Chicagoist: Sox Manager: Gays Are Child Molesters (Maybe)

Mike

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:47:35 -0600

To astros should have won: I agree completely! But also, Go Cubs!!!

Mike

Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:44:05 -0600

Hey, this guy's a moron! He's a homosexual! He's a child molester! That was clear as day what I said and what I meant. Yet, you guys who say that Ozzie's comment was fine are totally missing the point? HOW?!? It doesn't even take common sense!

Astros should have WON

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:55:45 -0600

As I watch and read all the reports on him(O.G.). All I can say is, Phil Garner was right, when he said that he (Guillen) has issues. But hey, don't we all? Yeah, but Ozzie is such an @sshole! Good Job in the All-Star game SCRAP IRONS. YOU OUTCLASSED THE BUM!

RUSwedish

Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:31:53 -0600

You people are either the dumbest folks alive, or you are being disingenuous on purpose. There is also at least one internet persona thief posting comments here, because I know the guy who uses that name in real life. Ozzie did NOT make a "homophobic comment". He was making fun of slanderous gossips who try to get groundless hearsay in print. The more the New York garbage crew posts otherwise, the more corrections I'll post here. You know damn well who is being mocked here. Now go back to the Big Apple and tell your boss we're not putting up with your heavy-handed tactics.

chopped liver

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:10:18 -0600

So your fellow fans are dicks for condemning the outburst but being critical of the fact that the article is misleading (which it is)? Not sure this makes them dicks as a majority of them have condemned Ozzie for saying something so stupid.

Jake

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:03:14 -0600

I am a Sox fan, by the way.

Chopped liver

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:24:06 -0600

"I liked it better when they were whiners and not dicks" Yeah I guess this ignorant brain fart by Ozzie is going to be about as good as it gets for Cubs fans. At least this is giving you SOMETHING to talk about eh? And yes the article is written so as to suggest that Ozzie was talking about the columnist and not the friend who walked up that you only read about in the link. What he said was inexcusable but it'd help if the article made a little more sense.

Jessica

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:01:17 -0600

Yeah, your article makes it sounds like the manager is saying the comentator is gay and a child molestor. It's disingenous.

Jake

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:24:22 -0600

This is the most I've ever seen Sox fans talk in a group with lamenting the fact that the Cubs get more coverage than them. I'd say it's a dawning of a new, better age, but, judging from these posts, I liked it better when they were whiners and not dicks.

Josh

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:05:39 -0600

New York Hates Me

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 03:58:18 -0600

C'mon, people? Are we really that disingenous? This is a satire of the tabloids. Plus, I love how the tabloid "handlers" come here and take it at face value. Ozzie was satirizing them, too, and their tendency to just throw dirt at people...even if it's made up. Looking for dirt on your enemies...it's the New York way of life. Even if a lot of that dirt is made up, like the Newsday, with their coded and condescending "warning" that Ozzie better shut up. Either you don't know how these people operate, or you're being disingenuous. Let's not shift the focus from the mocked to the mocker. Newsday took the bait and now they're blaming us for it. Well, some of us - those who call them on their bullshit. Let's see the hysterical New York response to THIS. They've got their flacks out all over the place, trying to shout people down, even on Sox forums.

Joseph J. Finn

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:35:02 -0600

The headline is still wrong.

Kel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:58:36 -0600

"He's a homosexual." (insult) See, you all are missing the point! Who cares if the 2 statements are related?? It's the fact that Ozzie called his friend a homosexual AS AN INSULT that's appalling and wrong. Like a poster above said, it's 2005 - why is being gay considered an INSULT?!?!?!? Wow, this is just one more reason to hate the White Sox (not like I really needed it)...

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:14:38 -0600

and by terrible life, i mean the prejudice he must face look- i know how tough gays have it and i emphasize, but pretending that ozzie called all gays child molestors is rediculous.

