In the tone of delivery, there is no better word. Sadly, there is no worse word either. Even the most delicately worded sentences carry a harsh toll when weighted with intentional malice.
Look, troop. Whether you regard it as asset (vs. liability), privilege (vs. underprivileged status), or right (vs. deprivation of a godgiven right), the fact remains that there are things that whites consider as a normal part of life that blacks do not (anybody remember the black man who died from a police beating in suburban Pittsburgh, IIRC, because he was “driving too nice a car – he must have stolen it”?). And there are things that heterosexual people take as a matter of course that gay people do not. Matt_mcl has given some darn good examples above. There’s another Pit thread in which he complains about having been expected to toe the line to a stereotype – and in which Deacons Trucked complains about the same expectation to the exact reverse stereotype. But I bring that thread up because of a hijack that happened in it – an unnamed poster found Matt’s complaint as “flaunting his gayness” – as has happened to Esprix some dozen times.
I think absolutely nothing of bringing my wife up in a post if something she said, did, learned, thought, or felt is applicable to it. But if SqrlCub brought up what dcnewsman said, did, thought, etc., that was similarly appropriate, even the least “homophobic” of us would probably have an initial reaction of “Why’s he bringing up the guy he sleeps with in this context?” Sorry, gang: that commitment between them is just as strong and just as meaningful and just as not-limited-to-sexuality as is mine with my wife. And in the hundred or so times I’ve mentioned her, nobody has flamed me for flaunting my heterosexuality.
So let’s get off the “use my word, you !@#$$@#%@” kick here. Some of the things to which gay people are not presently entitled which straight people are may be rights, some privileges, some assets, and whatever else somebody has thought up to throw into the mix too. The point is that there is a problem.
I know damn well that at some point I’m going to say something, completely innocently, that hurts or pisses off a gay poster, simply because, as good as I am at empathy, I don’t know what Matt, Esprix, goboy or Hastur has had to put up with. (I nearly did that on a GD post, where goboy gently chastised me for a joking reference to Esprix’s uh, rather active sex life recently. :o I hastened to clarify that it was gentle ribbing of a friend, in an appropriate context – goboy had made reference to not having Wild Monkey Sex with multiple partners – not jumping on the bandwagon of “let’s pick on Esprix flaunting his gayness” – an attitude which I personally despise.) Gentlemen, and ladies of the Lesbonic persuasion, you have my sincerest apologies in advance for that whenever and wherever it happens, and a request that you correct me gently about it.
Now, can we get on with the business of fighting ignorance? If we stop to piss on each others’ terms like this, it’s no wonder it’s taking longer than we thought.
Geez, can you believe how many times Polycarp mentioned his wife in that post? As a single person, I can’t stand when people flaunt their marital status like that. Not that there’s anything wrong with marriage, but you don’t have to shove it in my face like that all the time.
::runs away::
Excuse me if I think this a silly argument. And curse myself for injecting myself in it .
Privilege: 1.* a right, immunity, benefit, or advantage granted to some person, group of persons, or class, not enjoyed by others and sometimes detrimental to them.*
2.* a basic civil right, guaranteed by a government; as in the privilege of equality for all.*
A very broad definition, I think you’ll agree. And reading it, I am inclined to agree with Esprix, et al.
Jodi: The thing is you are making the contention that there are three classes of people. Privileged, normative, and under-privileged. I would contend that in this case there are only two. Privileged and under-privileged. With privileged in fact = normative. I think the confusion arises from the common usage of privilege as a series of rights given to a small elite, separate from the populace as a whole. I think you probably can make a case for multiple categories ranging from “least privileged” to “most privileged”. And that you could find a point where the majority of the populace falls and call this the normative state. But that doesn’t change the fact that, compared to the “least-privileged”, the normative state is still “privileged”. Because they enjoy privileges the “least-privileged” don’t.
And I’m giving myself a headache :D. But I hope that makes sense. It’s yet another argument over semantics.
But where I do agree with you is that I think using your “less-privileged” status as a point from which to make blanket attack/condemnation against a “more-privileged” group, individuals of whom may not agree with that unequal distribution of privilege, is not a good thing.
Jeez, what an ugly sentence 
.
- Tamerlane
Polycarp, I’m sure your wife is a wonderful woman, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask you to divorce her and come marry me in San Diego. I’m sorry, but that’s simply how it’s going to have to be.
Question me not, child, for I know best. Trust me.
Esprix
Hijack.
Crunchy Frog: So how are you supposed to spell that anyway? Jeez or geez 
?
- Tamerlane
Oh and I agree completely with Polycarp . And isn’t making that statement at some point requires to pass probation around here? 
- Tamerlane
RequirED. Damnit - I’ve been doing that all day 
.
TwistofFate…
You’re right, of course. Any baiting done was unintentional, but looking back I can see it. In that case, I apologize to the board at large (those who should be apologized to, anyway), and with that, I’m just going to drop the issue. My conflict rests solely with Ignorance, not opinions or viewpoints.
And that’s how you back up all your statements is it Hastur?
Through proof? Yes, I do.
You on the other hand don’t seem to take it well when your hypocrisy is put in the light of day.
You were the nasty one. And I don’t see an apology or even your admitting that you were the mudslinger.
Still waiting for Hastur to back up what he said.
He will do it though. After all he **always[b/] backs up what he says.
Gaspode. Hastur.
Granted, this is the Pit. And if you can’t rant here, where can you rant?
Granted, one or both of you feels that your good name has been dragged through the dirt by misprision of your righteous anger.
But that horse is dead
And this thread, as at least Hastur will have to admit, has a more important purpose than who besmirched whose post without evidence first.
Would you kindly drop it?
I backed up what I said. Read on page two where I quote you in great detail. Step back for a minute, try and read your posts impartially, and then tell me that you didn’t get viciously hostile and become attacking.
Still no backup though hey!
I have given substantial backup in two threads. You choose to ignore everything that does not support your narrow minded hateful views. Doubtless with your last venomous post in the Great Debates, you will probably be banned.
No great loss to the board, and it will only further the eradication of ignorance in your removal.
And that constitutes backing up what you say does it?
Come on Hastur, back up what you said.
Hey, now stop this fighting you two!
Don’t MAKE me go out and find a Joe Don Baker movie for you to watch!
OK Guinastasia, I’ll be good.
God anything but that.
I prefer Mitchell to Final Justice.
Send up the movie, Pearl.