The intent at the time of its use determines whether or not someone is really a bigot. The person listening, though (or reading), may not know what the intent is.
Of course not. That would be to imply that you can say whatever you like, and expect everyone else to magically divine the meaning of it.
Do you want something that’s part of your identity used as an insult? Are you saying that the use of the word “gay” meaning “homosexual” was only used by “some of the users of the word some time in the past”? Do you also think “to Jew someone down” - meaning to negotiate hard - is also polite?
Do you think people use “gay” with that meaning in polite society?
“Moron” just means someone of limited intelligence. It was used, for some period, as a specific term of art within medicine to refer to a certain class of mentally retarded people. That was a long-ass time before I was born.
Are you under the impression that “gay” doesn’t still mean, well, gay? Is the literal meaning of “cocksucker” somehow magically divorced from meaning someone who sucks cock?
If I’ve engaged in anything of the sort, then I certainly regret it. I haven’t seen any evidence of it, besides what you claim.
If I have done so in the past, though, I’m certainly willing to make an effort to change. I’m not under the misapprehension that I’m perfect; it doesn’t bother me to think that maybe I need to change the way I speak to avoid being an asshole.
Uh-huh. Aren’t you just the clever little armchair psychologist.
Meanwhile, back in reality, as I’ve pointed out, the significance of the term “cocksucker” is clear. Do you think it’s okay to engage in bigotry as long as you can say “Tu quoque”?
I must reiterate my astonishment that anyone would fight so hard to use offensive language and not be held responsible for it. Why is it so important to you to be able to call people “cocksuckers” as an insult? Why don’t you care that the term is offensive? Can’t you just, you know, acknowledge that it was a dumb thing to say and move on? That’s what adults do. Children engage in stupid arguments to try to prove themselves right when they’re not. It’s not attractive in an adult.
On the other hand, one cannot be expected to select their words so that nobody can take offense or assign a different meaning. One has to choose words that will best convey meaning to the most people. My perception is that most people will read cocksucker as equivalent to fucker or prick. That is, like the phrase “that’s so gay,” the word does not connote to most people “homophobic disgust.”
On the other hand, you won’t find me using the word “faggot,” because I have not heard many people using that word to be anything other that to connote hatred of homosexuals. Similarly, I haven’t heard much non-anti-semitic use of “Jew,” as in Jew someone down, so I wouldn’t use that word. I have used the word gypped before, because I didn’t associate it with gypsies, and I don’t think most people do.
I’m sure it does, as it also still means happy and carefree, and also seems to mean “lame.” I’m sorry that you’re unhappy that people are usurping the word that homosexuals usurped before them.
If you’re concerned about the literal meaning, then there should be no problem. Do you suck cock? Great - why do you have a problem with it? I don’t. I think there should be more cocksucking in the world. If you’re not talking about the literal meaning, but what the word connotes, I suggest that it does not connote what you think it connotes (let’s hear Mandy Patinkin say that line with as much style).
I can’t be engaging in bigotry if I lack the requisite hatred of a particular group of people, or if I’m not even using a word that for most people connotes anything to do with any group of people. Like I said, most people are going to interpret cocksucker to mean something like fucker or prick.
Something that would be helpful for you to learn is that you are responsible for your own outrage or offense.
It’s more important for me to do things for reasons greater than Excalibre says I should.
I do care; I don’t use it in any places that I wouldn’t use the words fucker, prick, etc etc. I get that it’s offensive to you, and to my knowledge I’ve never called you a cocksucker. However, given that I see it as equivalent to the other types of words I’ve mentioned, I don’t feel I should curtail my use of cocksucker here any more than I should any other profane epithet.
But I don’t feel it was wrong. You do, but once again, because Excalibre says something is so does not make it so. Several other people have told you the opposite. Why haven’t you admitted you’re wrong and acted like an adult instead of arguing to try to prove yourself right?
Huh. I was in high school from 70-74, and I’ve NEVER heard the term until recently, and then only in the context I described above, where it was unquestionably referring to gay in the sense of homosexual but was not particularly insulting. Of course, I grew up in fairly rural New Jersey (Hunterdon County, which was mostly dairy farmland in those days). OMG, I’ve just realized that even though I’ve lived in another country, and on another coast, and in the south, I’ve ended up one of those folks living within 50 miles (25, actually) of where they were born. How very provincial of me!
