Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boing Boing)   How the NY Daily News, always a paragon of truth and impartiality, covered the Stonewall Riots in 1969. Poe's law just divided by zero   (boingboing.net) divider line 77
    More: Sick, Stonewall riots, Rapture of the Nerds, Stonewall Inn, With a Little Help, pirate cinema, Boing Boing, truth  
•       •       •

7644 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 8:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 08:34:05 AM  
Eh, the British tabloids would still cover it that way.
 
2013-01-23 08:35:01 AM  
Evil gays attempt to overthrow the government and replace it with a Sodom style of rule where man-sex is forced upon the unwilling?
 
2013-01-23 08:36:30 AM  
I could see The NY Post printing that verbatim today.
 
2013-01-23 08:37:35 AM  
Meh. Didn't seem all that bad to me. Then again, I'm not gay.

/nttawwt
 
2013-01-23 08:37:50 AM  
So what? The queers were just as uppity back then as they are these days.
 
2013-01-23 08:39:56 AM  
Times were different

It wasn't socially unacceptable for them to talk that way about homosexuals.

You cannot judge and damn someone from a different time because they don't match up to your norms. Ex-post facto is pretty damn unfair.
 
2013-01-23 08:45:24 AM  
I also have to say, it didn't seem that out there to me. Yes the terminology is not acceptable today, but we're talking 40years ago when you got called a homo if you cried when the doctor put down your dog.
 
2013-01-23 08:45:42 AM  

cman: Times were different


The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

4 Policemen Hurt In 'Village' Raid
"Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen were injured.

The young men threw bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter at the policemen, who had a search warrant authorizing them to investigate reports that liquor was sold illegally at the bar, the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square."

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.
 
2013-01-23 08:48:12 AM  

Xythero: cman: Times were different

The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

4 Policemen Hurt In 'Village' Raid
"Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen were injured.

The young men threw bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter at the policemen, who had a search warrant authorizing them to investigate reports that liquor was sold illegally at the bar, the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square."

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.


I found the article irritating more than offensive towards the end. By the time I was getting close to finishing, I kept thinking, "Yes, author, you're a homophobic asshole, we GET it!" The puns, oh my god, SO many puns.
 
2013-01-23 08:49:08 AM  

Xythero: cman: Times were different

The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

4 Policemen Hurt In 'Village' Raid
"Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen were injured.

The young men threw bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter at the policemen, who had a search warrant authorizing them to investigate reports that liquor was sold illegally at the bar, the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square."

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.


You are right; not everyone talked like that. But, it didnt have a social punishment to do that back then.
 
2013-01-23 08:55:46 AM  

cman: Xythero: cman: Times were different

The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

4 Policemen Hurt In 'Village' Raid
"Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen were injured.

The young men threw bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter at the policemen, who had a search warrant authorizing them to investigate reports that liquor was sold illegally at the bar, the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square."

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.

You are right; not everyone talked like that. But, it didnt have a social punishment to do that back then.


Social consequences: THE ONLY reason not to treat people different from you like shiat.
 
2013-01-23 08:59:13 AM  
Wow. Really had to reach today to find some anti-gay angle to get outraged at, huh?
 
2013-01-23 08:59:31 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: cman: Xythero: cman: Times were different

The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

4 Policemen Hurt In 'Village' Raid
"Hundreds of young men went on a rampage in Greenwich Village shortly after 3 a.m. yesterday after a force of plainclothes men raided a bar that the police said was well known for its homosexual clientele. Thirteen persons were arrested and four policemen were injured.

The young men threw bricks, bottles, garbage, pennies and a parking meter at the policemen, who had a search warrant authorizing them to investigate reports that liquor was sold illegally at the bar, the Stonewall Inn, 53 Christopher Street, just off Sheridan Square."

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.

You are right; not everyone talked like that. But, it didnt have a social punishment to do that back then.

Social consequences: THE ONLY reason not to treat people different from you like shiat.


No, but it is the greatest motivation. Humans are selfish individuals who would fark you over given the right chance.
 
2013-01-23 09:04:07 AM  
Read the NYDN article in the voice of a hard-boiled noir detective or Jack Webb and it goes from hateful to hilarious.
 
2013-01-23 09:04:26 AM  

cman: Humans are selfish individuals who would fark you over given the right chance


More proof of my inhumanity.
 
2013-01-23 09:10:03 AM  

Xythero: cman: Times were different

The Times was different. Here's how they reported it:

So no, even in the ancient 60's, not everyone talked like that.


