Skip to main content

Case #2,946,771 of Political-Correctness Going Too Far: Kevin Hart

More times than not I agree with political-correctness. I'm also not a big fan of Kevin Hart's comedy (or films). Having said that, I think him losing his Oscars-hosting gig due to a couple of age-old homophobic tweets is going a bit far.

Why do we seem to hold comedians to a higher standard than politicians? If Donald Trump had to resign due to an offensive tweet, the guy would never have lasted through the Republican Primary, let alone the general election. Comedians get paid to push the envelope. Sometimes they may go too far, but that's part of the gig. When it comes to their comedy, the big question with regard to socially-sensitive issues like homophobia is, "Is this the epitome of a homophobic comedian or is this a comedian who has dabbled with homophobic jokes in the past, but said jokes aren't representative of his/her material on the whole?" Hart's tweets were certainly homophobic, but they were from years ago, and it appears as though he's evolved on the issue since that time. It's been documented that comedians Sarah Silverman, Amy Schumer, and Chelsea Handler have posted homophobic tweets as well (from years ago). Would they be held to the same standard if they were announced to be the next Oscars host? None of these comedians have showcased themselves to be homophobic. They've all appeared to evolve on the matter. Isn't who they've become today of greater importance than who they were 5 to 10 years ago?

Like racism and sexism, homophobia is most certainly wrong. People can change, though, and it does a disservice to continually try and hold down former -ists who have evolved than it would to embrace their positive growth. Nobody's perfect, and those who acknowledge their faults and work to improve upon them are in a better place than those who simply point out others' imperfections.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...