2012 Election | Activism | Glitterati | Jon Stewart | News

Jon Stewart Mocks Gay Glitterbombers: VIDEO


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."



Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I've agreed with Jon over the past five hundred comments he's made about repubs, and I'm gonna have to agree with him on this.

    Sorry, glitterers.

    Posted by: sparks | Feb 17, 2012 3:02:19 PM

  2. Throwing anything at or on someone isn't "civil" anything. By all means protest, but leave the glitter in third grade classrooms where it belongs.

    You're absolutely right that civil discourse isn't going to change the minds of the Santorums, Bachmanns, or Romneys of the world. But neither is a handful of glitter. People like them are HOPELESS due to the religious dogma they adhere to instead of actual morality or ethics. If you're waiting for the bright light of reason to dawn on them or shame at their rhetoric and behavior, don't hold your breath.

    It's the people who aren't lost causes who need to be reached and it's calm reason that will eventually wear away their resistance. All glitter-bombing gets you is "Some jerk just threw something! Oh, glitter. Well, you know how much those gays like sparkly sh*t!" I'd hardly count that as a "win."

    Posted by: Caliban | Feb 17, 2012 3:47:38 PM

  3. Depends. Shame will change some of their bigotry, especially the more superficial types of religious people concerned with appearances. Shame will not change the staunch fundamentalist religious people, I agree. But Santorum and Bachmann have a platform and use (or misuse) that platform. They contribute to the anti-gay rhetoric responsible for a culture that promotes abuses against gay people.

    They think that homosexuality is a sin, immoral, and an evil act. They think they can cure you of a psychological problem. They provide legitimacy for people who demonize gay people. And when confronted with scientific studies they claim that the studies require interpretations. When confronted with logic, they shrug and say that the Bible tells them what to think.

    Shaming them is not always for the purpose of changing their minds. Haters gonna hate. Shaming them is to shut them up, to change the tone of discourse by changing the rhetoric. I would wager that there are still quite a few racist people in the US even though most people wouldn't think of using the N-word EVER.

    If you are worried about bullying and about the stigma that young gay people face, especially in certain pockets of the country that are heavily fundamentalist, then you should be supportive of changing the rhetoric. One way to do that is to shame people into silence. I think Jon Stewart is wrong on this one.

    Posted by: Jon | Feb 17, 2012 4:08:43 PM

  4. Enough. Stewart is correct, this is not clever and serves to annoy rather than engender sympathy, support and/or understanding.

    Posted by: Bill_IE | Feb 17, 2012 10:05:24 PM

  5. glitter bombing is so dumb

    Posted by: Reality | Feb 18, 2012 9:52:22 AM

  6. I was so disappointed by Jon, and his magnificent staff, which he typically has such a firm grip on.

    Kidding aside, the 'petulant children' remark was inexcusable. If nominees were virulently anti-Semitic, calling for the conversion of Jews to a 'real' religion, supporting violence against Jews, advocating disenfranchisement of Jews from public settings and offices, and brandishing misinformation about his people in a disrepectful and hateful way....and activists began tossing challah at them in response, I guarantee it would not be met with this level of disrespect and chastising.

    It wasn't an arbitrary action. It's not being done without provocation. As mentioned, let's see some journalism, exploring the reason for the protest and outrage. You know, a novel though for the news; both sides of the story.

    Posted by: Georgia Unity | Feb 19, 2012 10:29:28 AM

  7. And, isn't it ironic (but not at all uncommon) that the perpetrators of hate like the Republican nominees (who are far from innocent) face NO FINES and NO PENALTIES for hate speech, infringing on the rights of others, building up riot-level hatred in the masses, etc., but a man who engaged in non-violent civil disobedience is imprisoned?

    No, it's business as usual for those in power, and those who oppose them. Two sets of rules.

    Posted by: Georgia Unity | Feb 19, 2012 10:33:16 AM

  8. « 1 2

Post a comment


« «Snowboarding with Light: VIDEO« «