The Times is a respected, respectable newspaper, with a damned fine crossword. The Post is like single-ply toilet paper made from recycled cardboard.

One would expect the Times to be more reserved, and the Post to be more cheeky.

// or "asshole-y", if that suits you better
// but watch most portrayals of gays in TV/movies before about 2003ish - it's all limp-wristed, lisping, mincing, fashion-conscious gossip-whores (or any 3 of those 5 stereotypes; Will & Grace was among the worst)
 
2013-01-23 09:12:51 AM  
"Forgive us if we're more concerned with Indians and blacks"--from MAD magazine, a couple of years later.

Link
 
2013-01-23 09:13:30 AM  
Obviously subby has never seen the Help Wanted ads from the 50's and 60's
 
2013-01-23 09:13:56 AM  
Yawn.
 
2013-01-23 09:16:49 AM  

doubled99: Wow. Really had to reach today to find some anti-gay angle to get outraged at, huh?


Seriously, get over it.

Another poster said: You cannot judge and damn someone from a different time because they don't match up to your norms.

You know, it's not just one person's norms, it's over 90% of the population in general.
 
2013-01-23 09:18:29 AM  

Dr Dreidel: // but watch most portrayals of gays in TV/movies before about 2003ish - it's all limp-wristed, lisping, mincing, fashion-conscious gossip-whores (or any 3 of those 5 stereotypes; Will & Grace was among the worst)


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-23 09:19:31 AM  

cman: Humans are selfish individuals who would fark you over given the right chance.


You sound like a neoliberal economist.

From an anthropological perspective, humans are an incredibly cooperative species. Note that cooperative doesn't mean altruistic, but that it means we're not inherently or constantly seeking to screw over others to get ours.
 
2013-01-23 09:19:42 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: Eh, the British tabloids would still cover it that way.


Fox too.

Cold_Sassy: Seriously, get over it.

Another poster said: You cannot judge and damn someone from a different time because they don't match up to your norms.

You know, it's not just one person's norms, it's over 90% of the population in general.


Yep. It's ancient times. It's not like any of those attitudes or problems still exist or anyone from that time is still alive or in power.
 
2013-01-23 09:23:17 AM  
All of the comments on the article and none of them mentioned the fact that the 1969 title of the article in the library where it was copied from was "Homo Nest Raided, Queen Bees Are Stinging Mad".

The title can express an opinion a lot better than the article if the person writing it so chooses.
 
2013-01-23 09:24:32 AM  

cman: You cannot judge and damn someone from a different time because they don't match up to your norms.


Sure I can. Especially when, in addition to being homophobic, the article was petty and childish.
 
2013-01-23 09:24:42 AM  
Just...interesting. Not necessarily offensive, just interesting.

Historians are taught that they cannot cast judgment on their sources--it's not kosher to force today's social standards on, say, a reporter from 1969. (Was he homophobic? I don't know, and neither do you.) However--if we're going to look at this from the perspective of "holy shiat that's stupid," then even I will state that Jebus that article made me cringe.

/...at least he didn't call them Marys
//That's just downright offensive, no matter what era you live in
 
2013-01-23 09:25:32 AM  

Happy Hours: Dr Dreidel: // but watch most portrayals of gays in TV/movies before about 2003ish - it's all limp-wristed, lisping, mincing, fashion-conscious gossip-whores (or any 3 of those 5 stereotypes; Will & Grace was among the worst)

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 256x192]


Also
www.sitcomsonline.com

// I didn't mean "all" as in "100%"; more like "95%"
// and I can only speak for American TV
 
2013-01-23 09:25:36 AM  

Zombie Eater: Read the NYDN article in the voice of a hard-boiled noir detective or Jack Webb and it goes from hateful to hilarious.


You mean from hilarious to more hilarious.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:26 AM  

misanthropologist: cman: Humans are selfish individuals who would fark you over given the right chance.

You sound like a neoliberal economist.

From an anthropological perspective, humans are an incredibly cooperative species. Note that cooperative doesn't mean altruistic, but that it means we're not inherently or constantly seeking to screw over others to get ours.


You...have a very optimistic view of society. Some might say naive.
 
2013-01-23 09:26:30 AM  
Not a big surprise given that the Daily News and the Post were basically on opposites back then- the Post was more liberal while the Daily News was the HURR DURR newspaper of record.
 
