Joan Jett Drops a Cherry Bomb of Truth Over Ted Nugent Best Guitarist Diss: 'He Has to Live With Bei
Consider the source. That was Joan Jett‘s pointed retort in a new interview in which she was asked to respond to right wing rock ranter Ted Nugent‘s unsolicited shot at her in January, when he claimed she didn’t belong on a list of the best rock guitarists.
“You have to have s–t for brains and you have to be a soulless, soulless prick to [include] Joan Jett,” Nugent said in a video he posted in December in which he belatedly reacted to a list originally published by Rolling Stone‘s David Fricke in Dec. 2010. Nugent was not included on Fricke’s list, while Jett came in at No. 87. He doubled-down on his misogyny at the time with an added dose of homophobia. “I love Joan. Some of my greatest memories include lesbians. I love the lesbians; it’s a cocktail of wonderment,” he said.
Nugent then topped his hateful rant off with some racism and transphobia. “By the way, if Grandmaster Flash is in the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame and Joan Jett is on the list of top 100 guitar players, then I’m Caitlyn Jenner’s boy toy,” he said.
In an interview with the NME about her new first-ever acoustic album, Changeup, Jett shrugged off Nugent’s potshot, dryly noting “Neither should he… Is that his implication? That he should be on the list instead of me? Well, that’s just typical – it’s what I’ve dealt with my whole life, being written off. Ted Nugent has to live with being Ted Nugent. He has to be in that body, so that’s punishment enough.”
= new reply since forum marked as read
I was thirteen, my first concert. Went with my friends older brother.
300,000 people. I was awestruck.
300,000 people, elbow to elbow... the ground shook, your ears rang... it was insanity
check out the band list:
Aerosmith, Foreigner, Heart, Santana, Mahogany Rush, Dave Mason, Rubicon, Bob Welch and Ted Nugent
?w=738
I thought that was just a western New York slam against egotistical crappy guitar players. 
I guess when your ego starts playing riffs your fingers can't pick it spreads far and wide. 
What he said does not meet my standards for calling his speech misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, or racist.
Consider:
He did not say Jett didn't belong on the list because she's female.
He did not say there's anything wrong with being a lesbian, in fact he said he loves lesbians. In a creepy/pervy way, yes, but not in a homophobic way.
He did not say that Grandmaster Flash shouldn't be in the R&R HOF because he's black. That would be ridiculous on it's face. I'm sure he has no problem with Hendrix being in it, for example.
He did not say there's anything wrong with being transgender.
These words like racist and homophobic have specific meanings/criteria, and I'm sorry but his comments really don't objectively meet any of those criteria.
IMHO people should stop being so dang sensitive, because all it does is play into the hands of childish jackasses like Nugent who get off on pushing liberals buttons like this, whose real goal is to paint us all as snowflakes. I feel like we should be stronger than them, not let them bully us.
A better angle on this, in the article, would be to ridicule his sophomoric attempt to annoy liberals (along with presenting what JJ said, which was obviously awesome).
That said, I'm just another (mostly) straight white cis-male (who doesn't give much of a fuck what anyone says about me, because I know who I am) so there's a good chance I don't fully understand 
I don't like when we cheapen powerful words like racist, homophobic, pedophile ... by applying them at the slightest opportunity.
"Ignoring a gay woman’s talent and accomplishments and reducing her to his girl on girl porn fetish is both homophobic and misogynistic."
If you start from the position that Joan Jett is legitimately NOT 'Top 100 Guitarists of All-Time'-worthy ... which I think is reasonable to argue ... then really all the dude is guilty of by his actual words is being a bit pervy. But honestly most straight men dig lesbians for prurient reasons like this. Some of them may also be homophobic, but a great many of them are not
Mostly my issue is with letting dickheads like this manipulate us, as he's clearly doing.
Joan herself handled it PERFECTLY.
This author, OTOH ... did not handle it like I'd prefer.
Better to just ridicule these people and their attempts to annoy us than get into redefining offensive concepts like 'homophobic' to mean anything we can even remotely shoehorn into that class. It cheapens these powerful words, and makes us look over-reactive ... which is THEIR GOAL.
MHO, fwiw.
"My God, look how sensitive these people are! I didn't say a word bashing lesbians, gays, trans people, or people of color, and look how 'the media' reacts ... calling me all these names ... apparently everything a guy like me says is homophobic, racist, etc".
This is his game, and the game of many who think like him. He planned this out, and the author of the article did exactly what the asshole was fishing for.
IMHO it's better to ridicule these pathetic attempts to tweak our sensibilities with their 'straddling the line of offensive' bullshit, as he was clearly doing here.
That's what I'd call 'operating from a position of strength'.
Coming across like we're horrendously offended by everything some jackass like Nugent says? Not a position of strength.
S'what I'm getting at, perhaps clumsily
But is it 'homophobic' and 'sexist'?
It's offensive, but I'd probably not say it's unequivocally those more extreme things, in and of itself.
And this is where I part with a lot of my liberal breathen is on the definition of such words.
I want to maintain the power of them by not overusing them, and others disagree and like to apply them ... copiously, shall we say?
I also want us to ridicule these people more than be offended by their childish attempts to get under our skin.
It was such an obvious ploy, and the article's author here responded exactly like Nugent wanted 'the media' to do, I think.
Joan, OTOH, responded brilliantly 
