is whether using such language in an ironic way to call out hypocrisy is OK.

Whether you personally think it's a valid rhetorical approach or not, the unforgiving zero-tolerance attitude being put forth here is that no one else should be permitted a difference of opinion on ironic language usage, lest they be put in the same category as people who would misgender someone ironically or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #172)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 03:19 PM

173. Using a homophobic/transphobic/sexist slur to point out hypocrisy

IS homophobic/transphobic/sexist. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Do you get to use n**** as rhetoric? Then don't use the LGBT equivalent as rhetoric.,

If you want to point out the hypocrisy, do so directly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #173)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 03:21 PM

174. And everyone who doesn't go along with your Pronouncement from on High...

...must be thrown under the bus, including Jen Psaki? Purity must be demanded?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Silent3 (Reply #174)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 03:31 PM

177. You obviously have not read my comments in this thread -

or in any other threads in which I've posted on past transgressions.

It is unacceptable to use homophobia/transphobia/sexism. Period - and the people at whom it is directed (i.e. me) are the arbiters of what falls into that category.

That said - as recently as a year ago I could have been fired for my marriage to another woman. Obama invited a homophobic pastor to share the inaugural stage with him in 2008 - and opposed my marriagefor much longer. If we insist on purity, there will not be anyone available to work in the Biden administration.

What is needed is acknowledgement of the nature of the comments, a willingness to learn from the experience, and an apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:17 PM

114. Nope. We already lost Al Franken over this bullshit

Not only no but hell no.

Psaki stays.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:56 AM

128. No, she doesn't.

Stop being ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:50 PM

6. She shouldn't have done it, unless she is bi or a lesbian.

Is she homophobic? Doubtful. Was the use homophobic? Yes. I am sure there will be some straight people along shortly to straightsplain' to me how the use was not homophobic because they have queers in their family who says it is "OK" or even some gay folks who miss the point of ingroup solidarity vocabulary and allow shit like this because "there are bigger things to worry about" or whatever the current excuse du jour is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:57 PM

19. That's my point. She's not homophobic that I can see. She was going after Lindsey's goat ...

... she made a poor choice of "insult". Even woke people can make a misstep and that was a misstep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #19)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:01 PM

29. Exactly! There is a difference between being a homophobe and saying/doing something homophobic.

Apparently, some haven't got the memo. I'll put it on the Gay Agenda for our next recruitment meeting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:51 PM

8. Graham called himself Lady G online, before anyone else did

So I don’t personally see it as homophobic. But I’m straight, so maybe I shouldn’t voice an opinion on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clash City Rocker (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:55 PM

14. Do you have a source for that?

That's the first time I can recall anyone saying the nickname came from Graham.

Many on DU seem to be OK with it, though I always thought it seemed rather homophobic. Not to mention presumptive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clash City Rocker (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:01 PM

27. When did Lindsey ever call himself "MissG". He has explicitly denied being gay ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clash City Rocker (Reply #8)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:05 PM

36. I believe someone said that Graham called himself Lady G online

So it's third hand info and not from Graham himself. Anyone can say anything about anyone.

They did this with Rick Perry too.

Last week, the hashtag #LadyGraham exploded on social media in response to allegations made on Twitter by gay adult-film star Sean Harding against Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina (the hashtag, along with the abbreviated form “Lady G,” purportedly refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers). What followed has been a mixed bag of political commentary, wanton speculation and downright trolling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:52 PM

9. Well

I'm sure there were others who said the same thing. She was caught.

Apologize and move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:56 PM

15. 1. Yes, it was way bad. 2. If a Republican had done this, what would they do?

News flash: Democrats are human with all the baggage that comes of that.

