Teletubby says "Faggot, Faggot"
Kent Parks
("Po") talking doll says something that sounds like "faggot, faggot". The
company denies this of course, but someone called in and played it, and I
swear, it really does sound like that. I wasn't crazy about the way they
handled it on the air (I mean, if a doll was saying the "N" word, I don't
think they'd have been giggling about it, but what do you expect from
morning radio shows, especially Bob), but this was the first I'd heard of
it. Anybody just happen to have one? :)
Kent
JJM
program? Dear lord it is frightening. Babies forming in the sun, creatures
drowning by a lake spontaneously filling up and covering the astroturf land,
and the Teletubbies are basically walking television antenna.
brigham
> I heard this on Bob & Madison today--it is said that the red Teletubby
> ("Po") talking doll says something that sounds like "faggot, faggot". The
> company denies this of course, but someone called in and played it, and I
> swear, it really does sound like that ...
I was at Roses last night & saw the odious Teletubbies on display and
squeezed 'em. Let me tell you, they are some potty-mouthed little aliens.
One said, "Inky winky tinkle winkle tinky ..."
Another said, "I came again! I came again!"
[no lie.]
And the "faggot faggot" doll actually sounded more like "craygoh, craygoh."
Most of the noises the teletubbies made were actually gibberish & nonsense
words.
Those pond scum morning radio mouths regularly play with and outright fake
things for a "laugh" or to be inflammatory. (Madison - you are so better
than that.)
<><><><><><><><><><><><>
Bob Brigham
Carrboro, NC
rbrigham.s...@med.unc.edu
[delete spam.begone to reply]
Victoria Gardner
>
> Those pond scum morning radio mouths regularly play with and outright fake things for a "laugh" or to be inflammatory. (Madison - you are so better than that.)
>
For years now, I've been hearing a rumor about a certain morning radio
personality, who shall remain nameless. That this person is a lesbian but
closeted to keep her job. Anybody want to weigh in on this one?
Mark A. Zumbach
> For years now, I've been hearing a rumor about a certain morning radio
> personality, who shall remain nameless. That this person is a lesbian but
> closeted to keep her job. Anybody want to weigh in on this one?
I've heard this also. But after listening to the G105 show in the
morning, and discovered how class-less it really is. . . I say we don't
claim her even if she does come out. I once thought WRDU had the
tackiest moring show on, then it was replaced by those hicks out of
Charolotte (Joe Bob and Billy) - but Bob and Madison take the cake.
Make mine nothing but WUNC in the morning (except for fundraiser week,
which is a total bore if you've already sent in your check).
--
***********************************************************************
Mark Arthur Zumbach
e-mail: mazu...@unity.ncsu.edu
snail mail: PO Box 12271, Raleigh, NC 27605
webpage: http://www4.ncsu.e$uo~mazumbac/
***********************************************************************
brigham
> For years now, I've been hearing a rumor about a certain morning radio
> personality, who shall remain nameless. That this person is a lesbian but
> closeted to keep her job. Anybody want to weigh in on this one?
This and Mark's posts bring up all that Outing controversy.
Morally I'm pretty aligned with the stance "a closeted lesbigay person must not injure another lesbigay person or the greater community, or through inaction, allow a
lesbigay person or the greater community to come to harm. Violation of this principle may be grounds for outing." (If the beginning sounds a little like Asimov's
first law of robotics, oh well.) Wanting someone to be out just because of the potential good he or she could do with their celebrity, tempting as that is, isn't
enough.
Well, unless the community is under systematic attack. Do the murders of a young queer this year, a lesbian couple last year, and who knows how many others before who
never made national headlines qualify as "systematic?" Especially when considered with other assaults, institutionalized homophobia, legislative denial of civil
rights, etc.? And other kinds of harm can be so relative - was the provocative teletubbies skit harmful? And who gets to judge - each one of us? That's a lot of
widely varying individual standards to live up to. So many shades of gray here ...
Take George Michael. While publically closeted he worked unapologetically for AIDS service and research organizations. His personal choice for years was not to
disclose his sexual orientation, yet he also used his celebrity to work on behalf of those with HIV. Did he owe the lesbigay community more - that final personal
disclosure? Sure, as a younger gay kid I would have thrilled to know by his own statement (not just my own gaydar) that he was as queer as me, and it would have been
another brick in my foundation of self acceptance and respect, but was that GM's job? (Moot point now.)
Yeah, I'd like for celebrities as a matter of honor and pride to speak openly about whom they love, but Clinton's troubles have clarified for me that the sexual
relationships, orientation, etc. of public figures deserve a great deal more privacy than they've been given of late.
Then again, are we as a community on yellow alert? Red? Some days there's nothing I'd like better than to run up and down the streets outing everyone who has carved
a little piece of their own and declined to face the same slings and arrows the out folks do, thereby reducing the danger and burden to us all.
sk...@intrex.net
here at All About Eve. I suppose she needs to stay in the closet to
keep her job.
<mazumba...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
>Victoria Gardner wrote:
>> For years now, I've been hearing a rumor about a certain morning radio
>> personality, who shall remain nameless. That this person is a lesbian but
>> closeted to keep her job. Anybody want to weigh in on this one?
