FOF #1048 – A Tale of Two Cities

Aug 31, 2009 · 1985 views

Premium Content

You need to be a Feast of Fun Plus+ member to access this.
Join now or Log in – it's easy!

Special two hour call-in show with Mike Rogers on outing closeted anti-gay politicians, rumors on Perez Hilton and Michael Jackson and suicidial swiss cows.


  1. David Dust says:

    Thanks for the link!!!

  2. Andy says:

    Great you have a call-in show again. I think would it be good to have one from time to time.
    Unfortunately could not stay up late but maybe next time, so I can give you a call.

    And I am so going to post this church study all over the Internet. 馃檪

  3. good talking to you again boys, glad we could.

  4. corey says:

    I have to disagree with Fausto’s comments regarding banning hate speech. The whole point of having freedom of speech is being able to say whatever you want–good and bad. What you are not free from though, are the repercussions that arise from what you have said. The idea of having the government decide what classifies as hate speech and what does not leads my mind to a scary place.

    I also don’t feel that just because someone doesn’t believe that gay people should get married makes them bigoted or hateful. Religious views can be extremely myopic, but many people are following their dogma. If 95 percent of the worlds’ religions don’t condone homosexuality, we need a better argument.

    • Aren’t 95% of the worlds religions are wrong on many many things Corey?

      Free speech is a right, and you lose that right when you use it to incite violence against others. That’s why it’s illegal to yell “fire” in a theater. This guy is yelling “kill gays.” If you can prove that people took his words literally, then he’s responsible and can be held accountable. Just watch “Law and Order.”

      This is a common plot of many of their episodes! Any lawyers here who can help clarify what this kook’s liabilities are?

  5. I don’t think it is a privelege to have your sex life a secret its a right no matter your profession. But you should also not stay closeted and be true to yourself.

    • Don’t we all have some right to privacy? I think that right is gone when you hurt others by fighting politically to keep them (and yourself) down.

    • Justin says:

      @flambebrulee… The “secret” aspect of outing closeted anti-gay legislators is a moot point. What if it were an OPENLY gay person whom was advocating anti-gay laws? Would pointing out their stance as being hypocritical be somehow more justified?

      If somebody’s in a position to make YOUR sexuality an issue, then it’s fair-play to make an issue out of THEIR sexuality.

  6. matt says:

    If the wrong people get in power, our speech will be the hate speech like Russia.

  7. Marcin says:

    “Don’t take a bunch of fairytales written by some delirious bumpkins a couple of millennia ago as a literal truth.” How’s that for a “better argument”, Corey?

    There is no reasonable discussion with people who believe the claptrap called “mainstream religions”. All the arguments are already on the table. If, despite all this, someone chooses to remain willfully ignorant (whether through some mental deficiency or other reasons), then you can’t really do much, other than contain them.

    Hate speech legislation serves exactly that purpose.

  8. corey says:

    Fausto…yes, religions are wrong about many things but arguing with someone’s deity-based belief structure can be damn-near impossible. “Sorry, that’s what the bible says.” “It’s what I believe.” I just feel that a better way to approach the argument is to acknowledge their beliefs while countering that they have chosen to live in a society (at least here in the US) where all beliefs are welcome. So while they might not feel that gay people should be able to get married, they need to understand that a government for all beliefs can’t legislate based strictly on their own.

    As for the kill the gays nut job, I don’t remember if you mentioned in the podcast that he said things specifically like that. That I would consider dangerous speech, but I would still hesitate to restrict it. Yelling, “fire!” in a theater can lead to a dangerous panic, but just because someone yells to kill someone, it doesn’t mean everyone listening takes immediate action and starts killing people.

    • corey says:

      And if one of his followers were to take his advice, he would/could be found to some extent responsible in the eyes of the law and there is the consequence for his right to say what he feels.

      I just have extremely strong feelings with regards to the first amendment and any possible restrictions on it.

