web
counter
 

Conservative Wingnut Believes Boone from "Lost" Is a Terrorist Threat to Humanity

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (27)



10139419.jpg

I get a huge kick out of Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog, a movie site basically devoted to uncovering liberal bias in Hollywood. Most days I’m impressed with their ability to transform something that I perceive as benign into something that the conservatives over on that blog see as evil or destructive. They’re capable manage to find seven or eight stories a day that either highlight the good deeds of one of the few conservatives in Hollywood (Kelsey Grammer, Cliff from “Cheers,” or one of the site’s champions, Greg Gutfeld) or blow some liberal soundbite way out of proportion. Anyone that defends Obama is immediately brought up for ridicule and anyone that questions, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement is considered a hero. They’re also on top of this Kardashian divorce, or course,

Yesterday, in their insane eagerness to paint liberal Hollywood as pansy pagans, they took a quote that most of us would pay little attention to and ran with it, brushing up against the edges of Godwin’s Law. Apparently, Ian Somerhalder (“Vampire Diaries,” Boone from “Lost”) is an environmentalist, and those environmentalist are prone to saying crrraaaazy things in the pages of that socialist newspaper, USA Today:,

“We humans are like cancers: We multiply and take, take, take. Now I want to give, give, give.”

Now, when I read that quote, I see a guy passionate about environmentalism, and maybe a guy given to hyperbole, but ultimately, someone who wants to use his celebrity to help clean up the Earth. The cynic in me also sees it as PR stunt, an opportunity for Somerhalder to build some goodwill by attaching his name to an environmental project.

What does Big Hollywood see?

An article that was quick to point out his TV cred, as well as the near 1 million Twitter followers he has, is highlighting his environmentalism - where he calls human beings “cancer.” Is USA Weekend aware of how dangerous this kind of talk is?

The last person to talk of human beings this way was James Lee, also an avowed environmentalist, who tried to take hostages at the Discovery building in Silver Spring, MD. Along with planting bombs on himself, and around the building, he had a list of demands for Discovery channel, which included:

The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs….where solutions to save the planet would be done…. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.

“Parasitic human infants.” “Cancers.” This is who USA Weekend wants our kids to look up to and follow on Twitter.

Woah, woah, woah. A guy that wants to “give, give, give” is suddenly dangerous and destructive, and calling humans cancers in the context of the environment is suddenly on par with a delusional f*ck-nut who believed that TLC was encouraging the birth of “parasitic human infants.”

That’s a mighty big leap to take. But I applaud you, Tony Katz, for having the chutzpah to do so without planting your tongue firmly into your cheek.

No wonder conservatives are afraid of liberals! Their pundits keep proclaiming that we’re all on the cusp of committing terrorist acts. One minute Ian Somerhalder is cleaning up trash on the beach, and the next, he’s strapping bombs to himself and taking hostages. And USA Today is pushing that terrorist agenda to our kids!

Yeesh.

(Source: Big Hollywood)










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Which of These 5 Actresses Is Best Suited to Play a Porn-Star with a Bottomless Gullet? | TotalFilm's 50 Worst Film Performances









Comments

I'm pretty sure Kelsey Grammer never played Cliff on "Cheers", unless he was secretly far more versatile an actor than I was lead to believe.

Posted by: bleujayone at November 2, 2011 11:37 AM

Bleujayone, there was a comma. I had no problem discerning the fact that Dustin was referring to 2 separate actors and probably didn't give enough of a flying fuck to look up the guy's name.

Posted by: Alexa at November 2, 2011 11:39 AM

That was a list of three people.

Posted by: Ender at November 2, 2011 11:41 AM

To be fair, he also wants to suck your blood.

Posted by: Kolby at November 2, 2011 11:43 AM

Too bad Ian Somerhalder is aging more like Richard Grieco than Johnny Depp. (yes, it has nothing to do with the article, so flame away)

Posted by: ankitty at November 2, 2011 11:55 AM

Hollywood liberal? That is a shock. The comments on that site are really some hateful and ignorant things.