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:11:30 -0600

a gay agenda, something that i have never thought existed until this post, seems to be when someone purposely misconstrues another person's words(joke) to illustrate the terrible life that he, as a gay, has.

chopped liver

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:00:58 -0600

Speaking of manager slip ups.... How are things going for "the nickle and dime people who show up" at the "playground for the cocksuckers?"

matt

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:55:49 -0600

Waaaaaaah!!! I hate Chicagoist and I'm taking my web browser and going home. It does appear that Ozzie made two jokes. Those two jokes may have seemed unrelated to him, but anyone who's listened to right-wing anti-gay nonsense knwows that's how gays are smeared. It's real hard to get anyone (other than wackos) to care about two dudes fucking in their house, but when they might molest your babies that gets your (simple minded) attention. Gay agenda, that's awesome. I didn't know not wanting to be discrimenated against made for an agenda.

franek

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:51:04 -0600

oh sorry, hey everbody this guy writes for chicagoist! he's a fucking douche! fixed.

Mr. Smith

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:36:42 -0600

Uh franek, I think it's clearly established above that we are not retards but are, in fact, douches.

Joel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:36:08 -0600

"Gay agenda"? "'Acceptable' slurs"? Cripes, everybody take a step back...

Dusty Baker

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:22:48 -0600

Well, it's just part of his culture. You are all racist, ALL OF YOU! White devils speaking down on Ozzies culture.

franek

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:18:57 -0600

hey everybody this guy writes for chicagoist! he's a fucking retard!

tap

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:59:37 -0600

Not that any one reads post this far down but it was quite clear Ozzy was demonstrating how ridiculous it is to say that "all carribean players are dumb" by saying something that was similarly offensive that we all no not to be true.

cheeses

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:58:18 -0600

Ozzie's comments about his friend being a homosexual and a child molester are 2 completely separate things. "He's a homosexual." (insult) "He's a child molester." (second, unrelated insult) The linkage between those 2 statements is entirely in the minds of readers who seemingly want there to be a connection, to further excoriate Ozzie for his comments.

Chuck

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:57:40 -0600

For what it's worth, I think Aaron is spending too much time here trying to present his arguments and defend himself against what appears to be three people who are neither able nor willing to see that he makes some cogent points and that, as a gay man, he's offended by comments that are as stereotypical and cliched as any slur, be it racist, sexist or religious. Regardless of what Guillen intended when he made the quip (and for what it's worth I think he was trying to inject some misguided levity into the mix after being hounded by the New York press about the Krueger comments), he eventually has to realize that his words are a reflection of the White Sox organization. Odds are he'll probably get a pass this time, unlike his comments in April when he called Magglio Ordonez a "Venezuelan fuck." Back then he was called to the carpet by all the back-seat driving sports columnists for being "insensitive." Of course, the White Sox weren't the WHITE SOX back then, either. As the Sox have maintained their success all season Guillen began getting passes from the media for his running commentary. Sox GM Kenny Williams said a couple months back- after Guillen, Carl Everett, and Mark Buehrle shot their mouths to the press in unflattering tones in the space of a week- that he expects the White Sox to handle success with dignity and class. Guillen's comments last night may be many things, but they're certainly not "dignified" and "classy."

b

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:48:26 -0600

My point was that two sentences can reference each other. It was in response to Joseph Finn's comment about Guillen using two sentences. I never said that was always the case. I'm straight, and I did read the original article, and I took Guillen's statement to read that the joke was that the guy was a child molester because he was homosexual. So, I can understand how people, especially homosexual people, could be offended. Basically, one needs to be careful about the jokes he/she uses when he/she is in front the press.

FredN.

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:46:30 -0600

The headline was (is?) potentially defamatory. But what do I know? oh yeah. I know that kind of stuff.

Mike

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:44:34 -0600

It was an ugly and inappropriate thing to say.

frank

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:38:20 -0600

Chicagoist sucks!

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:27:25 -0600

that man is black. he kills puppies. does that mean that all black men kill puppies?

b

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:20:50 -0600

Just because there are two sentences doesn't mean the two sentences aren't related. Example: That table is round. It has no corners. Does that mean that the table is round AND it has no corners? No, it means that the table has no corners BECAUSE it is round. So, I can see how Guillen's statement could be taken as a slight against homosexuals. Just my $0.02.

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:12:29 -0600

what if someone hadn't read the actual news article. what if they just read the headline and assume that ozzie actually said that. seriously. this is a stretch and you have to admit it. just because ozzie used homosexual as an insult doesn't mean you have the liberty to put words in his mouth.

jen

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:10:24 -0600

TQ said it best, so I'll just re-post it: Its about time we stopped using homosexuality as an insult. What if someone said "Well, Geez... Ozzie's a fricking spic and is dirty!"... then what? See the connection? See it stupids? anti-homosexual slurs are the last "acceptable" slurs for some reason. based on aaron's experiences, it would seem to me he made a reasonable assumption going by the two consecutive statements ozzie made - same as any other minority would've done if they'd been against them. besides, the headline got you to read the story, didn't it? ;-)

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:04:24 -0600

put me down for not reading chicagoist anymore. i've never really believed that someone could have a gay agenda. i never really even understood what it meant. now i do.

