2012 Election | Activism | Glitterati | Jon Stewart | News

Jon Stewart Mocks Gay Glitterbombers: VIDEO

Glitter_stewart

Jon Stewart mocks the glitterbombings of candidates (along with at least one of the candidates themselves) by gay activists, which he calls "more clever than a pie in the face but less clever than something actually clever."

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Yeah, can someone explain to me the purpose of glitter bombing? I personally see none. Wouldn't it be the same as a black person throwing a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken at someone who disliked blacks? I mean, what's the point?

    Posted by: Oliver | Feb 17, 2012 8:12:55 AM


  2. I have to agree that glitter bombing is idiotic. It's frustrating that those who seem intent on doing it just can't grasp how ridiculous it looks.

    Posted by: LiamB | Feb 17, 2012 8:18:41 AM


  3. Mitt is just constant boot in the mouth as a candidate with a microphone. I understand he's campaigning in Michigan as was asked something as simple as "Tigers or Red Sox?" and blew that even. Not even a "I like both teams."

    Posted by: MarkUs | Feb 17, 2012 8:31:27 AM


  4. Glitter bombing is like masturbation. It might make the person doing it feel good but it won't help him make any friends.

    Posted by: Bill | Feb 17, 2012 8:33:49 AM


  5. He's right on the mark! I've never understood it. In MY day, we threw CONDOMS at politicians to get the point across. All Mittwit and Sanctatorum did was turn glitter bombing into an "I must have won because I'm already covered in confetti!" moment.

    Time for the old queens to show the young ones how it's really suppose to be done.

    ACT UP, babe, ACT UP.

    Posted by: 99% | Feb 17, 2012 8:36:02 AM


  6. It has to be noted in every one of these posts: All this glitter bombing is being done by a straight guy. It is not gay activists.

    Posted by: endo | Feb 17, 2012 8:48:04 AM


  7. Glitter bombing is the step from the pie in the face actions toward people like Anita Bryant. It's useless and counter productive.

    What upsets me is that people say that the whole Santorum Google problem is just because of his comments on same sex marriage. The comments made about Man on Dog, by Santorum, were made with regard to the decriminalization of sodomy in the Lawrence v Texas decision. He wanted us to remain criminals and then made that comparison.

    Posted by: PTBoat | Feb 17, 2012 9:07:21 AM


  8. But, perhaps I'm wrong?

    Posted by: PTBoat | Feb 17, 2012 9:08:56 AM


  9. The guy who glittered Romney is facing time in federal prison. This is a criminal act. It isn't cute or fun.

    They should arrest the trans activists who glittered Dan Savage and send them to prison. A men's prison.

    Posted by: Vincenzo | Feb 17, 2012 9:17:39 AM


  10. I think it's not an unreasonable thing to do. Clearly it's not intended to hurt anyone (good); it's also intended to raise awareness of a politician's negative position on gay rights issues (good); the media only cover the glitter-bombing and not the reason WHY that politician was glitter-bombed (bad, because the greater public isn't edified about that politician's negative view of gays/gay rights; etc. I have no problem with the glitter protests, I do have a problem with media outlets (including John MSM Stewart) reporting about the bombing, but ignorint the bomber's reasons for doing so. If you're going to report about the bombing, report the entire story. Yes, glitter-bombing looks ridiculous if the message behind the bombing is completely ignored. Very typical MSM approach to "reporting" these days.

    Posted by: Dan Cobb | Feb 17, 2012 9:27:59 AM


  11. One could make the case that passive resistance in the form of a lie-in, for example, is also acting like "petulant children" that chaining oneself to a fence is acting like a petulant child, that chanting what ever slogan is childish. What ever you feel about glitter bombing it IS getting press coverage and continues to draw negative attention to these candidates. What Jon perhaps does not understand is that Santorum thinks of gay people as being silly and frivolous and sinners, so in a way glitter bombers are throwing that back in his face

    Posted by: Paul in Charleston | Feb 17, 2012 9:32:13 AM


  12. Glitter-bombing is stupid and categorically counter-productive. Jon is totally right. This stupidity has to stop. It won't win anyone over to our side.

    http://commonwealthcommentary.blogspot.com/2012/02/open-letter-to-glitterati.html

    Posted by: ROBfromVA | Feb 17, 2012 9:41:44 AM


  13. My main problem with glitter bombing (and pie in the face, etc) is that it sets a precedent wherein someone who disagrees with the target runs up and throws something on the target. If we do glitter on anti-gay bigots, how long before someone on their side throws acid or some other harmful material on one of us?