Excalibre, please don’t become one of those cause-y people who sees everything through the light of being a member/supporter of an oppressed group. Such people end up being such bores! I don’t think you’re in much danger of that, since you’re too broadly knowledgeable, and despite the fact that I agree with you 99% of the time, too abrasive to ever get stuck on a single thing to get up in arms about. That would deprive you of too many other opportunities to be nasty, which you seem to enjoy a great deal. But just a well-meant warning - please don’t ever allow yourself to become a single-issue insulter/arguer. Keep on insulting almost everyone; you may irritate, but you won’t bore, especially since you’re generally right and almost always know what you’re talking about (dammit!).
It’s not that simple. Technically it doesn’t mean happy and carefree anymore, but I don’t think many people agree with me that definitions can be “abandoned”, so fair enough on that one.
When teenagers call each other gay, they’re not saying “you’re lame”. They mean “You’re a gay person, and that’s a lame thing to be” Same effect, but it’s a distinction worth making.
Not so sure. For instance, my son’s friends will use the term “pimp” much like I would say “groovy”. Myself, I spent some years driving cabs, had some contacts with pimps and their victims, and loathe them with every fiber of my being.
“WTF! Pimps are among the most vile creatures on earth, what the fuck is cool about that, kids these days, wear their hair all funny, music’s just a bunch of noise and get off my lawn…” You know the drill.
I’m guessing no (but I’m peeking ahead)
Well then, I would guess these words wouldn’t prove anything about John Kerry, would they?
The words flow, questions are asked, statements are made. Clearly you are attempting some kind of rebuttal to my statement that Kerry’s stance on Iraq was changing and contradictory.
Sean Connery? Larry Flynt? Wait, I know, George Bush!
Ha. I guessed right again. That makes me two for two. I’m batting a thousand.
You quoted George Bush and Nick Smith concerning their stances on Iraq. From this (and nothing more) you conclude that John Kerry did not contradict himself.
That’s ummm… quite a trick.
I see that RTF is applauding you for this fantastic achievement. Sorry to burst you bubble, but what George or Nick say isn’t germaine. Whether or not Kerry contradicted himself or changed his stance is wholly and completely dependant on John Kerry’s words.
George John and Nick are seperate people. They aren’t John Kerry. You can’t quote them to proe what John Kerry said or didn’t say. You would need to quote John Kerry to do this. You understand this, yes?
I see you have strong and fiery opinions. I like that. I also see that your quick to judgement, prone to incoherent arguments, and abrasive accusations without actually thinking. I like that, too. It’s low hanging fruit.
Attempting to reconstruct what you are saying from the jangle of emotions and quizzes and irrelevant non-sequitors, I would guess that you are thinking about the quote where Kerry says “I voted for it before I voted against it,” and you are guessing that that’s what I mean when I say Kerry changed his stance on Iraq and contradicted himself. Is this right?
You have the quiz and quotes from other people who are not John Kerry and which therefore have no bearing on what John Kerry actually said. Nevertheless from these quotes I am guessing that you are suggesting that when Kerry gave Bush the athority to invade Iraq he was doing so under the assumption that it was as a last resort, and stated so clearly. Bush then went in without exhausting all other options like he was supposed to(according to Kerry,) and therefore Kerry could both vote in favor of the war but be against it, later. This is your argument, right?
I knew that. I knew that at the time. I know that now.
You have assumed that this is what I was referring to when I say that Kerry had a changing and contradictory stance towards Iraq and criticism on this front was valid. In fact, Kerry has made more than a single statement concerning his stance on Iraq. I don’t know why you would assume this one statement (if indeed that’s what you’re talking about) would be the only statement from which a contradiction could be demonstrated, but…
You assumed wrong.
You have called me a liar, and made a laughably fallacious argument wherein you quote George Bush to prove Kerry never contradicted himself (which gives me a chuckle for it’s childlike illogic) and basically pulled assumptions from out of your ass.
I like your fire and conviction though. Are you a redhead?
Scylla has a point: anyone fool enough to trust George Bush has questionable judgement. I’d be perfectly thrilled to have every Congresscritter who voted for that craven, cowardly resolution either chucked out on his/her ear or, at the very least, abjectly apologize for such dereliction.
I bask in Scylla’s support on this issue.