Joseph J. Finn

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:03:54 -0600

The headline is still incorrect, as Guillen said nothing like that. What Guillen said was two separate sentences, therefore "Guillen Makes Tasteless Joke(s)" might be appropriate, rather than still mis-representing what Guillen said.

The Backer

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:52:43 -0600

Mountain, did I introduce you to the mole hill ... did you happen to see the shite piling up behind it?

Aaron Bailey

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:50:58 -0600

Mike, thanks for the link to the Times Herald-Record story. When I wrote this post this morning, only Newsday had reported on it as it wasn't showing up in Google News.

Aaron Bailey

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:46:00 -0600

Okay, hopefully the post's title changes will clarify for everyone worked up about this.

mike

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:41:25 -0600

At least put a link to a more fleshed out version of the story. Like this one for example: Times Herald-Record What Ozzie said was wrong, but putting a seriously misleading headline, and not explaining the context is wrong as well. As far as him not "clarifying" what he said, why don't you scroll down the link for this part: "At least Guillen seemed to get it after the fact. When asked about the "homosexual" line later, he initially said, "Oh, that's my friend. I didn't mean it that way." But when pressed and told that homosexual people could take that negatively, just as a Caribbean player could be insulted by Kruger's comments, Guillen nodded his head. "You're right," he said. "You're right." He went on, very calmly, to say he didn't think about it like that because "where I come from, we're all human beings."

cheeses

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:20:01 -0600

Aaron, there's a difference between not being objective and flat out making shit up out of whole cloth. Ozzie made a tasteless joke that was insensitive to homosexuals. Isn't that enough of a hook to get people to read your article?

Mr. Smith

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:18:47 -0600

NSH> There's nothing in the above post that implies he was speaking to a San Francisco reporter. It clearly states "In front of a gaggle of reporters at Yankee Stadium..."

NotSoHealthy

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:14:23 -0600

Just making a suggestion to report truthfully. my apologies, I will not read chicagoist anymore.

Aaron Bailey

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:10:57 -0600

Chicagoist prides itself on not being objective. We sometimes take sides on issues and often hear back from our readers when we do. It's part of the Chicagoist experience. If you don't like something we write, you can comment (we hope you do!) or you can stop reading us.

NotSoHealthy

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:06:33 -0600

I will agree with Mr Smith on the fact that chicagoist has once again trumped the local papers this, chicagoist is the best news source for chicago bar none (also including the source in the post is nice as well). However why do you have to make stuff up? he didn't say it that way, it was plenty insulting the way he said it, then you imply he was saying it to a reporter from san fransico to boot! If you had just reported it in an unobjective tone it would have made this the number one post of the week.

Joel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:01:24 -0600

Hey, I'm personally not upset or offended by the post or the headline...if anyone's a douche here it's obviously Ozzie Guillen. But the fact is, the headline is misleading, there's no quotation marks about it. And yeah, Scott, I do get bothered (as it were) when I read misleading headlines elsewhere but for better or for worse the Sun-Times and Trib don't have handy-dandy little comments sections for me to waste time in while at work. At any rate, I don't want my minor issue with the headline misconstrued as a defense of Guillen's homophobia so forget about it.

Mr. Smith

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:53:19 -0600

At the very least, he's equating being gay with child molesting and deserves to be called on it. And that's coming from a die-hard White Sox fan. And I'm assuming that everyone who's upset about the "misleading" headline never gets bothered when reading the Sun-Times. I've always enjoyed that our manager is a little nuts. But discrimination starts with name-calling. Guillen was in the public eye so saying he was talking to a friend doesn't excuse the behavior. It's also telling that I haven't seen in this in any of the local papers. But then again this is coming from a douche so what do I know?

cheeses

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:51:35 -0600

Sox Manager: Gays Are Child Molesters. Uh huh, right. Seriously, Aaron, do you have a problem with reading comprehension? That's not what he said at all.

bobr

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:38 -0600

The people who commented earlier in this stream are obviously not used to being called by pejorative terms. Are us gays overly sensitive when it comes to stuff like this? Probably, but we're entitled when all too often we’re lumped in categories with pedophiles. Frankly, it's insulting to me that some people are insulted by the post. Too freakin' bad.

