If making a several-minute-long homophobic rant 'as a joke' (a joke so funny that he apparently didn't want the public to see it because the video was unlisted), in a way that is entirely indistinguishable from actually hating gay people, is somehow not 'strong evidence' of being homophobic then I have no idea what is.
There is generally room for interpretation with satire, but I am finding it extremely difficult to give this particular person the benefit of the doubt.
If Mel Brooks filmed himself talking about how Nazis are great in an entirely serious tone, other than the bit where he laughed about how funny it was so many Jews died and calling it fantastic (Pogo did exactly this with the Pulse shooting), never releasing the footage, and then years later somebody found the footage and everyone was mad at him for liking Nazis, and then he said it was a joke and people shouldn't be mad at him, then it would be like this situation. But it isn't, it's completely different.
Do you also think the Nixon tapes weren't evidence of Nixon being anti-Semitic? If he had just said he really didn't mean it and he was sorry, it all would have been okay?
you'll note that this is from last year, before the current controversey
> “I don’t think feminists ever do what they preach. I think it’s always an ulterior motive. I think it’s a divisive cult that doesn’t achieve much more than a flock of self-entitled narcissists at the end of the day. I’ve never liked them. I’ve always thought that driving a wedge between the genders seems like a funny way to achieve equality.”
> “I think the left is bringing about the destruction of Western civilization, personally.”
> “I don’t want to make massive generalization or anything, but I think female accountability is a myth. I think under the banner of feminism, females will never be held accountable for anything. You should not critique a woman unless you are prepared for the consequences.”
It counts as evidence of your poor judgement and terrible moral compass. Especially when you espouse other opinions that are toxic trash and are highly correlated to the previous ones.
The benefit of doubt has been long used up on these topics. If you hold these opinions today as an adult you made a concious choice to be a bigot.
I’m saying demonstratably bad positions will be called out as such.
Doesn’t matter if they are or are from progressive people. So please stuff that strawman somewhere else.
Things may have gotten worse, but there was never a time when you could freely say without consequences whatever you thought in whichever social group.
It may have felt like that if you were part of a privileged group and did not stray too far.
The choice isn't automatic: abritinthebay apparently does endorse a hostile interpretation of any speech by people who "hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years" and "made a concious choice to be a bigot", which I believe makes both comedy and nuance impossible, but at least they're honest about it.
ADDED: For those who apparently disagree with me, does anyone seriously dispute that jokes of a certain slant are going to be acceptable in some circles and considered in very poor taste in others?