Skip to content

Ben Revere with a regrettable “no homo” tweet which probably violates MLB’s social media policy

Sep 6, 2013, 9:20 AM EDT

Here’s Ben Revere talking to a friend of his yesterday:


In case you’re unaware, the “no homo” thing is a longstanding phrase used by some to distance themselves from homosexuality. The presumption being that anyone who dare express love or affection or even friendship for someone of the same sex is homosexual and thus a “no homo” disclaimer is needed. It’s evidence of a mindset in which it is a very, very bad thing to be misperceived as even possibly being homosexual and that even the slightest hint of male-male affection could present such a “danger.”

Funny part: it came just after Revere’s tweet about being “bootylicious” yesterday. Strange that he didn’t immediately feel the need to reassure us that he wasn’t, in fact, Beyonce.

In any event, Major League Baseball adopted a social media policy last year that, among other things, prohibits players from tweeting sexist, racist, bigoted or homophobic things. The “no homo” thing is the very definition of homophobia in that the speaker is afraid of being mistaken for homosexual. Let’s see if Major League Baseball sees this and does anything to Revere.

120 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. seeinred87 - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:24 AM

    Obviously he shouldn’t have tweeted it, but that is not the definition of homophobia. There’s a biiiig difference between hate or fear of homosexuals and not wanting to be mistaken for one.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      No, we get it. You don’t hate homosexuals. You’re just proud of being white straight.

      • seeinred87 - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:15 AM

        What? I didn’t say anything about me. I was only pointing out that Craig’s definition of homophobia is, in fact, not the definition of homophobia.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        How is “no homo” not aversion to homosexuality (Webster’s definition)? Also, I guess you missed the point of my comment, which wasn’t simply to call you out specifically.

      • seeinred87 - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:56 PM

        You’re (intentionally, I believe) conflating hating or being intolerant or averse to gays with not wanting to be thought of as gay. We’re getting a little deeper than this superficial remark from Revere requires though. I don’t think he actually felt the need to let people know he’s straight; rather, he just thought it was funny.

        The point is this: not wanting people to think you’re gay is in not necessarily indicative of your personal beliefs on homosexuals. I’m not from Canada and I like every Canuck I’ve ever met (though you have to be a megadouche for me to not like you really), and at the same time I’d prefer people not operate on the mistaken assumption that I’m Canadian.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:18 PM

        Your attempt to make the position sound reasonable by comparing it to being Canadian is lame and disingenuous. I don’t think you really get confused for a Canadian all that much, and anyway, that’s NOT the same as being included in a group that has a history of being harassed, physically harmed, and insulted for being who they are. The two are in no way comparable.

        FYI, straight people think I’m gay all the time, and I do not care. I never feel the need to address it with them. If they know me, they know. If they don’t, I don’t care what they think. Honestly, if I’m not in a relationship with you, it has no bearing on you whatsoever. And, since I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay, I don’t care if I am considered gay or not. I also don’t go out of my way to make sure people are clear on my intelligence level, religious (or not) affiliation, disability status (or not), etc. How funny would it be if he’d felt the need to tweet that he’s not “handicapped”? Yeah. Same difference.

    • asimonetti88 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:36 AM

      This might be one of the only times your spam makes sense.

      Well played.

      • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:18 PM

        Aaaannndd… your post makes no sense.

    • eightyraw - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

      AP has nixed the use of homophobia, because there is no severe mental disorder concerning the fear of homosexuals. Bigotry towards gays is simply bigotry towards gays no matter how you phrase it.

      • indaburg - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:24 PM

        AP has nixed it in political or social contexts because they want to be “more neutral in their phrasing.” They prefer the term “anti-gay.” AP oversees news articles, not blog posts. But if it makes you happy:

        Ben Revere appears to be anti-gay with his “no homo” tweet. Is that better?

      • eightyraw - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:36 PM

        I know what the Associated Press is. I was replying to the first comment, not the post (hence the location of my comment). My comment was to illustrate how “homophobia” is a worthless term.

        Yes, Revere’s tweet was anti-gay. But I do not agree that Revere appears to be anti-gay.

    • paulkoopman - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM

      No, Craig is right. Being afraid of being perceived as homosexual is precisely why many homophobes feel compelled to act out against that perception. There are varying degrees of acting out, of course, and Revere’s comment is mostly innocuous; but it is definitely an example of homophobia, and I am sure MLB will be looking into whether this fits into the intent of their policy or not.

      • seeinred87 - Sep 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM

        Again, a homophobe may do what Revere did, but doing what Revere did does not mean he’s a homophobe.

  2. Tim's Neighbor - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    I really wish this and the term ‘butthurt’ would go away forever. I don’t know how these terms became so famous, but they’re incredibly annoying.

    • allday420ap - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM

      workaholics, great show

  3. sorryyourmomblewup - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM

    I hope he’s just a Lonely Island fan.

  4. hammyofdoom - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:34 AM

    It’s unfortunate, but I’ve seen so many men say “no homo” and literally mean absolutely nothing by it. They do it simply for a laugh, it’s often not a real “Hey guys, seriously… just so we all know I’m not gay”, it’s more just for a giggle.

    Not saying it’s right, but so many young men (Ben isn’t much older than me) don’t see it as homophobic or hatred towards homosexuals. I can’t say if Ben is homophobic from this comment and I just hope that people don’t jump to that conclusion

    • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:37 AM

      Yea, I don’t really take this as an anti-homosexual thing. It’s more along the lines of “That’s what she said”. Basically, hey, I just made a double entendre”. Let’s laugh about it.

      Stupid, but not hateful.

    • supersnappy - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:49 AM

      I know what you mean, and I’m sure Revere is not a hateful guy, but not so long ago people would say the same stuff about the use of ‘fag’ – ‘don’t be such a fag’ was synonymous with ‘don’t act weak or overly sensitive’.
      Its certainly not as bad as advocating hatred against gays, but ‘no homo’ is not harmless either.

  5. nategearhart - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:41 AM

    Degree of offensiveness aside, I haven’t heard “no homo” used since like 2009, so in that regard I’m wondering what gives.

    • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:57 AM

      Seriously Nate? You haven’t heard it used roughly 4 years? Just surprising really.
      I hear it all the time. From people with varying degrees of education, employment, all walks of life. Personally, I have tried to curtail using it myself. No so much “no homo” but “that’s gay” or “stop being gay.” Or…”you really are a queer aren’t you?” All things I have heard dude’s say to one another.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        You got a problem being overtly happy?

        That’s what I don’t like about the homosexual agenda. They take all the great words and make them their own.

      • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:17 AM

        @Koufax – Um, they didn’t make them their own. Society bogarted their original meanings and created derogatory ones, that they then used on segments of the populace that were different from them.

        Sorta like saying the minorities took words that used to be great, and then forced everyone to have a hateful meaning associated with them.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        Please know Sandy was completely joking.
        He should have used the sarcasm font.

      • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:25 AM

        Ahhh ok, lol. You never know on these boards…you have guys like the tool below who think Freedom of Speech protects and employee from their employer lol.

      • nategearhart - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:53 AM

        Well to be fair, I don’t get out much.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:56 AM

        Hahaha! Thanks Nate. Your comment actually did make me laugh out loud. In fact…I am still laughing. Lol!

  6. sophiethegreatdane - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:52 AM

    Never heard of this before, but I’m not really up on the young person vernacular for 2013. I’m old. But it’s articles like this that remind me how much I love you, Craig.

    No hetero.

    • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Hahaha! “No hetero.” Love it Sophie. Well done.

    • bdickey33 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

      Very well done, Sophie. This article is so frustratingly annoying.

  7. largebill - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:53 AM

    Silly. Personally, doubt I’ve ever used the term, but will the Committee of Perpetually Offended please provide everyone with a complete list of things not to say so people can be more careful not to accidentally offend their delicate sensibilities.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:59 AM

      You can take the stance that you’re in a bunker and the world is assaulting your rights to say what you want. Or you can acknowledge that people are capable of being hurtful and/or perpetuating unfortunate stereotypes and memes and often do. And if you take the later path, you can perhaps argue why you don’t think, on the merits, the “no homo” thing is offensive.

      I feel like you’re going to choose to sit in the bunker, though, and lament some unjust war that isn’t actually occurring.

      • bdickey33 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:41 AM

        Holy overreaction! Do you ever take a second to read and think about what you’re saying? Do you have any gay friends that would actually be offended by this or are you just trying to be Skip Bayless?

      • CyclePower - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        Craig, you certainly like to play fast and loose with language to make your arguments. largebill wasn’t saying that the world was “assaulting” his rights to free speech, and nice subtle Hitlerian imagery with bunker phrase, btw. Trying to make one’s political point by comparing an opponent to history’s worst homophobe and mass murderer is a bit overplayed these days, don’t you think?

        Revere wasn’t being “hurtful” not was he “perpetuating unfortunate stereotypes.” If clarifying that the public declaration of affection of one male to another is platonically non homosexual offends somebody, then this defines what is offensive downward to the level of absurdity. That’s largebill’s point.

        Here’s an idea, why don’t we judge people’s public (or private in the case of Paula Deen) speech as hateful or hurtful when the intent is actually hateful or hurtful?

      • indaburg - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:13 PM

        Hitlerian imagery? Nice use of Godwin’s Law. Well done, cyclepower.

      • fearlessleader - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM

        “….why don’t we judge people’s public (or private in the case of Paula Deen) speech as hateful or hurtful when the intent is actually hateful or hurtful?”

        Well, we do that too. But the thing is, even when that’s NOT the intent, it still hurts people.

    • Gamera the Brave - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:33 AM


      Expanding on Craig’s comment above, it’s not really about any particular phrase. The objection to using phrases like “homo”, “spic”, etc. is that every time someone uses words like that, they move the global dial towards “acceptance of words that are known to be insulting, regardless of specific intent at any particular time”, and away from “rejection of insulting words that impede tolerance of those different from you.”

      In other words, every time you use such a word, you make it incrementally easier to perpetuate speech that is known to be hurtful – regardless of whether you meant it to be hurtful at the time you said it. By gradually easing these hurtful words out of the lexicon, it makes it harder to articulate hate.

      Sure, people can be maddeningly P.C. sometimes – but removing words from your vocabulary that YOU KNOW TO BE HURTFUL WORDS

      • Gamera the Brave - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:34 AM

        Damn WordPress!
        Sure, people can be maddeningly P.C. sometimes – but removing words from your vocabulary that YOU KNOW TO BE HURTFUL WORDS ain’t a bad thing – right?…

    • skids003 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:37 AM

      I think bill was being somewhat sarcastic. Gamera is right, remove hurtful words from your vocabulary, but the PC has gotten out of hand. I think the comment on the Committee of Perpetually Offended is hilarious. SOmetimes I think there is such a committee, and their job 40 hours a week is to find something to be offended by. Get over it, folks.

      • bdickey33 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM

        How is homo a hurtful word?

    • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:38 AM

      People who complain about everyone being “over sensitive” or complain about political correctness are just mad because no one laughs at their hilarious “dumb polack” jokes anymore.

      • yahmule - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

        Can we remove “politically correct” from the vocabulary?

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:39 PM

        Saying “politically correct” is playing the vocabulary card.

  8. eagles7to10 - Sep 6, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    Why do you put the term Bootylicious in quotes? Ben never actually used that phrase if you look at his tweet.

  9. summeroftony - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:13 AM

    All he has to do is say his account was hacked. That’s turning into the big twitter excuse.

  10. Detroit Michael - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    Not sure I see the point to MLB players using Twitter. It could lead to fines and bad publicity. Are the alleged advantages really worth it (for players who don’t value the fame itself)?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM

      How about not saying stupid shit on a public forum? Your comment has been made every time one of these “incidents” occurs on twitter/facebook/whatever, and rather than blame the person we try to blame the medium.

      Simple rule, don’t be a jackass and this stuff won’t happen.

  11. elpendejo59 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:31 AM

    I’d be surprised if the tweets are still up on his account, but Logan Morrison used the tag line “No Homo, Just LoMo” all the time and no one seemed up in arms about it.

  12. historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM

    While I wish he would get some kind of reprimand for this, I will be super pissed if MLB comes down on this when they did nothing to Matt Garza for his sexist tweets and bullshit apology about being competitive. (I get so excited, I go off on bitches!) MLB and the teams need to get better about being consistent with their social media policy. That would help players be more aware of the boundary and think about it as they are putting stuff out there.

    • DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

      Prepare to be super-pissed

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:31 PM

        I know. 😦

    • fearlessleader - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      RIght there with you, historio.

    • IdahoMariner - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:09 PM

      i wish i could give this comment more than one thumbs-up.

  13. bdickey33 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    Nice overreaction, Craig. Nothing more needs to be said about the very poor assumption and your knowledge of this stupid meaningless tweet. All he is saying is that. “I love you, but not in a romantic way and since this is man to man that would make it homosexual.” It would be the same thing as saying to a woman, “I love you as a friend.” Obviously pot stirring here. Joining the ranks of the OC media begging for drama.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:51 PM

      When I say “I love you” to friends, I don’t have to clarify how I mean it. They know. Does he think his friend is going to think he’s suddenly realized he’s gay, is in love with his straight friend, and decided the best way to handle that is to announce his feelings to him on Twitter? Who’s going to make that assumption about what he said? If anyone, it’s going to be other people. He’s the one over-reacting if he thinks he needs to head that off at the pass or cares how they judge him. If that’s not his purpose in clarifying, then he’s just taking a crappy potshot at gay people by distancing himself from them. Wow, how terrible would that be? (sarcasm)

      PS I can count the number of straight male friends who pointedly tell me they love me as a friend on less than one hand. Dudes don’t say that unless they have to. Actually, I don’t think women much do either with their male friends. I have jokingly told people on here that I love them before, but I’m pretty sure they’re all smart enough to know that I’m not actually in love with them and I was kidding. If you don’t care, you don’t freak out.

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:04 PM

        If you don’t care, you don’t freak out. That sums it up.
        Personally, I tell my buddies (the handful of really close ones) I love them all the time (and they do the same with me). I also do the same with the handful of female friends who are close to me. They do likewise. I guess we are just different. But when I stated we do this all the time…I meant it. And only 85% of the time are we intoxicated. Lol!

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM

        You lie! I bet it’s more like 90% intoxication. ha ha

        If I have 3 glasses of Chianti, I will tell anyone I love them. Probably even Larry Jones. Well, I might need 4 glasses for that!

      • paperlions - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:28 PM

        *runs away sobbing hysterically*

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:30 PM

        Everybody but you, paper. lol

      • cur68 - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:07 PM


      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:20 PM

        And cur.

        /rolls eyes

      • cur68 - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM

        Thank you

        /sniffles, blows nose

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:25 PM

        Fog up yer monocle there, didya?

      • cur68 - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:46 PM

        A little. My heterosexual feelings are easily hurt.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 7:49 PM

        Sigh. Dudes are fragile.

  14. tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:42 AM

    Saying “no homo” is totally gay.

  15. DelawarePhilliesFan - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

    By 3:30 today “I am sorry if my words offended anyone, that was not my intention”, and the affair will be over. As it should be.

  16. sportsdrenched - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:47 AM

    I don’t know about this one. If they’re close enough that they’re calling each other Bro’s it’s probably some inside joke.

    I can’t count the number of times my brother and I, and other close male freinds lay into each other with a string of profanity and other offensive words just because it’s fun and some wierd showing of endearment and camaraderie.

    I HOPE, that’s what it is anyway.

  17. faccda01 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    Really not a big deal at all. If this was a player on any team but the Phillies Craig wouldn’t have mentioned it. Sorry Craig, this is no John Rocker!

    • Craig Calcaterra - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:26 AM

      Who said it was John Rocker? I said it was “regrettable.”

  18. wpjohnson - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:50 AM

    Big deal. Whatever happened to freedom of speech as alleged guaranteed by the First Amendment? The greatest threat to our freedoms is all this assinine political correctness- not allegedly derrogatory words. these liberals want absolute freedom so long as it meets their definition of freedom.

    From what is known of Revere, a graduate of our Lexington Catholic High School, it quite obvious that we neede a lot more Ben Reveres and a lot less overly sensitive morons like Calcaterra.

    • aceshigh11 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

      Another deranged, ignorant, asshat conservative who has no understanding of the Constitution.

      The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. Words have consequences.

      Just as Ben Revere and you have the right to broadcast your abject, hateful stupidity, so too do people like Calcaterra and me have the right to respond and call you out.

      MLB is a private institution and it’s their prerogative to punish Revere if they feel his words have a damaging impact on the reputation of the league.

      Now walk on home, boy.

      • hojo20 - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

        No homo, but I agree with you.

      • CyclePower - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:38 AM

        Wow! See, this is what I mean. What is more “hateful?” ..what Ben Revere said or a screed calling someone “deranged, ignorant, asshat” and their opinions as “abject, hateful stupidity,” and hence, punishable?

        Social tolerance and understanding are worthy endeavors that should be part of a society’s moral progress, but taking the rules to the extreme without reasonableness leads to its own brand of intolerance.

      • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:47 AM


        There’s a world of difference between attacking an individual on their specific opinions, and using a term that offends an entire group.

        You’re essentially arguing that aces words directed at one person are worse than using the n-word.

        You’d be hard pressed to find many who would agree with that sentiment.

    • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:57 AM

      I guess I missed the part where he, or anyone else, was arrested or in some other way punished by THE GOVERNMENT.

      Or perhaps you missed that part of middle school civics class where they actually explained The First Amendment.

      Since it’s probably the latter, I will sum it up for you….You’re a stupid, ignorant dick and you shouldn’t say the things you say because you sound stupid and ignorant. So you should shut up.

      Me telling you that isn’t a violation of your freedoms because I don’t have the ability to deprive you of your freedoms, only the government does. Which is why the freedoms guaranteed by the government only apply to acts by the government.

      Also, a private company punishing an employee for saying something isn’t a violation of anyone’s freedoms either.

      Now, based on the information I have given you, can you explain WHY the last statement I made is true?

    • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:02 AM

      God you’re stupid. The First Amendment protects individual citizens, religious institutions and the media from persecution from the Government. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rules and policies of a private entity (MLB).

      Learn the Constitution before trumpeting it’s relevance to a situation where it has none.

  19. dukemarquis - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:55 AM

    Hey Craig – Thanks for starting a fire, fanning a spark into a flame. Have you ever considered that by doing this, you’re doing the very same thing about which you’re accusing?! Of course not. Get a life!… rather than taking one that’s not your own!

    • aceshigh11 - Sep 6, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      “…rather than taking one that’s not your own!”

      So…you’re accusing Craig of murder now?

      Man, you conservatives are sick fucks.

      • dukemarquis - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM

        So now you’ve just publicly demonstrated that you’re as shallow as he is. Congratulations!

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:21 AM

        This right here is my issue with you…

        “Man, you conservatives are sick fucks.”

        I have personally seen you ask people to shoot, stab or otherwise harm themselves on several occasions. The only difference is I don’t group all “liberals” together as you routinely do on the other side of the aisle. Man Aces…just when I thought we were making progress.

    • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:04 AM

      You should actually be thanking Mr. Revere. Craig’s only reporting on yet another stupid athlete doing stupid $hit. The revolving door of ignorance that represents many pro sports athletes (and some of their fans).

      • dukemarquis - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM

        Yes, it is a revolving door of ignorance. Men afraid to show affection… men accusing others of showing affection… men tattling on other men for their fear… fear promoted by accusations… accusations promoted by fear… round and round it goes! Why not just keep our noses out of other people’s business… live and let live.

      • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM

        Wrong. This man has no fear of showing affection, he fears that his inability to properly show affection would somehow be misconstrued. That’s his fault, not Craigs, and not societies. I tell male figures in my family I love them quite easily, without having the need to attach a derogatory phrase at the end of it, just to satisfy my insecurities.

        If Mr. Revere wanted people to stay out of his business, maybe he shouldn’t have tweeted it to the public, hmmm? I mean, it’s social media…, it’s not a private phone call, it’s not a private email, it’s not even a post on Facebook or Google+ shared solely with that one person. It was broad casted over Twitter.

      • dukemarquis - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:42 AM

        Mornelith – I completely agree with your second paragraph.

  20. tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    Here’s a quick reference for those who can’t understand how things go from being ok to being offensive…..

    If a group of people band together and say “We, as a group, find this word or phrase hurtful, and we would prefer you no longer use it”….well, that’s when you should stop using it.

    And it’s not a new phenomenon. Which is why we no longer regularly use terms like “wop”.

    It’s really not a difficult concept to understand. All you have to do is listen to people when they speak up, and be respectful of their wishes. Seriously, is it THAT HARD to eliminate a word or phrase from your vocabulary to make others more comfortable?

    You obviously get a pass when you don’t know something has become outdated or offensive (I recently got in trouble with the wife for using the word “harelip”)…..but once you’re informed, it’s a lot easier to eliminate a word than to bitch and moan about the system. Or, worse, defy the system, keep using the word, and broadcast to everyone that you’re both ignorant and a dick.

    • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 11:44 AM

      You stated it well. Good post harelip!

    • fearlessleader - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:11 PM

      Well said, tbuckfutter. If you care more about your attachment to a vocabulary word than you do about the right of a group of people not to be referred to by a historically damaging and denigrating term, then your problem is not that you’re being oppressed, but that you’re a narcissist who has been blinded to his or her own privilege.

      I’m looking at you, Washington Redskins.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 8:03 PM

        I say we start spelling it “R**skins.”

  21. eagles512 - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM

    What a joke-nothing wrong with saying that

  22. rick2248 - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:03 PM

    Since when is it a crime to hate homosexuals they are sick people who gave us HIV and AIDS ITSI AGAINST GOD:S LAW one day they will pay the price before GOD for there sick sex acts with one another.They use the word Love Bullshit!

    • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:06 PM

      U mad bro?

    • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:15 PM

      So…you missed the part about the monkeys carrying the virus huh? I was a young kid in the 80’s when I first heard about it. Yet…I remember it vividly. Were you perhaps part of the Branch Dividians? Westboro Church? It is none of my business. I just thought if you were part of a cult (obscure or otherwise) it would help explain your ignorance on this particular topic.

      • supersnappy - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:57 PM

        God hates monkeys too, so he punsihed them with SIV

    • eightyraw - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:18 PM

      Care to go into more detail about there [sic] sex acts? Your comment is turning me on

    • mornelithe - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM

      HIV/AIDS were initially thought to be a direct result of homo-sexuality (Which is why it was originally called GRID, Gay Related Immune Deficiency), but after it was discovered in pregnant women in Haiti and hetero-sexual hemophiliacs, researchers had to approach the issue differently which eventually led to it being called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

      Clearly, there is no reasoning with an extremist such as yourself, who reflects such a superior level of acceptance only found in loving entities like Westboro Baptist Church. However, emotion aside, the history of the AIDS virus is readily available to any who choose to read up on it. Your emotional outrage, does not absolve you from willful ignorance.

  23. thomas844 - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:22 PM

    Oh, please. This is a sorry attempt at finding some kind of homophobia and bigotry when there is none here to be found. All “no homo” means is that he was defining himself as a heterosexual after saying something that might have suggested he was a homosexual. There was no attack on homosexuality like you would want to believe so that you can cry “Bigotry!” like you so often like to do. The MLB will do nothing to Revere for this tweet as they shouldn’t.

    • tfbuckfutter - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:28 PM

      • stlouis1baseball - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:37 PM

        Yep. Roy steeped up, took the heat and apologized.
        That’s why I LOVE the guy. In a completely heterosexual manner of course.
        Or should I have qualified it as completely “platonic?”
        I am so confused. Wait! What does that mean? I am confused about being confused!

    • Liam - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:56 PM

      There are plenty gay teenagers in the country who feel ostracized and afraid that all of society hates them. Everyone tripping over themselves to point out that they’re not homosexuals, doesn’t make them feel any better. It doesn’t seem that hard to ask people to please stop making gay people feel less accepted by society.

    • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:58 PM

      Why would he care if someone thought he was gay? Feeling the need to clarify is anti-gay.

    • thomas844 - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:16 PM

      Seriously? It’s anti-gay to clear up the fact that you are a heterosexual? This society is so oversensitive and PC to the point that ANYTHING can be misconstrued as bigotry. If a gay person tweeted something that suggested they might be straight, but then they clarify right after that they are actually gay, I’m pretty sure no one would take offense to that. Why? BECAUSE IT IS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL. So you can all just keep being the PC police if you want, I just hope Revere doesn’t succumb to the media pressure to apologize.

      • Liam - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:49 PM

        It’s not anti gay to clear it up if someone asks or implies, but going out of your way to constantly make the clarification that you’re not gay makes it seem as though you see something wrong with being gay, as opposed to just something that you’re not. I wasn’t born in America, but whenever I express a fondness for hamburgers and french fries, I don’t make sure to say “NO AMERICAN” because people assuming I’m American doesn’t bother me.
        Revere saying it in this instance doesn’t bother me too much, but the phrase itself does bother me and I’m a little disappointed Ben used it. Over an apology, I’d prefer it if he just tried a bit harder not to offend homosexuals.

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 2:59 PM

        It is anti-gay to make a point of declaring yourself straight when no one even asked about it, yes. Why is that hard for you to understand? If a gay man hit on him and he said, “Sorry, bro, I’m not gay,” that’s one thing. To make a point of saying it when the topic wasn’t even on the table is another. Just as importantly, making a joke out of saying you love a friend is really shallow and demeans the sentiment. I would not belittle the things my friends and I have been through together (death of parent, divorce, death of partner, birth of children, etc) by suggesting that the way I feel about them is silly or subject of a pop culture “joke.” I love them and I don’t want to qualify it so it seems less than it is.

  24. motobus - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:33 PM

    The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of “human being”, or “man” (in the gender-neutral sense).

    Maybe he just likes Latin.

    • km9000 - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:23 PM

      So Ben expressed that he loves someone, but not in a human being way?

      • historiophiliac - Sep 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM

        Robot love is disgusting!

  25. timothynoble41 - Sep 6, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    Maybe he meant that he was disappointed that there were ‘no homos’ in the bar that night?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. H. Ramirez (2461)
  2. G. Stanton (2426)
  3. G. Springer (2410)
  4. S. Strasburg (2340)
  5. C. Correa (2339)
  1. J. Baez (2331)
  2. B. Crawford (2248)
  3. H. Pence (2241)
  4. M. Teixeira (2165)
  5. B. Harper (2003)