I see this as something for which an apology is in order. I do not see it as a political career's death penalty offense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:02 PM

30. Absolutely. And maybe a few of us on DU need to pay attention to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stinky The Clown (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:02 PM

31. Or if a republican had done it...

 

What would we be saying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:20 PM

60. And no matter what we said, they would ignore it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlogginThroughIt (Reply #31)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:56 PM

91. Offensive statements are so much the norm for Qs

That it likely wouldn't even be noticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:58 PM

21. That's disappointing. I thought better of her.

Still, it doesn't disqualify her from being able to do her job. Apologize. Promise to do better and hold to it. Move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crickets (Reply #21)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:04 PM

35. She'd been excellent working as press seretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:59 PM

22. Rise up in outrage and "Franken" her!

Or, we could say she made a mistake. Wrote a pointless insult. Only Republicans can do that and get away with it.

Next topic? ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:14 PM

51. She's not being Frankened by anybody. Not even all the crocodile teared GOPers tweeting ...

... in their fake support for gays suggest doing that.

All that's required is understanding casual insults that rest on slurs are wrong and don't belong in the conversation. And by apologizing and going back to the lectern to bring information from the White House she demonstrates who we are: not Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #22)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:15 PM

55. That's a perfect analogy. Franken. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #55)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:32 AM

142. The OP seems to be really invested in this particular issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #142)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:14 PM

151. Three or four OP's and a poll to boot... I think your observations are right on target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:59 PM

23. Apologize and move on ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StarfishSaver (Reply #23)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:31 PM

153. exactly-- it's not complicated

and everyone knows Dems as a party aren't homophobic-- more we just call out the right's hypocrisy on gay issues when we use this sort of language but obviously it's better to not go there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 03:59 PM

24. Nobody was mocking his sexuality. At least not me.

I mock Lindsey's hypocrisy and point out his self hatred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lunabell (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:09 PM

41. It's pretty clearly a shot at his sexuality.

Unless there's some other context of which I'm unaware, it's homophobic, regardless of the source. She should apologize and move on.

It's also a common theme here on DU, the presumption that he's some kind of self-loathing gay guy. I've never really understood why it doesn't get more flack here, but whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #41)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:15 PM

54. Absolutely she should apologize.

But I still think he is a sad self hating gay man who is so caught up in his religious and political beliefs that he can't be real. It happens a lot and I truly feel sorry for him, but he can fuck off at the same time for the harm he has caused the LGBTQ community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 11:39 AM

205. This.

Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:01 PM

26. It is not OK to call him Lady G. She should apologize and stop doing it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:01 PM

28. Meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:03 PM

32. Just call it a term of endearment and move on

Just let it go. Just about everyone - Democrats and Republicans use the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:03 PM

34. Meh, 450,000 dead. Some of ye would want to get over yourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:11 PM

44. She did NOT call him that

She referred to #LadyG

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:11 PM

46. OMG - our side MUST BE PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW. Meanwhile, back in Trumpville, they'll

be calling Psaki a red-haired, hooker bitch. Guaranteed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:14 PM

50. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #46)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:37 AM

125. Thank YOU, Vinca!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:15 PM

52. She should just call him "Piece of shit Graham" and be done with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem4decades (Reply #52)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:52 PM

108. Or "Dirty Money"

His ethical acrobatics in defense of T%&#p has got to be something other than compromising sexual orientation information.
I thinks there's a BIG pile of dirty, foreign money, and they've got the receipts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorGAC (Reply #108)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:47 PM

188. I think foreign money is more likely to be the case

But I think the explanation is a lot more simple. He is a Republican that wants to stay in power. Democrats will rally behind the nominee even if the candidate wasn't their first choice. Graham is also a politician that knows how to keep his seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:15 PM

53. Enough

This story has been floating around for a few weeks now. Let's go ahead and help the Republicans and the media by removing a competent Press Secretary. First of all who is the group that is saying that her comment is homophobic and secondly I have never heard that phrase used in a offensive manner.
We are engaged in a fight for the heart and soul of this nation and some people on this board want to gather a firing squad for an off handed comment made when she was a political commentator. I believe her body of work speaks to a great support for the LBGT community. But hey you guys go ahead with your circular firing squad.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:18 PM

58. OK, then. A six-day-old hit-piece story about Jen Psaki,

on a day when the impeacment trial gets underway. And about a tweet from a year ago. How nice....

Did you notice that nobody has recced your post? Wonder why?

