Post: #1

I could barely get through this video. Watching someone apologize like such a fag is so agonizing.

Post: #2

I always lose respect for men who bend the knee for victim groups.

Post: #3

don't everybody hate paparazzis anyway, why the fk is he apologizing

Post: #4

This is like an agonizing, awkward scene from superbad made into reality. Apologies didn't save Donald Sterling either, why bother.

Post: #5

Does anyone really care about what this fat fuck does?

Post: #6

(06-04-2014 11:44 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Does anyone really care about what this fat fuck does?

America, we care more about someone famous' opinions and verbal blunders than local and state politics, education, healthcare, the earth, etc., combined.

Post: #7

(06-04-2014 11:44 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Does anyone really care about what this fat fuck does?

Unfortunately they do, which is why he felt an obligation to apologize. The LGTGBBQs started a big fuss about it.

Post: #8

"How to lose respect for a heterosexual man in one video."

Post: #9

This is fucking embarrassing. I had to pause it at the 30 second mark and I couldn't watch past 45. If you pay attention, you can feel your T levels drop precipitously just by watching this shit.

Apologizing by sucking a gay dude's dick on camera would have been less embarrassing.

Post: #10

He has a movie releasing this summer. It's just damage control so it doesn't tank in theaters in case the homos wanna protest it.

Post: #11

You can't judge celebrities and famous people in the same way you'd judge one of us for reacting this way. Kdog has nailed it.

If you're in the media, you absolutely have to subscribe to their agendas in order to thrive in that business. His repercussions could be massive for trying to let it slide and coming on TV and sticking by his stance that calling someone a faggot for pissing him off is fine.

If I had to apologise at the investment bank I used to work at for calling someone a faggot for the sake of my career, I most likely would've done it. If I was in the spotlight like Jonah Hill is, I would've definitely apologised. There's a massive backlash millions of people over for someone in his position.

I suppose that's the price you pay by being in the spotlight. You must tow the line.

Post: #12

I'd think a lot of gay protest would boost a movies ratings, damage control should be done after the free publicity. A pr miss play in my eyes

Post: #13

Gotta please the peons.

Post: #14

(06-04-2014 11:58 AM)Skye Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 11:44 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Does anyone really care about what this fat fuck does?

America, we care more about someone famous' opinions and verbal blunders than local and state politics, education, healthcare, the earth, etc., combined.

And we wonder why the US is going down the tubes...

Post: #15

Quote:If I was in the spotlight like Jonah Hill is, I would've definitely apologised.

He already made millions... if anyone is any position to tell the PC police to fuck off, it's him.

Post: #16

There's a manly way and there's a pussy way to apologize. This was the latter. You can acknowledge you said something offensive, but also indict the oversensitive PC climate at the same time.

If I were forced to apologize, because it would hurt my career, I would have said something like this. This is as far I would concede:

"I was angry and, in the heat of the moment, called this guy a--pardon my repeating the word--'a faggot.' I used the word as a general insult, not unlike Louis CK uses it in his very famous comedy act. In retrospect, it was a poor choice of words--especially since people, in this politically correct climate that we live in, are ready to jump on anything that smacks of 'breaking the rules.' Everyone knows that I have nothing but love for gay people, and don't harbor hatred to people who like taking it, or giving it, in the ass. It's interesting that none of my gay friends are offended. I'll choose my words better in the future, but let's all learn something from this: words can be offensive, but intention matters too."

Post: #17

What a faggot

Post: #18

Just think of the mentality of the society we live in, where we can witness this kind of spectacle.

A person basically grovels like a beaten dog for using an "offensive" word.

Post: #19

Good news for Jonah: the mob approves of his groveling...

Quote:It's such a well constructed apology, it's almost diabolical.

"Use me as an example of what not to do," is practically poetry. I feel like we're on a date and Hill is saying all the right things. Please, Jonah, keep murmuring these words of compassion and social awareness into my ears. You're totally going to to score tonight (no homo).

http://gawker.com/jonah-hill-issues-perf...1585900792

Post: #20

(06-04-2014 03:22 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Good news for Jonah: the mob approves of his groveling...

Quote:It's such a well constructed apology, it's almost diabolical.

"Use me as an example of what not to do," is practically poetry. I feel like we're on a date and Hill is saying all the right things. Please, Jonah, keep murmuring these words of compassion and social awareness into my ears. You're totally going to to score tonight (no homo).

http://gawker.com/jonah-hill-issues-perf...1585900792

How is saying 'no homo' acceptable to the PC crowd?

