I really don’t understand, if that is not your intention, why you insist on painting GLAAD as “arrogant” and that in your own imaginary response, should you find yourself on their bad side, you would tell them that you trust an apology is enough, and you can’t make me do any more. I mean, how is that supposed to come off other than an implication that GLAAD is trying to force Mr. Ratner into some obligation?
My second paragraph was intended to everyone in the thread that, as mister nyx so well put it:
Frankly, it’s not hard to lump you in with that group considering how you imagined yourself repsonding in that situation.
Also, some of you guys should answer that “why” instead of making durr-hurr jokes. I mean, I know stupid, derailing jokes are a Doper specialty when you don’t have anything of actual worth to say, but come on, it’s a reasonable question.
OK, I see now that your entire argument only works if you assume facts not in evidence. Got it. You can continue to rant and rave if you like but I’m done here.
Aqualung didn’t assume facts not in evidence. The evidence for your attitudes is in the things you said. I’m just going to charitably assume you just don’t like to admit you’re wrong but that you’ve seen that the attitude you’ve expressed in this thread really needs some examination. Because the alternative says something way worse about you.
Yes, but you used them to insert an editorial comment about the post, which is against the rules - which I should have clarified in my initial comment.
The rule in question is described here. Feel free to PM me if you have any further questions.
I’m 100% okay with what GLAAD did, because I’m 100% okay with the idea that the apology is required, and not something he chose to do. I am also okay with the idea that he is required not to use such slurs.
All that said, I think it’s stupid to infer from this thread that anyone doesn’t think what the guy did was wrong unless they flat out tried to excuse him. I also find it easy to get mad at things that are technically right if I think the person is being a jackass about it, and I’m sure many other Dopers do to (because they’ve done it to me.)
Well, I guess it’s good that at least one straight person in this thread decided to stop running his mouth off about how unfair it is for gay rights organizations to be so mean to homophobes.
I hope the rest of you stop and think about why the gay posters in this thread disagree with your opinions, and maybe spend some time reconsidering whether GLAAD is actually the bad guy in this scenario.
As a straight poster in this thread, you mind putting down the broad brush or perhaps enumerating all the straight posters who’ve offended your majesty?
Yes, you and the minority of posters who are straight (or did not state their sexual orientation) who are not hating on GLAAD or trying to derail the topic with unfunny ‘jokes’ are appreciated. It doesn’t change the overall thrust of the responses or the obvious gulf between the responses of gay people and the responses of those who did not state their sexual orientation.
The problem is not that the comment is “hurtful”, that caused all the “hurt” individuals and related groups publicly declare their outrage.
The problem is that this comment is aggressive and hostile, whether or not any intended target of such hostility chooses to make it a big issue or not.
Most of the complainers seem to take the: “He Hurt Us” attitude. That’s nonsense.
The true evaluation of his comment is “I want to insult them” attitude. That’s why what he said is stupid.
Not because he hurt anyone. But because he wanted to make an insult by using that stupid term.
Exactly. In situations like this, I’m always reminded of what Miss Manners said: It’s as if someone said, “I don’t know why you were insulted when I insulted you.”
Well, I’m not personally hurt by it; I’m an adult and like just about any gay adult, I’ve gotten used to hearing things way worse than that and in much more personal circumstances. However, that doesn’t change the fact that when people publicly say things like that, it reinforces a lot of harmful ideas that I trust I don’t need to explain in detail. Queer people have less luxury than straight people to dismiss the effects of those prejudices – which, unfortunately, are still common.
I also suspect that hearing things like that in the media is much more directly hurtful to kids, who don’t necessarily have the confidence that I have in myself. I remember being twelve or thirteen and realizing I was gay, and while I think it’s gotten a lot better since then, especially in some places, I know there are plenty of young queer kids out there who aren’t in great situations and aren’t comfortable with themselves.
Which, all in all, makes it very hard for me to see either blowing past what Mr. Ratner said as though it’s something unimportant (the way the author of this thread did), or making trivializing jokes about gay rights organizations, as indicative of anything less than a serious lack of empathy and insight.
[QUOTE=mister nyx;14460345 Queer people have less luxury than straight people to dismiss the effects of those prejudices —[/QUOTE]
Well, I take offence in your choice of the term “queer”.
Now what?
Sexuality has to be dismissed from the discussion of social issues. Sexuality does not factor in morality and how we should behave in order to be moral and “good” people.
The insistence of people to acknowledge that homosexuality is an inferior attitude but should be treated as equal is moronic and wrong.
Homosexuality is a behavioral trait. It is NOT a moral trait.
Uh, sexuality may not actually inform morality, but it is absolutely “associated” in people’s minds. To argue otherwise is asinine and disregards anything resembling reality.
Sexual orientation is irrelevant in determining the content of one’s character, that is true. Is that what you’re getting at? True as it may be it has nothing to do with this discussion because no one here is disputing it.
I don’t get the impression that anyone (except PC-gone-mad guy) thinks what he said was OK. It’s just that these ‘concrete steps’ sound a bit much when he’s already been fired and apologised. But hey, if he wants to go that route then good for him.
FTR, I am gay. I do the use the word fag, but only because I’m English and it means cigarette. It’s extremely rare as a gay slur here.
you can’t make me do any more. I mean, how is that supposed to come off other than an implication that GLAAD is trying to force Mr. Ratner into some obligation?