Maybe you could find something else to occupy your time...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:23 PM

64. I saw this article on a queer site 7 days ago!

I didn't post here because of the comments we are seeing throughout this thread.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:26 PM

73. It was a thoroughly regrettable comment at the time.

It's odd that it's coming up just now, as the impeachment trial begins, though.

I think she should apologize for her use of the nickname. Probably she will. I also think that it's not all that, when it comes to mistakes being made by someone who wasn't working for Biden when she said it.

Lindsey Graham is also regrettable, but in a far more serious way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:30 PM

79. I know Marble Falls is HIGHLY unlikely to be trolling.

Therefore, my conclusion is this was posted simply because it was a sad story, but worthy of notice. With ONE notable exception (see above), most are simply calling for an apology. Using bigoted language should never be given a pass, even if on our side. Was the original intent of the people who reported on this a "hit piece", maybe, but it happened. She can simply apologize and move on, IMO. What I dislike is when people make excuses for even commenting on, much less criticizing, people on our side when they make homophobic (and anti-Semitic) remarks.

ETA: And my prediction came to pass. I am shocked. Oh, wait, no I am not!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #79)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:35 PM

84. I don't excuse the use of that nickname at all.

I wouldn't use it. I like Leningrad Linsey better.

I'm just confused about why it would appear here today, rather than some other day. I'm sure Jen Psaki will express her regrets for it shortly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:38 PM

86. To be very clear...

...I know you didn't excuse it. I can understand your confusion, but I want you to understand, what I am trying to get across to you, is that had this article been posted 6 days ago, this thread would likely have looked the same! THAT IS A PROBLEM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #86)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:40 PM

88. There are problems and then there are PROBLEMS.

Baby/bathwater.

I've read your comments in the thread. We are not in opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #88)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:00 PM

92. No, we are not in opposition.

An apology works for me. My issue, now, is how this is being treated as a topic and feel that the discussion of homophobia, especially when from people on our side, generally devolves into the display we see in this thread; excuse making, minimization, and outright straightsplainin'. To me, this is indicative of a larger issue of heterosexism (straight privilege) and homophobia within our ranks. That's all I was trying to get across to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #92)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:02 PM

93. I get it. The whole thing was avoidable, frankly.

That was my only point, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:34 PM

83. This is not a hit piece. It would never take any attention from the impeachment trial ...

My issue is using a slur on someone else. Pstaki is no homophobe that I know about, but that "MissG'' thing is a slur.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215077572#post29


Lindsey Graham is probably being looked at for some action/sanction or another, but his being or not being gay has not got a thing to with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #83)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:39 PM

87. Well, I don't care what Graham's sexuality is.

That is completely irrelevant. He is noxious, regardless. On the other hand, Jen Psaki has shown herself to be a very competent Press Secretary for the Biden administration.

She will, no doubt, express her regrets for using that nickname for Leningrad Lindsey. Then, we'll move on to more important issues, perhaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:25 PM

68. I noticed.

I also have a few other observations on this matter as well. I won't go into great detail (for obvious reasons) but I do trust the opinion and guidance and sense of humor of my son and his husband when it comes to anything having to do with the delicate Southern Gentleman from South Carolina. (They always make me laugh... I love 'em to pieces.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:27 PM

75. Yes. Well, I'm pleased to see that this thread is not getting recced.

Perhaps there is a pattern to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #75)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:33 PM

82. You are not alone in that observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 03:26 AM

197. Thank you for pointing that out...

I might not have given this OP its well deserved recommend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:24 PM

66. Moving along

there is an impeachment trial going on about this guy who tried to overthrow our government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #66)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:28 PM

105. I know! Weird, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:26 PM

72. I don't like it either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:31 PM

80. Gosh, from the headline I thought she'd said it from the WH podium just today....

Let us not participate in the destruction of our own again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:36 PM

85. But Graham is straight. If anything this is just a tease for him being a wimp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:53 PM

89. Maybe give her a show on MSNBC

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 04:53 PM

90. I've heard some women say that their husbands sometimes

“whine like a little old lady”... I’ve never considered the remark homophobic, but rather a bit sexist.
But I’m a little old lady and I probably laughed when they said it and didn’t take offense. So I guess I have to take a pass on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:10 PM

96. You mean, five months before she became press secretary?

Good lord.