Post: #21

This was actually the second apology he made for this. He was on Howard Stern a couple days ago too.

Post: #22

(06-04-2014 03:20 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  Just think of the mentality of the society we live in, where we can witness this kind of spectacle.

A person basically grovels like a beaten dog for using an "offensive" word.

QC, this is disgusting and despicable but not really new to the current society. This kind of maternalism run amok in which the most important thing is that no one can ever "offend" anyone else hearkens all the way back to the Victorian era and what might be called the "first wave" of maternalism.

This was well described in an excellent online comment on an essay about maternalism that Days of Broken Arrows posted about on the forum some months ago.

Quote:The problem I have with this analysis is that it is presenting this transformation as something new, of recent decades. This seems to be a common theme; conservatives trot it out constantly. Everything was some way until some point in time, then everything went awry. (The inverse of the Progressive view, in which everything was awful until they arrived and made things better, although... there is always a long way to go, etc etc).

It does not take much historical research to realise that this maternalist view has a long history, and that this is basically a resurgence of it, a "second wave". The first wave? The Victorian Era, Victorian values. It is oft ignored that the driving force of that cultural revolution was a religious fervour, and the driving force of that was upper class women. By the end of the revolution, the men who "ran" society has internalised the maternal values of those women; women from Hannah More to Josephine Butler to the Pankhursts, Susan B Anthony and Jane Addams.

The maternalist values we see in this second wave are identical to those of the first and, once more, being imposed at the political level by a mixture of female dominated campaigners and compliant males, whether in activism or politics. Temperance, the white slave panic, obscenity hysteria, the infantilisation of everyone, the promotion of a lifestyle interventionist state... all of this is identical to that of 100 years ago, even down to a new masturbation panic (nowadays the cod-science is "rewiring brains" and "addicted to brain chemicals" and so on). There is nothing new about this at all. And, just as last time, it is the "moral domination" of women- the basic idea that women represent a preferable moral ideal, and are the guardians of it- at its source.

In between, we had a period where the bourgeois matrons stopped "minding the store" and everyone got distracted by Marxism, etc; and thus a reactionary anti-puritan liberalism appeared in the 1960s- a period which is now suffereing a ruthless damnatio memoriae as the Second Wave bites.

But the idea that this is some New Thing is just plain wrong. This is the Victorian/Progressive Era Mark II. And there is no "zombie" feminism. Feminism, as a movement, is always and only those upper class matrons, and their puritans ideals. whatever "wave" you want to call it. The so-called "gender" or "radical" feminists were simply a revival of the likes of Addams, Anthony, Butler and Pankhurst and the Social Purity Movement, with a new gloss on it. As Spinal Tap said, "The more it stays the same, the less it changes".

It is important to remember that this kind of social climate is not something entirely or radically new, and owes a great deal to some of the worst undercurrents of the (otherwise glorious) Anglo-American tradition.

Post: #23

(06-04-2014 03:26 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 03:22 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Good news for Jonah: the mob approves of his groveling...

Quote:It's such a well constructed apology, it's almost diabolical.

"Use me as an example of what not to do," is practically poetry. I feel like we're on a date and Hill is saying all the right things. Please, Jonah, keep murmuring these words of compassion and social awareness into my ears. You're totally going to to score tonight (no homo).

http://gawker.com/jonah-hill-issues-perf...1585900792

How is saying 'no homo' acceptable to the PC crowd?

"No homo" makes everything acceptable, and not homo at all.

For example:

Saying "I love sucking guys dicks and getting fucked up the ass. No homo.", means you are not homo.

More seriously, i thought "no homo" is standard for liberals to say. Not really for the enemies of liberals to say.

Post: #24

Would this even be considered news if journalism in the US was legitimate? Oh yes, I forgot. The PC Nazis have to teach the rest of us how to behave or else. Or maybe it is in honor of LGBT year, LGBT month, LGBT hour, or LGBT second.

Post: #25

(06-04-2014 03:39 PM)cooledcannon Wrote:  More seriously, i thought "no homo" is standard for liberals to say. Not really for the enemies of liberals to say.

Right. I think the link was pretty liberal if I'm not mistaken. It seems to me as an outside observer that the PC police would find 'no homo' offensive because it implies that the speaker thinks being a homosexual is a bad thing and wants to break the association. It's exactly the same thing as saying 'I'm not a fag'.