In the wake of the 2016 Golden Globes, it seems like all that social-justice warriors want to talk about is the offensive things that people said during their speeches — like Quentin Tarantino using the word “gh*tto” or Ricky Gervais making a joke about Caitlyn Jenner.
But here’s the thing: Like anything that involves that many white people, the Golden Globes is in itself offensive — and we must stop focusing on the little stuff and start figuring out how to stop this atrocity altogether.
In case you’re not smart enough to understand what I’m saying, please let me explain. Obviously, it was very offensive for Tarantino to use the word “gh*tto” as slang in his acceptance speech — a real slap in the face to all underprivileged people in disadvantaged communities — but is it really all that surprising that he did? After all, we’re talking about a ceremony that’s called the “Golden Globes,” a name that suggests that our planet is nothing but sparkling and beautiful.
Hey, Hollywood Foreign Press Association! You know who might not find the globe so golden? The bajillions of people out there who are not at your ceremony because they’re too busy suffering from horrors like starvation and genocide and microaggressions. If you’re going to name a ceremony something egregiously offensive, you shouldn’t be shocked to hear someone use language that fits the same description.
The same goes for Gervais’s Caitlyn Jenner joke. Yes, it was offensive. But what else could you expect from someone hosting a ceremony where there are already strong forces of transphobia pulsing throughout the room? After all, don’t forget that the Globes still divides awards into “actor” and “actress” categories — despite the fact that gender is obviously a spectrum. Some people are transmasculine, some people are transfeminine, some people are somewhere in the middle. Some people are gender fluid and flip back and forth. What if someone identified as an female during the nomination process, but then switched to a different identity before the ceremony? Any event that would risk putting someone in that kind of awkward situation is obviously horrible and must be stopped.
And it gets worse: Not only does the HFPA separate based on gender, but it also separates into categories such as “comedy” or “drama” — as if it what is and is not funny is not determined by each individual based on his/her/other experiences. There are an infinite number of triggers out there, and flatly declaring a movie to be a “comedy” is completely ignorant to the fact that some might consider the film to be more traumatic than funny. Oh, and let’s not forget about all of those people out there who suffer from “pseudobulbar affect,” a neurological disorder which causes involuntary, uncontrollable episodes of crying and/or laughing. These people already feel bad about crying or laughing at “inappropriate” times throughout their lives — do we really need to label our entertainment in such a non-inclusive way?
#share#Is this making sense? It’s not what people like Tarantino or Gervais said in their speeches that’s the issue — it’s the fact that they would be so insensitive as to even attend such a problematic event in the first place.
Thanks for listening. I hope I’ve changed your mind. If not, please stay tuned for my next piece, which will discuss the tragic climate footprint of the ceremony — which, between flights and cars for travel and the meat that is served, will no doubt have you standing with me in the virtual picket lines of Social Justice Internet protesting next year’s offense-tivities.