I agree with the poster down-thread who says it's mighty curious this is being dredged up the day that the Senate impeachment trial begins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mac56 (Reply #96)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:13 PM

97. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mac56 (Reply #96)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:37 AM

144. The OP has proven to be extremely interested in this particular subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 05:53 PM

100. She should say "I regret some people got upset at my choice of words". And move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #100)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:27 PM

104. Works for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #100)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:59 PM

110. Yes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vivienne235729 (Reply #110)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:15 PM

112. She should not apologize. She's nicer and more civil than anyone Trump ever had working for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #112)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:26 AM

137. She should delete the verbiage in question


and if anyone wants to harass her, tell them to go harass Republicans or better yet go fuck themselves


Remember Al Franken


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dalton99a (Reply #137)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:08 PM

147. Exactly! Remember Al Franken and go fuck themselves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #100)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:14 AM

134. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 06:05 PM

101. My guess is she will apologize and then check herself going forward. She seems a decent sort.

Republicans feigning outrage have motives that have nothing to do with doing with what is right and decent. They don't give a flying fuck about being homophobic or using slurs of any kind.

Searching out old tweets and old facebook comments is what people do - on both sides. We can pretend that isn't true but then we would be lying. It should come as absolutely no surprise that republicans are doing it hard and heavy.

Yes, republicans are hypocrites. It's pretty much the default for them.

I'm more than a little disappointed at some of the excuses for the slur used. Not surprised, really - but disappointed. It is a slur. It is a homophobic slur. Just because everyone says it or most people say it or a lot of people say it doesn't make it right. That's the same excuse people give/gave for using racial slurs - everyone does it or did it - it was what people said at the time - usually followed by - but they learned better.

Well, learn better now.

But that Jen Psaki will do the right thing, of that I have no doubt. I don't think her homophobic. I think her careless and insensitive in her choice of using the slur at that time. She'll do the right thing and everyone can all move on. Republicans won't, but then they're hypocrites.

I hold Graham in contempt and can find all kinds of colorful ways to express that that don't involve calling him "Lady G". I don't care what some sex worker said. Unless you have personal experience - with receipts - or Graham saying it - it is all speculation, innuendo, and gossip.

There's nothing wrong or bad or weak about being gay. There's nothing wrong or bad or weak about being a woman.

Who gives a fuck if Graham is gay or not? Yes, if he is then he's an even bigger hypocrite. And if he isn't then it is a big ball of ugly homophobia being thrown at him as a means of attack - because people know other people will think less of him for being gay. And how sad is that? To know people will think less of someone for being gay? And then to play on that bigotry?

There is something wrong with suggesting gay (LBTQ) people play a male/female dynamic when engaged in sexual activity - the whole "Who's the woman/man?" bigoted ignorance or suggesting that a gay man is somehow not masculine or a real man. Meaning, more like a woman - which suggests there is something lacking/less about being a woman. Same as saying a lesbian is somehow not a real woman if she doesn't conform to other people's views on what femininity means. And as there does exist a spectrum, this point extrapolates throughout.

This has nothing to do with role playing between partners, so let's not pretend it does.

There is something wrong in suggesting a man who doesn't fit your idea of masculinity is gay simply because of your limited and narrow definition of what it means to be a man. Or a limited and narrow view of what it means to be a woman, for that matter.

There's a spectrum, we all exist on it somewhere. It's part of who we are as a person and not a part we ought to attack in others.

Not even an obsequious piece of shit like Graham. He is a piss poor excuse for a human. His views and actions have caused harm for decades. I can't think of a single nice thing to say about him. Not that I've ever thought about it long enough to even try. Would be a waste of time.

















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:33 AM

123. And once again...

I was planning on writing to you in a PM because I didn't want to kick this travesty of a thread back to the first page, but then I thought, I really should comment to you directly for others to see, to see your example. Then, others started to kick it back up, so I didn't feel like I was re-contributing to this dumpster fire of a thread.