2013-01-23 09:29:00 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Happy Hours: Dr Dreidel: // and I can only speak for American TV


Go watch BBC America, especially shows like Top Gear. If that's any sort of metric, then in the UK it's still ok to make gay jokes.

/James May is married, for chrissakes
//Still cute
///In a British kind of way
////Would hit on Richard Hammond any day of the week
//Clarkson can eat fa...cigarettes...
 
2013-01-23 09:30:11 AM  

INeedAName: I also have to say, it didn't seem that out there to me. Yes the terminology is not acceptable today, but we're talking 40years ago when you got called a homo if you cried when the doctor put down your dog.


You'd still be called a homo for crying about your dead dog, at least if your dad was a "real man".
 
2013-01-23 09:32:09 AM  

Cythraul:
I found the article irritating more than offensive towards the end. By the time I was getting close to finishing, I kept thinking, "Yes, author, you're a homophobic asshole, we GET it!" The puns, oh my god, SO many puns.


Since I have never read an article from that paper during that time period, it seemed like the author was a full time comic book author with a day job at the news. One thing for sure was that he was trying to be funny and from today's culture it is not even close to funny.
 
2013-01-23 09:32:47 AM  

Dr Dreidel: ...but watch most portrayals of gays in TV/movies before about 2003ish - it's all limp-wristed, lisping, mincing, fashion-conscious gossip-whores (or any 3 of those 5 stereotypes; Will & Grace was among the worst)


This is very true. It's hard to believe how much things have changed in the past 10-20 years. I have friends who try to be a little too politically correct, I love watching things like SNL from the early 90s or In Living Color and seeing them cringe and convulse at the things you just can't do today unless you're being "ironic".
 
2013-01-23 09:37:52 AM  

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Dr Dreidel: ...but watch most portrayals of gays in TV/movies before about 2003ish - it's all limp-wristed, lisping, mincing, fashion-conscious gossip-whores (or any 3 of those 5 stereotypes; Will & Grace was among the worst)

This is very true. It's hard to believe how much things have changed in the past 10-20 years. I have friends who try to be a little too politically correct, I love watching things like SNL from the early 90s or In Living Color and seeing them cringe and convulse at the things you just can't do today unless you're being "ironic".


What do you guys think of the two gays on modern family? They're not the flaming "two snaps up" of living color but they are pretty stereotypically gay.
 
2013-01-23 09:38:34 AM  

maram500: Just...interesting. Not necessarily offensive, just interesting.

Historians are taught that they cannot cast judgment on their sources--it's not kosher to force today's social standards on, say, a reporter from 1969. (Was he homophobic? I don't know, and neither do you.) However--if we're going to look at this from the perspective of "holy shiat that's stupid," then even I will state that Jebus that article made me cringe.

/...at least he didn't call them Marys
//That's just downright offensive, no matter what era you live in


A guy I used to work with said 'friend of Mary' was still in use in the gay community. He also asked me if I was 'family' when we first met.
 
2013-01-23 09:38:44 AM  

maram500: shows like Top Gear


Watched a bit of it - the guys are funny, but I'm not really into cars. If they (or the Stig) did a run on the course with a 2002 Echo (or similar; before they went Yaris), I'd like to see it. I drove one of those 100,000 miles, and the only time it ever needed work was when it got hit (and the OBDC needed replacing because the comm lines went out - WTF?) - I'd like to see how a real driver handles it.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the price of crinoline in Stonewall?
 
2013-01-23 09:41:07 AM  
If the article is supposed to make me upset, it's not working.

You should hear us gays talk about ourselves; it's a lot worse.

As for Jeremy Clarkson, his "outrageous" comments are funny (to me) because he's not being judgmental or hateful; they have gay guests on all the time, and you don't see them upset at him.
 
2013-01-23 09:43:56 AM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: maram500: Just...interesting. Not necessarily offensive, just interesting.

Historians are taught that they cannot cast judgment on their sources--it's not kosher to force today's social standards on, say, a reporter from 1969. (Was he homophobic? I don't know, and neither do you.) However--if we're going to look at this from the perspective of "holy shiat that's stupid," then even I will state that Jebus that article made me cringe.

/...at least he didn't call them Marys
//That's just downright offensive, no matter what era you live in

A guy I used to work with said 'friend of Mary' was still in use in the gay community. He also asked me if I was 'family' when we first met.


He was asking if you were a homosexual.
 