>
Mark A. Zumbach
<<<lots of valid and good stuff>>>
Bob, I think you make a lot of good points. The outing issue is always
a tricky one - especially when we're talking about a public figure (like
a radio personality), who is not and elected official. Now in the case
of someone like Mayor Fetzer (who has been at the center of his own "is
he? or isn't he" rumor mill for about a hundred years), It seems pretty
straight-forward that there would be valid reason for outing. That is,
he's gone on record as being anti-gay - he's helped in the on-going
harassment of the gay bars in Raleigh - so exposing him as a hypocrite
has some political validity (I'm not saying it's right or wrong - I'm
just saying I see the point).
Now let's take the example of the radio personality . . . I've listened
a few times when her co-host has made anti-gay remarks, and there were
no protests from her. I've heard humor which seems pretty gay-baiting,
like the teletubby skit. I've also heard said personality go on and on
about men who are "10's" and her date with mayor Tom. Is all of this
harmful? Maybe not to me. . . but at 40 years old I have a pretty good
self concept and I let a number of thing roll off my back. . . but what
about the 13 year old, queer kid, who's wondering if she (or he) is the
only one in the world. With the absence of any positive gay images on
said radio station, and only negative ones put out there, _isn't_ she
being harmful? You know, silence can be just as big a killer as the
outright hateful statements.
As I said in my previous post, I hope it's not true. Based on the tacky
morning show she's a part of, I really, really hope she's not a member
of our community.
-Z
***********************************************************************
Mark Arthur Zumbach
e-mail: mazu...@unity.ncsu.edu
snail mail: PO Box 12271, Raleigh, NC 27605
webpage: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mazumbac/
***********************************************************************
jca...@my-dejanews.com
"Mark A. Zumbach" <mazumba...@unity.ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Now let's take the example of the radio personality . . . I've listened
> a few times when her co-host has made anti-gay remarks, and there were
> no protests from her. I've heard humor which seems pretty gay-baiting,
> like the teletubby skit. I've also heard said personality go on and on
> about men who are "10's" and her date with mayor Tom. Is all of this
> harmful?
The circumstances where I think outing is warranted are: (1) if she has a
hand in developing or presenting a segment which is anti-gay, (2) if she has
knowledge beforehand of an anti-gay segment to be presented (this is the "Bob
& Madison" show, so even if she didn't help develop something, that will be
the perception when it's aired).
Otherwise, I don't think she has the responsibility to respond to Bob's
off-the- cuff anti-gay remarks. And if she wants to go on and on about men,
fine. In general, I don't think public personalities have any
_responsibility_ whatsoever to come out.
If we want to encourage people to come out, we should encourage people to
come out to family, friends, and co-workers. This has much more of an impact
than a public personality, in my opinion.
Jay
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jca...@my-dejanews.com
sk...@intrex.net (no....@helpme.com) wrote:
> My SO sees her at his gym with her lover. Also, a former friend saw
> here at All About Eve.
Lover? Were they having sex in the steam room? I heard she was at Evening
with Friends. Maybe she has AIDS too.
Playing Devil's Advocate,
Jake Coughlin
> If we want to encourage people to come out, we should encourage people to
> come out to family, friends, and co-workers. This has much more of an impact
> than a public personality, in my opinion.
the two cases of coming out which you describe, i.e.
{family, friends, co-workers} and {one's public audience},
occur in different spheres, have different intents and
different outcomes. i really don't think you can compare
them meaningfully. hence, i find your conclusion ("has
much more of an impact") a rather dubious claim.
part of the argument for outting "celebrities" is the fact
that they operate with an influence and audience that the
rest of us lack, and that influence, as the argument goes,
comes with a responsibility to its audience. some might
claim that a fundamaniac's hearing that gay people are normal
causes them duress, but personally, i find the government
figure that 1/3 of teenage suicides are definitely due
to sexual orientation *much* more compelling as evidence
of the duress that bigotry causes. of course, whether
outting Madison, if she is a lesbian, would do the community
any good is an open question, and a question which probably
depends in large part on Madison's character, which, given
her "personality" (cough), i'm not all that convinced is
worth the attention.
--Jake Coughlin (ja...@panix.com)--
"[...] when leaders foster a climate of prejudice, as in the days of Jim Crow,
they give cultural 'permission' to less scrupulous followers to inflict
violence upon their targets." -- David Gergen, U.S. News and World Report
Jake Coughlin
> sk...@intrex.net (no....@helpme.com) wrote:
> > My SO sees her at his gym with her lover. Also, a former friend saw
> > here at All About Eve.
>
> Lover? Were they having sex in the steam room?
at this point, i can't tell whether the rumor is the fantasy
of some homo or some straight guy, but i guess i'm supposed
to understand that lesbians only have sex in the steam room
with their lovers. bless their hearts!
anyway, my favorite phrase in this exchange: "former friend".
jca...@my-dejanews.com
Jake Coughlin <ja...@panix3.panix.com> wrote:
> the two cases of coming out which you describe, i.e.
> {family, friends, co-workers} and {one's public audience},
> occur in different spheres, have different intents and
> different outcomes. i really don't think you can compare
> them meaningfully. hence, i find your conclusion ("has
> much more of an impact") a rather dubious claim.
It was an opinion, not a claim. I don't disagree that there are differences.
But I would rather have 100 of Madison's listeners come out to their families,
than her come out to listeners.
> part of the argument for outting "celebrities" is the fact
> that they operate with an influence and audience that the
> rest of us lack, and that influence, as the argument goes,
> comes with a responsibility to its audience.
What is that responsibility exactly? I think a public personality should be
outted if they are actively doing something anti-gay. If they are simply
silent, they have no responsibility to come out. You can't force someone to
be an activist or role model, no matter what their potential in that role.