Your response, in my opinion, exemplifies the response of a true ally to the GLBT community. You don't engage in "whataboutism", you don't 'splain' to us, you don't qualify your opinion with the caveat of "some of my best friends/family are queer", you don't deflect with "concerns" about why this topic is up for discussion or parse the nature of the word "homophobia", you don't fixate on one extremist opinion, nor do you minimize the concerns of the GLBT community because "there are more important things". No, you state your opinion in a way that is clear that the comment is homophobic, but that Psaki is highly unlikely to be homophobic. A simple apology and a concerted effort to do better in the future is what you see as the answer; I agree.

But, you go further. You lay out why what was said was homophobic and presents a real concern for how this type of language is harmful, even if the target is our "enemy." You demonstrate how gay men, in particular, are made less than by particular stereotypes. And, yes, you also point out the rank and unsurprising hypocrisy of the right-wing and their "concerns" about homophobia, as well as other -isms. In short, you embodied an "allies response" to the article.

For all the reasons I stated above, things you didn't engage in, is the exact reason I didn't post this article 7 days ago. Frankly, I just didn't have it in me to experience the rank heterosexism and casual dismissal of homophobia, which, personally, I find to be homophobic. No, I felt it better to just let it slide. Sometimes, it is better to still think, pretend, you are a gay man, then face the obviousness that really, once you walk out the room, you aren't a gay man, you are really just another faggot.

I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate your speaking out as an ally. I feel validated. You exemplify what it is to be an ally to the GLBT community and I am glad you are here! I hope others read your response and learn from it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #123)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:46 AM

126. ...

I almost didn't reply in the thread myself, for all the reasons you can imagine. But, well...I do me.









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Solly Mack (Reply #101)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:56 AM

127. Very well said

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MustLoveBeagles (Reply #127)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:20 AM

130. You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:30 PM

115. I cannot believe the people here that think she should resign.

Sure it was not a cool thing to say. Not for me and especially not for someone that is in the international spotlight.

That said it is like (this is a slight deviation from where I started) people that think that only gay people can play gay characters in movies. Or only autistic people can play autistic characters in movies. Sure Tom Cruise being the Last Samurai....ok I lost my train of thought again.

I guess I'm not a purist or think every slight is worth killing people politically over ala Franken. ALL people have flaws. We all have them. We have likely all said or even...shudder..."thought" things that we now find wrong.

This is also akin to the "Old Bolsheviks" who were executed. Let's not purge the left until there is like one person left that never had an impure thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanMichael (Reply #115)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:41 AM

145. Purification helps Republicans, not Democrats

While Republicans get dirtier and more powerful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 07:52 PM

116. oh, so someone who goes by "Reverend Doctor Jill Biden Derek Hunter" is offended?

and called Psaki "Ginger Goebbels"?

yeah, they sound like a real authority on the subject. they can fuck right off with their faux outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 08:28 PM

117. For the record this is why liberals shouldn't say crap like this

but that said, an apology should be sufficient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Tue Feb 9, 2021, 10:27 PM

118. I really don't care do you??

As a gay man I don’t find this homophobic at all, but I’m sure a lot of mostly straight white folks will feign outrage; therefore, it would have been better if she didn’t say it but a simple apology would do if it becomes an issue. The people saying she should resign over such a silly thing come off as the worst caricature of right wingers mostly imaginary “cancel culture”.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:39 AM

119. I wouldn't mind hearing this apology from her

"I'd like to apologize to that fucking traitorous asshole Lindsey Graham if his delicate feelings were offended by the term 'Lady G'".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:49 AM

120. Let us all take a moment

To ponder the meaning of the suffix 'phobic'.

If anyone here truly believes that Jen Psaki has, "an extreme or irrational fear of....", then please state your reasons.