No I didn’t. I said I try not to end up in serious discussions with multiple persons in a single thread. If I debate with you, I will typically not respond to responses made in a post I directed at you. Rather, I will wait for you so that I don’t end up in endlessly branching multiple discussions (like I’m in now)
The spurious responses require little effort or time usually, so sometimes I will dash one off and pick the low hanging fruit.
I explained this to you once. You seemed to understand and even sympathize. You offered an alternative. Now you are going back and misrepresenting what I said. I consider this dishonest.
At the risk of being rude, I will also say that how or when I choose to craft my responses and comport myself is none of your business.
That was not a complaint, but an observation.
When I offered you that invitation, I was referring to: "I’m on record (over and over and over again) as thinking Bush and his team are actually quite good at those things they care about, but that there’s a rather precipitous drop-off once they get away from the stuff that matters to them.
What matters to them: (1) shoveling money and tax breaks to rich people and big or well-connected corporations and industries; and (2) maintaining and increasing their political power, so that they can keep doing (1) into the indefinite future."
I apologize for the misunderstanding.
[/quote]
(I pasted in the part in quote marks.)
No problem. I answered it seriously, if facetiously. I said that I think you like to stuff oatmeal up goats’ butts. I said that I thought that’s what matters to you. You got offended over the misunderstanding and took it as a simple insult, but my point is that you cannot simply assign motivations to other people. It’s inherently fallacious. Your argument is a simple assertion assigning motivations. You’re hanging out in a thread titled " Bush, you’re not at a frat party, you dick" making stupid and asinine statements and sweeping generalizations based on a ten second clip of a faux pas. It is inherently stupid. You know better. When I point out how stupid you are you complain that I don’t respond to your “substance” (broad unsabstantiatable generalizations and simple assertions, and assignation of motivations based on a faux pas.) This isn’t substance. It’s worthy of ridicule.
As long as we agree that it’s bullshit you made up, I’m cool.
Ooooooh. Oh yes, clearly from this we can prove that Bush only cares about giving tax breaks to the rich. I’m sorry I ever doubted you. :rolleyes:
I don’t feel afraid. You’re acting like a perfect asshole. If you want me to respond to something, reproduce the quote and say “Scylla you missed this, and I’d like to see your response if you don’t mind.”
Saying that I’m afraid is just plain stupid and childish. Grow up.
Just give me the quote, please and stop being an asshole.
That hasn’t stopped you so far. It’s good that you admit you were being dishonest.
Yes. If we’re generalizing. This however, is specific. There’s no need to generalize.
I think I’ve said it was a “faux pas.” But again, in this specific instance you’d need to ask Merkel what she thinks.
I think its pretty darn clear what she thought, according to videos widely available. My German is a bit rusty, however, what does “scheisskopf” mean, again?
Scylla, you took the time to help me with something years ago. I think it had to do with physical exercise. Anyway, our political differences haven’t mattered one whit since then.
This word is misogynist in origin because of its reference to the slang for women’s genitalia. Its connotation is one of weakness, cowardice, and impotence.*
Are you a misogynist, Excalibre, or has pussy lost enough of its original association with women that it can be used as an insult for any weakling of either sex?
I choose not to take offense at many words that are used against the groups I belong to. That’s because I remember from my old semantics classes that the word is not the thing. I do speak up when words are used against other groups.
BTW, it wasn’t just your grammar that I criticized in your use of language. And you’ve improved on your syntax lately. B- If you weren’t more gifted with language than I, I wouldn’t have said anything at all.
I don’t think about you often enough for you to be an enemy.
I don’t know what its origins are. But if you do, by all means share.
And I don’t imagine anything here; I’m just trying to ask good questions.
Excalibre:
I’m just pointing out that “it’s gay” doesn’t appear to have always been a referent to homosexuality, and usages persist that are not referent to homosexuality. According to my etymology dictionary the first referents to “gay” as a noun, denoting homosexuality, occur in 1971. The word has been around since the 1300s and has meant everything from “happy,” to “showy” to an amateur hobo.
As a matter of curiosity it probably got its current connotation from that last. A “gay cat” was a hobo who sometimes worked when times were tough, or a part time hobo. Later, in the 1930s it morphed into meaning a young or inexperienced hobo. Later still it morphed into meaning a young inexperienced hobo who was being accompanied by an older more experienced hobo. You know, a young hobo apprentice. You can probably guess how it got to its current meaning from there.
Anyway though you won’t find “gay” as a noun denoting a homosexual until about 1971.