    Posted by: Duck | Feb 17, 2012 9:44:33 AM


  14. I completely agree. I supported this the first few times it happened, but now I find it just embarrassing.

    Posted by: JC | Feb 17, 2012 9:51:39 AM


  15. Of course nobody covers the reason for the glitter bombings. Because glitter bombings can't and won't be understood as some kind of argument, because: they are not. Throwing objects at your opponents is no form of communication - it will only raise awareness for the act of throwing, not for the reasons. And you can't compare these bombings with forms of passive resistence. The latter doesn't ridicule people. No discussion can be continued or started by ridiculing people. Period!

    Posted by: benwick | Feb 17, 2012 10:26:54 AM


  16. I do not understand the comparison (or maybe I just find it in poor taste) between gays and glitter, and blacks and KFC (re:Oliver)

    That being said. I agree that throwing something at anybody, regardless of how non-threatening an object it is, defeats what I assume is the purpose. Hell shout them down with what you take issue but throwing something, even some sparkly, only brings attention to the act rather than the issue at hand.

    Posted by: Matt | Feb 17, 2012 10:41:54 AM


  17. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks glitter-bombing is stupid and at this point counter-productive. +100 re: Bill's comment.
    Endo, is it true that the glitter-bombing is done by one straight guy? How do you know this? I've never read anything about any individual who has glitter-bombed.

    Posted by: MichaelJ | Feb 17, 2012 10:52:27 AM


  18. It's true. Nick Espinosa is the activist behind glitterbombing. He's glittered Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney.

    He's straight.

    Posted by: endo | Feb 17, 2012 11:24:27 AM


  19. Add another voice to the anti-glitter-bomb chorus. It hasn't been clever or interesting since the 2nd time it was done. And to those complaining that the media doesn't report one the motivations of the people doing it, shouldn't effective protest be self-explanatory? If people have to look to a secondary source, a report in the paper or on TV, in order to understand whatever point it is you're trying to make then you're defeating the purpose.

    It's important that we maintain the high road because our cause IS the morally and ethically correct one and maintaining our dignity throws their pettiness into greater relief. And acting like Rip Taylor on The Gong Show circa 1977 isn't the way to to do that.

    Posted by: Caliban | Feb 17, 2012 11:27:37 AM


  20. @Vincenzo, your comments are pretty ugly and disgusting. Send the trans activists to a men's prison? With the implication that they will be raped. Cute

    Posted by: JEsus | Feb 17, 2012 11:55:06 AM


  21. @Jesus. Agreed wholeheartedly. It's always unfortunate coming to this site (which is commented on mostly by accepting people) to see ignorant comments like that.

    Posted by: matt | Feb 17, 2012 12:13:18 PM


  22. Waste of good glitter. It's like 'make-up on a pig', 'perfume on a skunk', 'glitter on santorum'.

    Posted by: SFRowGuy | Feb 17, 2012 12:15:01 PM


  23. It's time to stop the glitter bombs.

    Posted by: db | Feb 17, 2012 12:17:47 PM


  24. I don't know that this is anything more than, as BILL above so nicely opined above, an act that makes just the person doing it happy. As for being harmless, I also don't know that I'd fancy getting glitter in my eyes. Seems at the least, irritating, and at worst, potentially damaging. An assault. Past time to rethink this strategy. Any suggestions?

    Posted by: TJ | Feb 17, 2012 1:46:07 PM


  25. Really? I am disappoint, America. These are people who will taser you for speaking out against them. Remember those 'Occupy' guys at Santorum's rally. Don't you think that's an assault? I am flat out agreeing that glitter-bombing is an assault. If you are prepared for the consequences, you should do it.

    Some of you keep saying that it isn't in our best interest, or that it is counter-productive. You are the stupid ones if you think rational, logical arguments will sway the Bachmanns and Sontorums in America. They dislike you because a book tells them to dislike you. They don't need a reason to dislike you. The rational arguments are all played out. Trust me, at this point SHAME is productive.

    Civil disobedience is a valid political strategy.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 17, 2012 2:29:29 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Snowboarding with Light: VIDEO« «