Otherwise, don't put the cart before the horse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to canetoad (Reply #120)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:31 AM

141. +1. Jen Psaki is a friend of the LGBT community and does not deserve this kind of swiftboating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:00 AM

129. She should apologize and move on

It was a stupid thing to say but nobody's perfect. It's likely she'll learn from this and not do it again. Let's not Franken her over one mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 10:53 AM

132. She should issue an apology.

But should not lose her job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:13 AM

133. Psaki is not a homophobe, and she is doing an absolutely outstanding job for Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:15 AM

135. Unfortunate, but hardly in the realm of the typical RW bullshit. Apologize and move on...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:28 AM

138. Boo hoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BannonsLiver (Reply #138)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:32 PM

154. I linked this thread to my son...

... he just rolled his eyes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:34 AM

143. My son is gay and he makes these kind of jokes about Graham

as have I a few times. I am not justifying it, I'm saying we're all human...and we're also not public people. We all have made distasteful jokes in private. I'm sure Psaki will give a sincere apology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:11 PM

148. I don't see this as homophobic

It's an insult directed at lacking masculinity, derived from his obvious lack of integrity and/or courage.

It's calling him a wimp.

Granted, it's an incorrect, outdated theme. We know that gender has nothing to do with courage and integrity. Men are no more likely to possess these things than women.

In the case of Graham, any such insult quickly gets interpreted as homophobic only because of his personality.

If someone called Ted Cruz "LadyC" for his spineless compliance to Trump, I don't think you'd see any accusations of homophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BruceWane (Reply #148)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:27 PM

149. To add to my own post.....

I do see this as sexist.

It's actually an insult to women; implying that women have less integrity and courage than men.

But this kind of thing is one of the last vestiges of our patriarchic culture. Hopefully it'll go soon, but I think it's not really being seen for what it is yet. It's a theme that is still used by an awful lot of women who are otherwise quite aware.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BruceWane (Reply #149)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 12:33 PM

150. +1

This is a good point. It's more sexist than homophobic. Accusing Graham of lacking courage or convictions is one thing (and true), but doing so by using a sexist stereotype is another (and false).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BruceWane (Reply #149)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:38 PM

157. No

That's not what it is.

Calling him LadyG isn't saying anything about women's integrity. It's mocking him for using a pseudonym to call on male prostitutes. It's mocking his hypocrisy, not his sexuality or gender.

Why try to turn it into all this it's not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BruceWane (Reply #149)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 03:12 AM

196. Wrong

It is suggesting he has less integrity and courage because he is a gay man who sides with the party against equal rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BruceWane (Reply #148)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:33 PM

155. Some in the LGBT community use this term as well...

... not to insult his sexuality, but in disdain for his being closeted.

But that's not my call, really. It's tempting to use the term, but I won't. It's not my place as a straight man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:38 PM

156. If I were going to be offended

it would be for a couple of reasons. It would be because I see the nickname as more describing graham as womanish. While I know there are rumors about his sexual orientation, I think the nickname alluded to his weak character, and people assume women are weak. Ha.

And I am offended this is being called out, because impeached traitor and his henchmen had no problem assigning nicknames to any and all, the more offensive, the better. And come to think of it, bush jr. had nicknames for people too. karl rove's nickname turd blossom comes to mind.

We should all avoid using offensive nicknames, not just because we aren't children, but also because everyone in the public eye is on tape and it'll come back to bite progressives and liberals harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 01:57 PM

160. Lady G has more to do with him being a client of escorts

Than his sexual orientation or identification.

I do not condone any comments regarding his orientation or identity. But his nickname used in participating in illegal activities is fair game. I don’t think it should be illegal, but it is and I don’t see him advocating to change the law, so it’s fair to use it against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MoonlitKnight (Reply #160)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:12 PM

161. Exactly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:16 PM

162. Good.

I hope she has enough sense to own up to it, learn from it, and to apologize.

(Posted before I read through the thread and get disappointed, again, at how many on DU still don't recognize how hurtful this homophobia is.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #162)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:42 PM

170. Are the gay sex workers who came up with the Lindsey nickname "Lady G" homophobes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #170)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 03:26 PM

176. First of all -

No one has directly and reliably linked that back to sex workers. It's all just rumor. So you'are justifying the use of a homophobic/transphobic/sexist slur based on nothing more than what may well be another homophobic rumor.

