Shade Court: Who Knew Fox News Was So Shady? 

In DepthIn Depth

Shade Court is here, the arbiters of shade were queer, get used to it.

I would like to begin with a brief shout-out to Cher for this little attempt at utilizing shade.

If Donald Trump did indeed call you a “lonely loser,” then he didn’t shade you, boo. But that’s OK. Clemency for Cher because she’s Cher.

In this week’s Shade Court, Raven-Symoné is (probably) shaded by her coworkers, Idolator needs an intervention and the Republican debates were a shade dream come true.

Shade Court Docket #2015JZ000119

The Case: Wyclef Jean, the President of Haiti, performed in Chicago last weekend. As part of that performance, he took the time to address Donald Trump and 50 Cent because he’s gotta stay #relevant in this age of #socialmedia #somehow.

He did freestyle rap and went on to say, “[bleep] Donald Trump/he don’t like the Mexicans,” a spy told Page Six.
Plus, “If 50 Cent were here, he’d have 50 bodyguards,” Jean declared. “I sold 200 million records and I’ve got no [bleeping] bodyguards with me!”

The Defendant: New York Post

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: You can probably already sense the dubiousness in this headline because you are diligent students of this high, magnanimous court. Not only is this not shade, but these are two of the lamest disses I’ve ever heard.

Regarding Trump, all he really did was describe the man. I should note that there are plenty of times when citing straight-up facts can be incredibly shady, (as you’ll see below) but that obviously isn’t the case here.

“Fuck Donald Trump” is simply a fact of the intelligent universe. And Trump quite clearly does not like Mexicans, which he has proven over and over.

My favorite of the two instances of non-shade is the 50 Cent jab. I don’t think 50 Cent would actually have 50 bodyguards—it seems too easy. Wyclef just threw out that number because of the alliteration, which I suppose was a nice effort but just sounds incredibly stupid.

Further, as Page Six pointed out, I’m pretty sure Wyclef Jean has not sold 200 million records. You know who has sold 200 million records? Mariah Carey. The Rolling Stones. Whitney Houston. YOU AIN’T IN THE CIRCLE, BOO.

The Ruling: Not shade

Shade Court Docket #2015JZ000120

The Case: Raven-Symoné talked enough controversial nonsense to earn a permanent spot on The View. So now we all have to listen to Raven-Symoné talk on a regular basis.

I would now like to call your attention to a few tweets sent from The View’s official Twitter account.

The Defendant: The View’s social media editor and the show’s chyron writer

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: I like to imagine that these two ABC employees teamed up to make this magic happen. Perhaps one is black and didn’t take kindly to Raven referring to herself as “colorless.” Or maybe they own a map and were perturbed when she said that she was from “every continent in Africa.”

It might be the one is transgender and didn’t like when she compared Caitlyn Jenner to Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps they simply both have functioning brains and cannot stand listening to this drivel day in and day out and have to keep themselves entertained somehow.

I’ll admit, this might be me reading sliiightly too much into what’s going on here, or I might be a savant. I’m going with savant. When in doubt, always lean towards the answer being that you’re a savant.

So, yes, I like to think that the chyrons are, in fact, messages to and about Raven-Symoné and that by reposting these specific screenshots, the social media editor is driving this point home.

I mean, come on: “Double Standard,” emblazoned under Raven with that goofy look on her face? You just happened to catch her in that exact moment and it has nothing to do with the fact that she operates in a world where double standards are the standard.

Catching the word “Debatable,” as she looks confused as hell like much of what that comes out of her mouth isn’t entirely wrong and therefore, completely debatable? That unfortunate gif of her dancing. COME ON.

The pieces just fall into place too nicely.

The Ruling: Shade

Shade Court Docket #2015JZ000121

The Case: As is often the case, Azealia Banks has had a rocky couple of weeks. She found out over email that her tour with K. Michelle was canceled and then she went after Nicki Minaj for NO DAMN REASON on Twitter.

She was discussing the fact that she’s one of the few artists to speak publicly and frankly about issues like racism. That might be sort of true, but when a fan asked her vaguely about Nicki Minaj and other artists, Azealia took that little bit of rope and did what she does best.

She did almost the same thing someone goaded her about K. Michelle.