I agree with you though that something or someone is “gay” meaning lame also carries homophobic overtones due to its current popular usage, and it should be avoided unless you specifically want to include those overtones.
On the other hand, not everybody, and particularly not older folk are fully cognizant of this and so slack must be given where appropriate. Remember the Flintstones. They had “A gay ooolllllld tiiiiime!” They wouldn’t have been able to use that on tv in that environment if it carried serious homosexual overtones.
Since you said, “Unless I want to sit here all day, I can’t answer everybody,” I’ll revise that to, “you don’t think you have time to answer rebuttals from anyone else but the one person you’ve selected.”
But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re responding to the easy ones and avoiding the hard ones.
I don’t think I’m misrepresenting. I was sympathetic, but I think I was clear that I believed it was behavior you needed to correct if you wanted to be taken seriously.
To the extent that you want to be involved in conversations with others, it IS their business. If you just want to talk to yourself, you can craft your responses however you wish.
And it was an observation bemoaning the lack of civility. Distinction without difference.
Then how come you pretended you were answering something else I said?
I took it as a simple insult, but it was too trivial to be offended by.
You can’t just assign them, but like with anything else, one can hypothesize, and see if the hypothesis stands up over time. Certain motivations will produce certain results, and they have. You think that’s not the case, then provide counterexamples, please. Bush has a long Presidential track record; you ought to be able to find something inconsistent with the motivations I’ve claimed are his.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The weird thing is, when I made the statement you keep coming back to (post 164), I made it with the approximate level of seriousness that seemed appropriate for the thread. You’re the one who seemingly wants me to defend it to the death, but frankly I don’t care enough about it to do so; I was kind of startled to realize that that, rather than my more longstanding theory a couple quote-boxes up, was what you were all het up about.
See what I mean? Here you’re talking about my “He doesn’t care anymore” remark.
Yes, I think it’s probably true. No, there’s not sufficient evidence to back it up right now. No, I’m not ashamed of making such a claim on the basis of thin evidence; I wasn’t intending it to be an assertion I was willing to defend to the death, but it seemed like an important observation to go ahead and make now, in case evidence bore out my expectation of its truth.
If you think that’s a stupid thing to do - that one shouldn’t ever advance an idea before one can prove it - then you shouldn’t hang around scientists; they do it all the time.
And here, even though you’ve been going on about my “Bush doesn’t care anymore” statement, you pretend now that I’m talking about the other one, about Bush giving goodies to the rich and increasing political power.
I can only conclude that this repeated switch-off technique, which you’ve now practiced in both directions, is quite deliberate on your part.
Like I said, you’re a dishonest debater.
DianaG, post 67: “I’m American, and I’d deck a colleague who did that to me. Especially, ya know, in an important meeting. It’s overly familiar, disrespectful, and generally cretinous.”
FisherQueen, post 75: "I’m an American. And a woman. And I think there may be men who don’t get how often guys will come up and start touching your shoulders, or how invasive and creepy it is. If any of you are under the impression that this is an okay thing to do to any woman who you are not in a sexual relationship with, CUT IT OUT. Right now.
That my president is acting in such a creepy way to a foreign head of state is astounding to me- and I already hated his guts. As much as I disliked him politically already, it never ocurred to me that he could be this awful personally. I always heard the guy had charisma.
The German showed great courtesy in NOT smacking him hard."
DeadlyAccurate, post 76: “I’ve lived in Texas most of my life, and I would be seriously creeped out by anyone but my husband or my father doing what Bush did.”
monstro, post 94: "There’s a guy who I work with who does the quick massage thing to me. He doesn’t do it to the other co-workers; only to me. Just like Bushie only did it Merkel. He also rubs my hair like I’m some good-luck charm. I’m sure if this guy had been around, Bushie would have had a field day. Maybe my coworker and the president are related (funny…both of them are from Texas).
The face that the German chancelor made? I make that face on a daily basis. Maybe I should write a letter to her expressing my empathy."
Shayna, post 110: “Good lord. I’ve worked for my boss for over 6 years. I feel I know him very well, as we also have a somewhat social relationship outside of the office, as well. If he ever laid his hands on me in that manner I would be so squicked out I don’t know what I’d do. And mind you, this is someone who on occasion I’ve given a quick hug to, to say thanks or to receive a congratulations for something (like my marriage, for instance). But if he tried to massage my shoulders? No. Just. . . no. Absolutely not done.”
groo, post 120: “I’m American, and my program manager does the neck rub thing to me (man-on-man). It creeps me out, but I understand where it’s coming from (an attempt to feign closeness). IMO it’s totally inappropriate in the office, in diplomatic situations, and pretty much every other public setting.”