But to answer more directly - yes. Members of the LGBT community are not free from homophobia - and just like the paper bag test within the Black community, there is a hierarchy and discrimination within the LGBT community - and effeminate men are traditionally pretty low in the ranks.

Finally - naming, and gendering, is personal. Unless Graham chose that name for himself, it is inappropriate for anyone to impose it on him - any more than it is for parents to insist on deadnaming their trans child, or for members of the public to refer to someone by pronouns they have rejected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #176)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:16 PM

184. The link was made.

The alllegations were made on Twitter by gay adult film star Sean Harding, who indicated that “Lady G,” refers to Graham’s nickname among male sex workers.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/10/ladygraham-went-viral-not-just-because-lindsey-grahams-politics/

Are you saying Sean Harding is not credible because he is a gay adult film star?

And how do we know Graham didn't approve of the nickname in private?

Freddy Mercury privately had feminine nicknames for his closest friends. His name for Elton John was Sharon:

"Years before, Freddie and I had developed pet names for each other, our drag-queen alter egos. I was Sharon and he was Melina. Freddie's note read, 'Dear Sharon, I thought you'd like this. Love, Melina. Happy Christmas.' " https://www.smoothradio.com/artists/queen/elton-john-freddie-mercury-gift-story/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #184)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 11:46 PM

187. I'm saying that is second hand rumor.

Not to mention that what OTHERS call him is completely irrelevant to whehter WHAT they call him is homophobic/transphobic/sexist.

If Graham has not publically accepted the name, then no one has any business referring to him in public by that name. Names are personal, and it is important to respect the names people ask you to use (and not to use names they do not ask ou to use.)

How specific gay men refer to each other in private (with each other's consent) does not give the general public the right to use those names as an insult than the reality that some portions of the Black comunity use the term N***** with each other gives white folks the right to use the term

I can't imagine anyone using the word n*** on DU as an insult to Clarence Thomas' - or justirying its use by claiming it is being used merely to demonstrate his hypocrisy. But somehow it's just hunky dory to post homophobic crap here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #187)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 01:27 AM

191. Feminine pet names gay men give each other does not equate to the n-word.

And what Sean Harding said was not second hand rumor. It was not even hearsay. He was reporting what he heard gay male sex workers call Graham. That would be admissible in court for the truth of the matter asserted.



This prompted another male sex worker to post an article on the open blogging website Medium detailing an alleged encounter he had with “Lady G.” This article not only named the Republican senator, and outed him as gay, but included intimate details about the senator’s body, much like how Stormy Daniels was able to describe Trump's intimate body parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #191)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 02:09 AM

192. The principle is identical.

A group is entitled to reclaim hurtful words that have been used as insults atainst them.

The fact that some within those groups choose to do so does not give the general public the right to use those same words in the same way they have always been used against members of the group: as insults.

Period. End of story.

And as someone who teaches evidence, among other subjects, you're flat out wrong on the law. Feel free to ask any of the students I taught hearsay to a few hours ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #192)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 02:25 AM

193. No, it's not. And if Harding says he heard sex workers call Graham Lady G, how is that hearsay?

Harding is a direct witness of those utterances. Therefore, he can testify in court as to whether those sex workers called Graham Lady G.

And I'd love to talk to one of your students. Where do you teach?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #193)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 02:47 AM

194. He is reporting on what someone else said.

That's the most common form of hearsay. (Break the word down: What he heard someone else say).

Reporing on what someone else DID is not hearsay. Reporting on what someone else said is classic hearsay.

A standard definition of hearsay is an (1) out-of-court (2) statement (3) offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

The reported comments were made out of court (wherever Harding heard them).
The comments made by the sex workers are statements
They are being offered to prove, as true, that Graham is actually called "Lady G"

It can get a lot more complex than that - but that's a 10,000 foot hearsay lesson.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #194)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 03:04 AM

195. No, he is asserting that he heard specific sex workers call Lindsay Graham Lady G.

You have the wrong matter asserted for the 3rd element.