  9. Curtis says:

    hey guys, just wanted to clarify my tweets (it is impossible to have meaningful discussion via 140 character limits). I really must take umbrage to your characterization of the Wendy Williams/Ericka Toure Aviance incident. First I agree that the producers may be “just doing their job” and their primary interest is to put all focus on the host of the show. Those are legit observations. However you are mistaken when you assert that Ms Aviance was flouting the dress code for the show, and therefore has no leg to stand on as a person hurt by her treatment at the hands of the producers. The dress code information that audience members where supplied with is not the same drab conservative one you were supplied with at the Jerry Springer show ( A VERY different kind of show). At the time of taping of that particular show the code specifically encouraged “trendy attire” “dress to impress” and “bright colors” (the website has been updated to encourage business casual first but still references colors and such). It discouraged only the wearing of shorts, logo’d attire, hats, sunglasses and casual tank tops. Ms Aviance, whose drag is more edgy NY street fashion than typical big haired glamor puss drag queen was not in violation of the rules and in fact was attending the audience with every belief that she was going in the complete spirit and energy of the show. Her hair, though a wig, was no different than that of nearly every over the top female audience member. Her makeup was similar. Have you seen the show – all the women in the audience look like drag queens.

    Wendy Williams entire shtick is lifted entirely from queer and drag culture. She is in fact little more than a broad stereotypical drag queen herself, bewigged (sometimes very badly) and slath3ered in thick obvious clownish makeup. The language and bits she does on her show IS that of the urban faggot and queen.

    Ms Aviance and her entire party of fellow audience members went to that taping as though they were attending an audience with a sacred personage. If you listen to the podcast she appears on you know that they LOVE Wendy Williams, they revere her, (they were in fact the first place I ever heard mention of her well over a year ago). They have done more promotion of Wendy Williams show out of pure love for her than the Wendy Williams Show has done for itself. They attended entirely out of love for Wendy Willams, obeying the rules supplied and in the spirit of the enterprise and were treated rudely and disrespectfully by the producers who were “just doing their job”.

    You were very dismissive of her and what you are asserting were her motives. You paid no attention the aspect of the story that it is completely bizarre for a show that relies entirely on Gay culture for all it’s cues and humor and has an audience that is likely reliant on it’s heavy gay base for it’s very survival would then treat one of our more visible and outre members as though they were a pariah and not welcome. It’s basically a situation where the Wendy Williams show is saying “I’ll steal my entire act and career from you, exploit you for my own ends, but don’t you dare show your face around here even as a friend”. It’s also not as though the Wendy Williams show discourages bizarre outre colorful behavior on the part of it’s audience. It encourages it. There is an element of hypocrisy at work here.

    I would defend you just as fiercely if someone accused you of misbehavior unfairly.

    • That certainly does sound like her side of the story. Thank you for sharing it with us.

    • Wendy Williams has had a long history of being a voice out there who questions her own African American listeners presumptions on homophobia and gender. She calls herself a drag queen.

      And we’re ready to throw it all out the window just because one single drag queen showed up at her studio and didn’t like the way she was treated?

      How many times have we’ve had to deal with someone who shows up at an event in costume with an attitude bigger than the costume? She might, might have given the producers the evil eye and said “I hope they mess with me.”

      RuPaul was right, drag queens have a reputation of being crazy and unstable, but of course that’s not a reflection of all of them. As someone who’s spent many nights of my life out in drag, and in places that weren’t always friendly to drag queens, you have to take into consideration people’s surprise when they see you out looking fierce and fabulous.

      I understand her frustration, but if she wants to dress like a lady she needs to act like one and be patient, understanding and generous.

      I was chatting with some of our listeners via instant message about the incident, and the simply replied, “she’s trouble.” I repeated the gossip and for that I’m sorry. I don’t know her.

      But, rather than engage us, or start a conversation, all she’s done is post on her facebook that we can suck it.

      She could have contacted us to explain things, instead she’s trying to tell other people to shut us up. All we’re doing is asking questions.

      Which proves my initial point, she’s a troublemaker. And she can create all the trouble she wants, just leave me out of it. I want to move on and celebrate people who do things and not those who tear people down.

Leave a Reply

Login or Register

Facebook Conversations