2013-01-23 09:48:11 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: What do you guys think of the two gays on modern family? They're not the flaming "two snaps up" of living color but they are pretty stereotypically gay.


I don't actually watch it. But do the Jodie Dallas test. (Soap is one of my favorite old TV shows - like an early Arrested Development.)

I just came up with it, but basically, since Jodie was one of the first openly gay characters on TV (in 1978), is the portrayal you're comparing to more or less "offensive" (or "stereotypical"; whatever your metric) than Jodie?

// I don't count the first 6-7 episodes (Jodie's sex change/suicide arcs) of the series, as Susan Harris was still "finding" the characters
 
2013-01-23 09:48:39 AM  

misanthropologist: From an anthropological perspective, humans are an incredibly cooperative species. Note that cooperative doesn't mean altruistic, but that it means we're not inherently or constantly seeking to screw over others to get ours.


That's what libertarians would call "enlightened self interest".

/ducks
 
2013-01-23 09:52:35 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Debeo Summa Credo: What do you guys think of the two gays on modern family? They're not the flaming "two snaps up" of living color but they are pretty stereotypically gay.

I don't actually watch it. But do the Jodie Dallas test. (Soap is one of my favorite old TV shows - like an early Arrested Development.)

I just came up with it, but basically, since Jodie was one of the first openly gay characters on TV (in 1978), is the portrayal you're comparing to more or less "offensive" (or "stereotypical"; whatever your metric) than Jodie?

// I don't count the first 6-7 episodes (Jodie's sex change/suicide arcs) of the series, as Susan Harris was still "finding" the characters


I haven't seen Soap in many years so I can't compare.
 
2013-01-23 09:56:34 AM  
Satanic_Hamster [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2013-01-23 09:19:42 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: Eh, the British tabloids would still cover it that way.

Fox too.

Cold_Sassy: Seriously, get over it.

Another poster said: You cannot judge and damn someone from a different time because they don't match up to your norms.

You know, it's not just one person's norms, it's over 90% of the population in general.

Yep. It's ancient times. It's not like any of those attitudes or problems still exist or anyone from that time is still alive or in power.


Of course, you could choose to not give a shiat about other people's attitudes and problems regarding how they think about you.

Or you can claim others' attitudes are thought crime and something should be done.
 
2013-01-23 09:58:30 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: I haven't seen Soap in many years so I can't compare.


Do yourself a favor and rewatch it.

// *sputter* *sputter* *stupid face* *sputter*
// "thbbbbthbppbpbthpp Grampa!"
 
2013-01-23 10:01:23 AM  

Dr Dreidel: maram500: shows like Top Gear

Watched a bit of it - the guys are funny, but I'm not really into cars. If they (or the Stig) did a run on the course with a 2002 Echo (or similar; before they went Yaris), I'd like to see it. I drove one of those 100,000 miles, and the only time it ever needed work was when it got hit (and the OBDC needed replacing because the comm lines went out - WTF?) - I'd like to see how a real driver handles it.

Anyway, what does that have to do with the price of crinoline in Stonewall?


The point was that, assuming television programs (programmes?) can be used as a reliable standard, gay jokes are still acceptable on the other side of the pond.

/What the HELL is crinoline?
 
2013-01-23 10:03:58 AM  

Zombie Eater: Read the NYDN article in the voice of a hard-boiled noir detective or Jack Webb and it goes from hateful to hilarious.


Interesting. I had a similar reaction, but read in the voice of Lieutenant Frank Drebin.
 
2013-01-23 10:08:37 AM  
You've come a long way baby
 
2013-01-23 10:12:48 AM  
Doesn't sound all that different from the talk I and my teenage cohorts were talking back in 1992, in Chicago.

Back when the police might not raid gay clubs, but subjected gays to malign neglect, making the Lincoln Park area a mugger's paradise.
 
2013-01-23 10:16:21 AM  

maram500: The point was that, assuming television programs (programmes?) can be used as a reliable standard, gay jokes are still acceptable on the other side of the pond.

/What the HELL is crinoline?


I love the Brits. The humor is so dry, anything goes. No one ever gets het up, either because everyone has a sense of humo(u)r or because there's less of an antagonistic undercurrent in England. I feel like there's always a fight brewing in the US, even between strangers passing on a crowded street; whereas in England, there's always a pot of tea brewing.

// crinoline
 
2013-01-23 10:17:05 AM  
Can't find it ATM, but the Village Voice was not much kinder.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report