Haters gonna hate.

Posted by: Hary at November 2, 2011 12:14 PM

Alexa,

By that logic that list could be read as two, three or even four people. None of those translations would technically be wrong.

And given the choice between the two options, I'd rather take Dustin to have made a made an honest mistake that to not giving a shit in doing a good job.

Posted by: bleujayone at November 2, 2011 12:25 PM

bluejayone, the "or" in Dustin's sentence makes your analysis incorrect. What follows after "or" is a single entity, comma or not. Dustin was talking about three separate people, and his sentence is not hard to understand.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at November 2, 2011 12:38 PM

It’s been, like, a whole 2 hours since this has been posted. Why hasn’t Breitbart unleashed his minions upon us yet? This comment section is entirely too calm for my liking.

Posted by: Scully at November 2, 2011 1:07 PM

“We humans are like cancers: We multiply and take, take, take. Now I want to give, give, give.”

Was Somerhalder wearing a sharp black suit and dark sunglasses at the time? Perchance Laurence Fishburne was giving the interview while handcuffed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOi6v5DD_1M

Wake up, Neocons. The Matrix has you.

Posted by: Jast at November 2, 2011 1:31 PM

It's the same on both sides, isn't it?

Hard-Core Liberals believe all conservatives are greedy, Christian fundies who hate gays, don't give to charities, want to shove religion down everyone's throat, and are so narrow minded that they can't see anyone's opinion but their own.

Hard-Core Conservatives believe all liberals are heathen, anti-family value, eco-terrorists, who care more about animals than people, who want us all to be gay and open up our country to anyone who wants to come in an destroy our economy by giving away what other people work hard for.

It's dumb.

You can't condemn one side without condemning the other, really, because both are doing the same thing.

Posted by: ZombieNurse at November 2, 2011 1:48 PM


But ZombieNurse

All conservatives ARE greedy, Christian fundies who hate gays, don't give to charities, want to shove religion down everyone's throat, and are so narrow minded that they can't see anyone's opinion but their own.

You forgot that they want to uphold their own personal freedoms( religion, guns, cheerleading) but don't want others to have them ( same sex marriage, other religions, protection from gun-toting Republicans)

Liberals may like animals more that people but Conservatives like money more that people.

Posted by: Kirbyjay at November 2, 2011 2:00 PM

Let's see--are atheists heathens? Then yes, count me in. Anti-family value? Define them first. Care about environment? Yes. Care more about animals than people? If I have to put my dog up against say Andrew Breitbart, it's gonna be a close call, only because my dog recently started gobbling other dogs' poo. If Breitbart also eats dog poo, all things being equal, yeah, I care more about animals.

Posted by: True_Blue at November 2, 2011 2:25 PM

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to condemn one side for being worse than the other.

I think the severe generalizations that arise from both groups are dumb, short-sided, cruel and bigoted.

I don't want to align myself with either party simply because I don't want to be involved in the poopie throwing, my-beliefs-are-better-than-yours, "you suck because you don't agree with me" situations that arise because people who have different values tend to attack each other instead of trying to understand why the other person feels the way they do. I don't think people should have to agree on everything, obviously, but I do think that a total lack of respect for the ideals of other people are what cause the nonsense that the article above is about.

Posted by: ZombieNurse at November 2, 2011 2:35 PM

Is it wrong that I, kind of hate my race for mowing the lawn outside for two hours every Wednesday? Shit isn't getting any greener.

Anyways, yeah. Down with whitey.

Posted by: googergieger at November 2, 2011 2:39 PM

Republicunts should fuck the hell off the face of the earth. But not the good folks over at BigHollywood; they're funnier on an average day with their conspiracy theories than SNL these days. "Oh, look at the poor oppressed straight white man!!!"
Suck zombie Reagan's dick and die, you old windbag Breitbart.

Posted by: severine at November 2, 2011 3:17 PM

... a movie site basically so devoted to uncovering liberal bias Hollywood, they see it everywhere.

There, I fixed it.