I figured you’d read some of that part of the thread. You posted at 113.
Anyway, you get the idea.
Whatever you mean by that.
You’ve also said Bush did it as a cunning move to gain valuable information. You’ve apparently said so many contradictory things that you should change your username to Red Queen.
Why? I’ve already addressed this. Repetition =/= rebuttal.
At any rate, I’m highly amused at how much time you’re willing to devote to a thread you claim such a low opinion of.
I think it’s a reasonably interesting thread, and think the matter of Bush’s run of crass behavior (pig roast remarks, chew 'n show, unexpected massages, not bothering to learn ‘yes’ and ‘no’ in his fellow sovereign’s language) is worth some attention. Which is why I’m in the thread. You seem to be spending a lot of time here because you want to take cheap shots but avoid serious debate, while saying it’s a ridiculous thread and you don’t have time to respond to more than one person seriously. I say you should put your analyst on danger money.
One might also keep in mind that for some time the term “gay” was the term of choice if one wanted to refer in a polite, or at least non-judgemental context, like the term “colored” before it was replaced by the rather cumbersome “African-American”.
“Cocksucker” literally refers to an oral act, but its more “true” definition is a despicable person. “Shiteater” is similar, no direct correspondance to an actual act is necessarily stated. A “brown-noser” is not literally expected to practice nasal-anal contact, it is a figure of speech. It is understood as a term of derision rather than an actual description.
To stretch the point, aren’t some homamericans pressing “queer” to an academic standard, as in the utterly bewildering concept of “queer studies”? Yesterday a slur, tomorrow a curriculum?
You have every right, and my entire support for, equal justice before the law and all that entails. But if you expect us all to adjust our vocabularies to your sensibilities, well, good luck with that. I’ve been trying to get people to understand for years the subtle distinctions between a redneck, a cracker, and a peckerwood.
Wikipedia seems to agree:
We have a ruling on the subject:
"A 2006 BBC ruling by the Board of Governors over the use of the word in the context of a Chris Moyles Radio 1 show statement “I don’t want that one, it’s gay”, cited in the same article, states that:
The word ‘gay’ … need not be offensive… or homophobic… The governors said, however, that Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage. […] The committee… was “familiar with hearing this word in this context.” The governors believed that in describing a ring tone as ‘gay’, the DJ was conveying that he thought it was ‘rubbish’, rather than ‘homosexual’. […] The panel acknowledged however that this use… in a derogatory sense… could cause offence in some listeners, and counselled caution on its use."
Rtf:
I actually sat here for 20 minutes replying to your previous post.
I changed my mind. I think I’ve been giving you too much credit here based on past pleasant experience, but I really don’t see anything there worth bothering with in its current form.
Doubtless you will find this unsatisfactory. No offense, but it’s tedious and I don’t care.
You’re right of course; my use of “pussy” in that sense was misogynistic. I will endeavor not to use it that way in the future.
I wish I could say it was a surprise that someone who claims to have been an English teacher apparently has no experience with the academic study of English grammar. While it seems to me that study of English grammar ought to be a prerequisite for teaching English, in my experience it’s not. Nevertheless, you certainly showed off your lack of knowledge in the area when you offered up your passive-aggressive criticisms of my writing.
I hope you’ve recognized your ignorance in the area and proceeded to engage in some self-improvement. The seeking of knowledge is a wonderful thing.
“Queer” has been used as a self-identifier of queer people for a long time. It’s particularly useful as a term that embraces LGBT people as a whole.
I’m not sure why you think this is relevant, anyway.
I don’t expect you all to. I expect those who are not homophobes to do so, just as I expect people who aren’t anti-semites to avoid the phrase “to Jew someone down”, and non-racists to refrain from referring to black people as “niggers”. It’s not my experience that everyone is free of homophobia, so I have no expectation that everyone will avoid furthering it in their speech. At any rate, again, this matter isn’t exactly rocket surgery. If you don’t dislike gay people, then why would you want to use the implication that someone is gay as an insult?
Talk about a hijack. Look, I can insult a man by suggesting he’s acting like a woman. That wouldn’t mean I dislike women.