NotSoHealthy

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:40:01 -0600

Its nice that everyone can at least now understand what he is saying. And he didn't even swear! C'mon give him a little credit.

Joel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:37:11 -0600

What Guillen said was obviously completely ignorant and wrong, but the headline is still misleading. I honestly thought after seeing that headline that Guillen had gone off into a rant specifically saying homosexuals are child molestors. While what Guillen said was terrible, let's not make it worse.

TQ

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:35:27 -0600

I can't believe you pricks are putting forth so much energy to defend your precious Ozzie. Its 2005 you idiots. Its about time we stopped using homosexuality as an insult. What if someone said "Well, Geez... Ozzie's a fricking spic and is dirty!"... then what? See the connection? See it stupids?

Aaron Bailey

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:25:40 -0600

Again, because it's a common slur to call homosexuals "child molesters" I have to believe that he meant it that way. I'm not saying he really does believe this, I think he just stepped out of bounds and was trying to be "funny" but it's still wrong.

FredN.

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:22:41 -0600

Kristin: Thank god, no one can read Ozzie's mind. But the headline is WRONG. Logically wrong. Is there anykind of more wrongness than logic-based wrongnessish? If you think that the headline is what Ozzie meant to say, put a call in asking for comment. But don't go make something up just cuz you got a feelin'.

Kristin

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:19:43 -0600

FredN., since when can you read Ozzie's mind? Regardless of what he MEANT, what he said was damn stupid, and open to a whole range of interpretations.

FredN.

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:19:35 -0600

I know he didn't mean #1, because of the grammar he used.

Aaron Bailey

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:14:57 -0600

I acknowledged that "In all likelihood, Guillen was joking around..." Still, no excuse. His comments could be understood 2 ways: 1. He's a homosexual AND he's a child molester. OR 2. He's a homosexual THEREFORE he's a child molester. Patrick and frank, how do you know he meant #1 and not #2? It's a common slur, saying gays are child molesters. By putting "homosexual" and "child molester" in the same breath, he seems to be saying #2. If he would have said "Hey, everybody, this guy's black! He's lazy!" people would be going crazy. No matter what way he said it, he didn't clarify and therefore it's incredibly insensitive and wrong.

FredN.

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:10:54 -0600

Whatever the writer was thinking, they missed the boat. Ozzie was calling his friend BOTH a gay man and a child molester. As far as I know, they aren't mutually exclusive, so there's no problem on slapping both labels on a guy. Whoever thinks that A = B in this regard (e.g. Aaron Bailey) has never been called "lazy and Stupid" by my wife, who definitely is not equating lazy WITH stupid, but rather, establishing that I possess both characteristics. Change the damn headline, already.

Joel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:05:25 -0600

On the other hand, that headline is pretty misleading

Julene

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:01:14 -0600

A quote from the Marge Schott era of great jokes with the press: "The notion that hatred comes out of nowhere is a dangerous illusion, because if it were accepted, it would prevent us from doing anything about hatred before it fully manifested itself. Hatred develops over time. Ideas that eventually manifest themselves in violence, may begin with personal insults, move on to discrimination or harassment, then span out of control, to ultimately, genocide. It never just happens and we must reject that notion forcefully." Guillen said the comments. Guillen has to live with the repercussions.

Joel

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:00:46 -0600

Get a grip Patrick

frank

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:52:25 -0600

This post is idiotic you guys are douches on this account. gay douches.

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:48:52 -0600

seriously. this is infuriating. please at least change the headline. this is worse than drudge.

The Backer

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:48:45 -0600

Mountain, meet mole hill ... mole hill, meet mountain.

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:41:32 -0600

give me a freaking break. possibly the worst post i have seen on this site ever. guillen was making a joke to a friend. it could be in poor taste, sure. he was NOT calling all gays child molestors. seriously. this is irresponsible and should be taken down.

patrick

Tue, 09 Aug 2005 12:40:43 -0600

give me a freaking break. possibly the worst post i have seen on this site ever. guillen was making a joke to a friend.