The Defendant: Idolator

The Evidence:

The Deliberation: This poor soul at Idolator needs an intervention because the man is lost. There aren’t enough spiritual descendants of Dorian Corey on the planet to help this dude understand what shade and is not.

Azealia Banks is one of those people that “the media” loves to attribute shade to—I have my own clues as to why, *cough cough, sassy black girl, cough cough*. However, say what you will about Azealia’s accuracy or tact, but you can’t deny that homegirl goes in every time. Shade does not come easily to Azealia because shade requires some self-control and editing—skills we all know she hasn’t fully developed yet.

Azealia Banks talks shit. Azealia Banks drags. Azealia Banks starts fire. Azealia Banks very rarely shades.

I’ve started to noticed that the misguided among us love the phrase, “serious shade.” It’s that inclusion of the word “serious” that gives me pause. Anytime I see “serious shade,” I know that it’s probably going to be about a flat-out insult. It’s like these people think that including the word “serious” somehow changes the biology of what shade truly is. Shade doesn’t need to be “serious” to be impactful. It just needs to be shade.

My theory is that they’ve already incorrectly made up their minds that something is shade, so they have to throw the word “serious” in to compensate for the fact that all signs point to: HELLO THERE IS NOTHING SHADY ABOUT THIS.

The Ruling: Not shade

Shade Court Docket #2015JZ000122

The Case: Last night were the first of rounds of Republican debates and how are we all still alive? Luckily, I only watched the first round—the “Lol you seriously still think you have a chance?” round—because I value my sanity and Erin didn’t make me stay for the second one.

My luck continued because the so-called happy hour round was moderated by Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer, two Fox robots from the “Aryan Former Greek Life Enthusiasts” collection. As it turns out, somebody implanted high-end shade chip in these two because they wouldn’t stop, didn’t stop.

The Defendant(s): Martha MacCallum and Bill Hemmer

The Evidence:

(Emphasis mine)

MACCALLUM: Carly, you were CEO of Hewlett-Packard. You ran for Senate and lost in California in 2010. This week, you said “Margaret Thatcher was not content to manage a great nation in decline, and neither am I.”
Given your current standings in the polls, is the Iron Lady comparison a stretch?
HEMMER: Senator Santorum, you won the Iowa caucus four years ago and 10 other states. But you failed to beat Mitt Romney for the nomination. And no one here tonight is going to question your conviction or your love for country. But has your moment passed, Senator?
MACCALLUM: Governor Jindal, you’re one of two sitting governors on the stage tonight. But your approval numbers at home are in the mid 30s at this point. In a recent poll that showed you in a head-to- head against Hillary Clinton in Louisiana, she beat you by several points.
So if the people of Louisiana are not satisfied, what makes you think that the people of this nation would be?
MACCALLUM: Governor Pataki, four years ago this month, you called it quits in a race for the presidency in 2012, but now you’re back. Mitt Romney declined to run this time, because he believed that the party needed new blood.
Does he have a point?
HEMMER: Excuse me, Martha. I have not heard the bell just yet, so you’re all very well behaved so far.
HEMMER: Governor Perry, try and answer this question again.

The Deliberation: I know that to a certain extent, their role as moderators is to ask questions like this. At least ostensibly,they’re supposed to be challenging the candidon’ts, but this was just too perfect. Half the time, all they had to do was read the candidon’t’s resume and they were throwing shade. Oh, Bobby Jindal, statistics show that everyone in your state sort of hates you.

Rick Perry, I know your speaking skills are limited, but give it a go, sport.

Governor Pataki, you’re still alive?

The great thing is that they probably didn’t even realize what they were doing. They were just stating facts and in doing so, they reminded both the candidon’ts and the world of how extremely disqualified and delusional every person on that stage truly is.

There’s also the potential that there is one conservative yet sane producer at Fox who yes, want’s lower taxes but also isn’t particularly bothered if gay people can get married—in fact, go for it! As he or she sat down to write the questions to ask these idiots, perhaps they knew that the true goal was to make them look as dumb as possible so we can at least cut the race down to single digits. Maybe every question was designed to shade the fuck out of them and help viewers see the deep incompetence of everyone on the stage. It’s a stretch, but if my theory has any truth to it, brava to whoever was responsible. Brava.

The Ruling: Shade

Contact the author at [email protected] .

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Share Tweet Submit Pin