That said, even a broken clock is right 2x / day. I'm not a fan of calling humans cancers. I'm a fan of man. I'm a Humanist. So maybe "fungus." Yeah, fungus I can live with. Sometimes I even feel like a portobello. (Sometimes I don't.)

BTW, I'm calling shenanigans on the meta-Godwin.

What, the game now is make any negative comparison and you're actually calling someone a Nazi without saying the actual words?

Absent actually actual Nazi-calling, you know, with the word "Nazi", I think whoever invokes Godwin's law first loses. That's a rhetorical flourish to shut down a conversation. It's an covert kind of name calling. It's bullshit & poo-flinging of an underhanded kind. Come on, you want to throw turds, be a man (or a chimpanzee) about it - stand up on your hind legs and let fly!

I'm prepared to make case by case exceptions to "meta-Godwin's law" for things like "Lovely jack-boots you have there." "Gosh, they do march good." and "kristallnacht." I'm on the fence about whether "conservative wingnut" qualifies.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at November 2, 2011 5:28 PM

ZombieNurse, you have to realize that those OTHER people are hateful and bad, unlike our side. When WE say we want them to all die, we mean it with compassion and love. They have no compassion, no love, they're not even human, they're worse than the devil. Our side is smart and good; theirs is dumb and bad.

Posted by: John at November 2, 2011 5:39 PM

It's calm, rational debate like that, severine, that will truly lead to mutual understanding and compromise.

Posted by: Craig at November 2, 2011 5:52 PM

/shame

I cannot believe I went with "chimpanzee" rather than "telepathic ape" while commenting on a thread about environmentalism, one that even features the word "take."

I am an idiot.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at November 2, 2011 5:56 PM

Missed opportunitys, BierceAmbrose.

Posted by: B at November 2, 2011 6:07 PM

This false idea that both sides are crazy has to stop. It's far more insidious than the outright hatred of one side. There are not two sides to everything. Some things are just simply true. Some groups are just simply wrong.

and googergieger, what's your comma doing in the sentence you wrote below?



Is it wrong that I, kind of hate my race for mowing the lawn outside for two hours every Wednesday? Shit isn't getting any greener.

Anyways, yeah. Down with whitey.

Posted by: googergieger at November 2, 2011 2:39 PM

Posted by: John G. at November 2, 2011 7:19 PM

What both sides have in common is blind tribal hatred for the other side. That's what's destructive.

Posted by: John at November 2, 2011 7:32 PM

Missed opportunitys, BierceAmbrose.

I know. I know. My mind is elsewhere today.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at November 3, 2011 1:14 AM

It's about choosing what is ethically correct. A large portion of these right-wing nutbags (at least the ones who populate Breitbart's site) are racist, sexist, homophobic scum. They want to take away my right as a woman to choose when and how I reproduce, they want to condone gay bashing and stop the progress to marriage equality and equal rights for gay people; a large segment is openly and insidiously racist. I'm just some girl calling them losers on the internet. I'm not taking away their civil liberties and neither am I driving those pure, misunderstood Christians and Republicans to suicide.
The christian right-wing (and a huge chunk of republicans)are actively trying to take away historically oppressed people's CIVIL LIBERTIES. Are you going to ask me to be "understanding" and "tolerant" of someone who will not let me live my life freely?! Because if you are, fuck off.

I do not go about protesting in churches because I believe Christianity is evil. I do not try to restrict stupid, bigoted people from marrying and reproducing. Let these folks first give me my civil liberties by not acting as obstacles. Then we will talk about understanding and dialogue.
Until then they can all suck zombie Reagan's dick and the Breitbart minions can keep fapping to John Wayne.
/this isn't even touching many other social and economic issues where this group is blatantly hypocritical.

Posted by: severine at November 3, 2011 7:24 AM

Since I cannot really recognize why individuals would presume you could get away generating a multimedia video minus a director

Posted by: Edmund Samway at November 3, 2011 11:11 AM

Marry me, Severine

Posted by: John G. at November 3, 2011 7:57 PM