Menu

Episode 36

The Todd Glass Show

Bonus! Paul F. Tompkins

user avatar

The Todd Glass Show #36: Bonus! Paul F. Tompkins

It’s a special bonus episode with Paul F. Tompkins. Things get real. Really real.

Like The Todd Glass Show on Facebook!

Special thanks to Carvin for supplying us with the equipment we need to record this podcast! Check out Carvin.com for more information on recording equipment, guitars, amps and more!

Support the show by clicking the banner below and getting a free 15 day trial with Gamefly!

Tags ,

18 comments

  • Josh – Louis CK has bits about The N*****/N**** word and The F** word that directly contradict each other, I assumed that’s what Todd was talking about when he said he had a disagreement with Louis about a bit he did involving F** . ps just my opinion, because I was surprised when I heard Louis CK’s bit

  • Shouldn’t the argument be that insurance benefits and the like should apply to anyone who considers themselves a couple? I respect PFT more than almost anyone, but why would someone like him feel the need to get married at all? Isn’t legal marriage a silly man-made institution anyway? I agree with the e-mailer that said (basically) “if you consider yourself married, you are married.” It’s silly to submit to a system where the government has to sign off and rubber-stamp your love in the first place.

    I understand why religious people get married – they think it’s a demand of their God. But I know so many non-religious people who consider marriage somehow a stronger bond than an equally-committed non-marriage relationship. Why, because your names are on a government record somewhere? If the only argument is to protect the rights and finances of the spouse, then why aren’t we forgetting about marriage completely and fighting for these rights for couples, in general.

    I do not mean this to be rhetorical – I definitely want to hear Paul’s answer to this, since it’s probably the only thing on which I’ve ever disagreed with him (well, other than football and the UFC…)

    I love the show — I am so glad to hear people taking a stand in any and all battles within the current culture war. Our community (‘smart, alt-comedy nerds’, whatever you want to call us) is plenty powerful, but not always vocal enough.

  • I have 4 kids. Their grandma is gay and so their Auntie (no relation to the grandma, I don’t know why I think that’s relevent to mention) and I’ve been thinking a lot since this podcast about certain words I use. Like gay, lame, etc.

    After a little digging around online, I’m happy to say that we can call people we don’t like idiots without offending a particular group of people. I mean, besides that one idiot you just yelled at.

  • I think I also speak for Paul F Thompkins when I say that I was happy to see this episode contained almost as much Paul F Thompkins as a really distinguished podcast like the Pod F Tompkast. I know nobody attached to this show was clever enough to come up with a clever name Glasscast but it frequently goes over the top which leaves me rolling over in laughter so it is not a complete waste of time.

    This is certainly helped by the fact that Todd Glass talks about the podcast on the podcast. It is also helped by the fact he doesn’t shy away from talking about JARED1987 (of course it is all caps) who was talking about the podcast on the podcast but he never goes over the line and talks about the people who enjoy his talking about the person who complained that he talks about the podcast on the podcast because that would be in bad taste.

    Sadly, I have to report that Todd Glass is banned from the parenthood club on the grounds that if he were to raise a child then it would be the first actual case of childcide by embarrassment. As a god-fearingphobic atheist, I swear to god that Todd Glass should never ever consider being a parent!

  • Jake: excellent points. I agree with you on just about everything.

    I am not sure that the structuralist analysis is always the most useful for thinking about the politics of words. We often hear that power relations have to change before language changes, but language is one of the main channels through which power operates. Why can’t a change in language bring about changes in power relations?

    For example, I’m a Jewish American. One of the remarkable events of the last 50 years is the dramatic decline of American anti-Semitism (which used to be very commonly encountered in every walk of life, and especially in the corporate world, universities, golf courses, etc., and is now found only in the most racist corners of the country and on youtube comment streams).

    I would be shocked if the prohibition on certain slurs that we all know, and that used to be commonly heard throughout society, didn’t play a contributing part to the waning of anti-Jewish prejudice. Obviously not the whole story of the decline of one particularly nasty strain of prejudice, but a big part of it, no doubt. I think a parallel case can be made vis-a-vis the urgency of making antigay talk socially unacceptable.

  • About the gentleman who wrote in about the use of the word “gay.” I don’t know about his ethnographic sources, but he was right to bring up the symbolic and lingusitic dimentions of the problem. His fault was that he did not carry his logic through to its full conclusion. The prohibition of certain words is not in and of itself a sufficient solution to the problem. If a term is merely subtracted from the vernacular, without changing the broader symbolic order, a new signifier will emerge to fill its place. The problem is more fundamental. We, even to this day, live in a prodominantly patriarchal society. People are split into gender roles, and in the symbolic order, the feminine exists in the subordante position. As a result of this subordination, anything that is percieved as feminine will be subject to denigration. This is why gay rights are so inextricably tied to women’s liberation, and the broader liberation of humankind in general. It is not controversial to compare the struggle of gay rights to that of civil rights. As with civil rights, is important not to frame the problem in terms of convincing a few increasingly marginalized, ignorant people. Today more black men are living in the prison system than were enslaved at the height of slavery. Power disparities and social exclusion can exist in institutions and society even beyond the point that we’ve all agreed, at least publicly that “everyone is the same” and agreed to stop using certain words. In order to subtract the term “gay” from usage, in addition to prohibition of the term, we need to change these relationships of domination and subordination.

  • Great podcast TG! As always, just love that PFT!

    Question for ya: Bill Burr and Louis CK both have bits about the word “fag” (yuck, shivers just went up my spine writing that word). In Bill Burr’s piece he talks about how that word stops him from doing what he wants to do — like once when he wanted to buy pumpkins to decorate with his girlfriend, and a voice in his head yells that word at him and forces him to turn and leave the store. And in Louis CK’s piece he talks about how he misses the “f-word” and wants to be able to call people who say things like “You know people from Phoenix are called ‘Phoenitians” that word.

    Both comedians have jokes against anti-gay marriage laws, and other jokes about homosexuality. These are two of the most highly respected comedians performing today. And, at least it seems to me, they seem to try to keep their jokes on the issue about their own insecurities, or the insecurities society demonstrates.

    What’s your stance regarding their material on, you know, the Marc Maron thing? Do you think they cross the line?

    Keep it up!

  • Just wanted to add 2 thoughts:

    1) The letter writer’s point re: “every culture has a word for effeminate man” is complete nonsense historically, anthropologically, and linguistically. The only sources that say anything remotely like this are vile homophobic propaganda with no scientific credibility at all. I

    2) PFT’s question: “why do you want to say (X word) so badly?” should be put in neon lights and posted wherever comedy discussions happen. Perfectly captures the real stakes of the conflict over alleged “PC” language policing.

  • Todd…your show continues to impress, evolve, and expand. I f@#$ing love the fact that you can be wacky and goofy and all over the place…and then…shift gears…and have a very engaged, open, serious, mature, positive discussion on serious topics…and then shift back.

    Keep up the great work and the outstanding podcast!

    Peace .n. Can I have a gum and a cookie?

    3ToF

  • I think that this was a very important podcast. The honesty and willingness to engage with listener correspondence (even if I thought that most of the points in those emails were, as PFT noted, convoluted justifications for complacency) were really inspiring.

  • This was such a good Podcast, Very well thought out, and a great discussion. It actually reminded me of my friends and I, we get together we shoot the shit, we have fun, and we also like a good thoughtful conversation. That’s the Todd Glass show, I love it and look forward to it every week.

  • woo hoo! you took my advice and are now ONLY doing podcasts together going forward!

    Long Live the…
    ………………………..

    ………………………………..P’todd F TompGlass show!!!!