As you note, reporting on what someone did is not hearsay. That is what is happening. Harding is reporting on what he observed certain sex workers doing: calling Lindsey Graham Lady G.

Harding's observations are offered to prove that these specific sex workers called Graham Lady G. Harding is referring to SPECIFIC sex workers he actually heard talking about Graham, not all sex workers. So Hardings observations are not hearsay. He is simply stating what he heard these people say, not the truth of the matter asserted by these sex workers, i.e. that they had sex with Graham, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #195)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 03:40 AM

198. What they were DOING was speaking.

The moment you introduce the words they spoke (e.g. referring to Graham as Lady G) you are in hearsay land.

This whole sub-thread is about proving that sex workers refer to Graham's as Lady G, you can't prove that just by having Harding testify that he heard them talk. You have to introduce what they actually said. In other words what Harding HEARd the sex worker SAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #198)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 04:40 AM

200. The words are not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted.

This subthread is not about proving all sex workers refer to Graham as Lady G. This is about Sean Harding asserting that he heard gay male sex workers he knows calling Lindsey Graham "Lady G." That's it. You said that is hearsay. It is not.

Harding is just testifying that he heard these men state these words, not that the words were true. That is not hearsay.

For example, a witness testifying about hearing a defendant saying out-of-court slander in a slander action is not hearsay evidence. The plaintiff is introducing the evidence to prove the matter was asserted, not that what was asserted was true. In fact, the plaintiff seeks to show the' words are not true. But to win his slander case, the plaintiff must show that these specific words were asserted, a physical act. So he puts on a witness who heard the defendant say these words. The witness is simply testifying to what he heard. That is not hearsay since it is not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted (your third element of hearsay), only that it was asserted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #200)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 11:34 AM

203. If you want to prove that a specific sex worker called Graham,

You still need the content of the conversation - not the act of talking. If you need the acctual words used in order to prove your point, it is hearsay.

You still can't prove that he heard gay male sex workers he knew call Graham Lady G, without using the words he heard them say.

As to defamation, some things are not hearsay, by definition. Out of court statements made by a party (the defamatory statement), offered against that party (the defendant) fall in to a category of hearsay exclusions: things that would otherwise be hearsay, but we've decided to exclude them from the category. So you are correct as to the outcome (the defamatory statement is not hearsay) but your reasoning is wrong. But, unless the defendant in your hypothetical case is the sex worker, he is not a party, and his words are not being used against him, so the words he used don't fall into the exclusion that makes a defamatory statement not hearsay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #203)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 01:09 PM

207. It's admissible if Graham sued Harding for defamation for saying sex workers called Lindsey Lady G.

And again, you're skipping over the "truth of the matter asserted" element. He can testify that he heard certain gay sex workers he knows say, "I call Lindsey Lady G while we have sex." He is not introducing it for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that the sex worker actually calls Lindsey Lady G while having sex with him. He is just introducing it to prove he heard the sex worker say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #184)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 11:43 AM

206. Why the hell should we believe what this guy says?

I don’t care what he does for a living, but people lie about public figures every single day.

Hope that’s not news to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cwydro (Reply #206)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 01:16 PM

208. Why would you believe Lindsey? We KNOW that guy lies.

And no, it's not news that people lie every day about everything.

But there have been enough confirmed stories of anti-gay rights Republicans turning out to be themselves gay that the story is plausible. Am I 100% sure it's true? Of course not. Do I think it could be true? Sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Wed Feb 10, 2021, 02:48 PM

171. Apologize for nothing and use that Republican freedom of speech

Argument.

It was SARCASM based on the Senator's hypocrisy, not homophobia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 11:03 AM

202. it's 'fairly viewed' that way, but not widely.

it's been hotly debated on here for years. that and miss lindsey.

it's rly not as cut and dried as this report make it sound. absent the rest of his odious behavior, it wouldnt even be a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Original post)

Thu Feb 11, 2021, 11:37 AM

204. As I've stated before, people use that as a slur all the time in posts here.

Annoying, but she wasn’t the press sec at the time. I wish she hadn’t done it, but I’d hate to lose her because she’s good at her job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread