People are funny.  And I use that term loosely.

Last week Hugh Laurie used social media as an outlet to express his feelings surrounding Putin and the anti-gay laws in Russia, more specifically a recent interview in which Putin defended and followed up with this instruct: “leave children alone.” (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/17/vladimir-putin-gay-winter-olympics-children) Why not?  That’s what social media is about, right?  Your forum, your stage?  Your platform to perform, lecture or promote as you see fit within the bounds of terms and conditions? Why shouldn’t he use Twitter as intended, as everyone else uses it?

Unfortunately, being a celebrity often comes with an unrealistic expectation of political correctness and common ground. Over the years, celebrities have begun to debunk this belief, using their status and position to spread the word and garner attention for issues and causes close to their heart, on the issues that matter to them or concern them on a moral/ethical level.  Celebrities are very aware their voices will be heard.  They learn very quickly to filter, manipulate and censor their words to reduce the scandal, libel and slander that chases them with paparazzi.  So when Laurie makes a blatant controversial comment, he is aware of the possible and likely consequences; he is not clueless or dense.  Anyone who is a follower or fan of this man is quite aware of his brilliance.  That’s why it’s fascinating to me his recent tweets have caused such a stir.

You see, Hugh Laurie did what he does so well: he used his words as poetry, presenting a righteously indignant opinion through juxtaposition, a blatantly sarcastic quip that put a spotlight on the inanity of generalized discrimination and socialized ignorance.  “I’d boycott Russian goods if I could think of a single thing they made besides the rest of the world depressed,” he stated.

As expected, Twitter and media outlets exploded with outrage from both sides of the issue, some in agreement with the disgust and overall idea of a boycott, others angry at such an attack on a nation.  Some people felt he was clueless and insensitive, others believed he was hypocritical, noting he hadn’t hesitated to praise Russians during his tour last summer, nor had he ceased to enjoy all the country offered through art, literature, philosophy, vodka and a plethora of exports.  The arguments have gone on for days and the pressure for an apology has increased exponentially.

This is where I shake my head.

In one intentionally, well-timed snide remark, Putin made a sweeping generalization that all gays are pedophiles and therefore should stay away from children.  In one intentionally, fine-tuned sarcastic remark, Laurie made an equally sweeping generalization that Russia had nothing of good to offer and he should boycott.  Putin’s comments are shallow, showing a lack of education and understanding that will do nothing but encourage a culture of fear and hate, certain to have far-reaching negative impact on their society and the world.  Laurie flipped it around to mirror that kind of narrow-mindedness as it related to a nation rather than a segment of society.   Not all homosexuals  are pedophiles; not all Russians are intent on depressing people.  Acts of oppression against a people will not elicit positive cultural change, nor will it solicit private and personal transformation in individuals.  Boycotting a country and undermining the quality of their goods/services cannot nurture peace, nor will it increase a perceptive and empathetic aptitude that promotes personal identity, social equality, and basic humanity.  The statement was clear and yet lost in knee-jerk responses and passionate debates that followed his tweets.

True to form, Hugh Laurie recognized the Keystone Cop media fervor that confused his point and diverted attention from the actual issue.  He responded with a retraction, urging “good, kind Russians to stand up to the slab-faced goons who deal in this kind of poison.”

Several days later, many are still reeling from the perceived insult against the Russian cultural identity and offerings.  They still fail to see the intent and poetry behind Laurie’s tweets, feeling the weight of insult over the burden of prejudice.  Defending their vodka appears has become more important than defending the rights of their citizens.  This reaction in itself spotlights the ignorance the actor was noting in his satire of 140 characters.

To the dismay of many, it is unlikely an apology is forthcoming, as Laurie himself made clear today through yet another sarcastic tweet.  That doesn’t surprise me.  Saying he’s sorry for insulting Russian goods and threatening a boycott detracts from the intended message, and would, in the minds of those already exhibiting such narrow vision and bigotry, perhaps even lend credence to the enmity to which Laurie is objecting.  But he’s also Hugh Laurie, British, ironic pundit with an opinion…and a right to speak it.