Don’t be angry… son.
Seriously.
That was the first thing I posted which could be interpreted as an insult, and I included the smilie to be sure it wasn’t. You on the other hand have been deliberately insulting most every time you’ve addressed me.
Turnabout is fair play.
I don’t hold a grudge but I’m sorry to say you probably won’t be needing that shower any time soon.
Rice queens? Potato queens?
Damn. I really am out of the loop.
On the other hand, at least I have heard the term “Nancy” before.
Adding a smilie doesn’t take the edge off insulting one’s mother. You can insult me all you like, certainly I’ve earned it, but don’t talk about my mother. That’s just vile.
You’ve defended using the words “nigger” and “queer”; you deserve to be insulted, yet the worst thing I called you was breeder, and that was me talking to Lissener, not directly to you.
Let me spell it out for you one more time: we can disagree all we like, but to attack a parent is out of bounds. My mom didn’t do a thing to you. THAT says volumes about you.
My regret is that I lack the ability to be as diplomatic and tactful as Esprix. He has great skills at defusing situations. I, on the other hand, am like gasoline at a bonfire and I have no tact whatsoever.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Esprix *
**
Absolutely. The thing is, until recently I thought we were already at that point. Oh I knew some folks might still be offended by it, but there’s always somebody ready and waiting to take offense. What I didn’t realize was that there were still lots and lots of folks who still found it offensive. In short, my preconceived notion (which I concede was erroneous) was that “queer” had become acceptable, and that lissener was one of a miniscule number of people who still hung onto the “bad” part of the word, after most everybody else had moved past it.
I also have to say: “Gay Tribal Council” would be a great name for a band. 
Mom insults have a long standing tradittion.
Call me a “breeder” and you are also insulting your own parents by extension.
Citing your certainty that I am a failed breeder is quite deliberately insulting. It is doubly so in light of the fact that my wife and I have gone through 5 years of fertility problems (not that you knew that.)
I’m still not insulted because:
a. I think rather poorly of you and don’t give your opinions any weight.
b. You make accusations and don’t back them up. You didn’t provide a cite last time, and you won’t this time. I never defended the use of the word “nigger.” I also never defended the use of the word queer. In the latter case I questioned the ability of one group to use it if another could not in polite discourse. This is a very different thing.
c. Turnabout is fair play
d. just cuz’
Oldscratch:
I have no objection, but somehow I don’t think goboy will go for it.
Lest you forget, you insulted me. I just turned it around using “Mom judo.”
<smilie ommitted by request>
Oldscratch can use it because it is funny.
Scylla, I did post quotes, but you ignored them. You’re not honest about your motives and I think poorly of you, too.
I posted this before, but you ignored it.
How is that a defense of the use of the word? Quite clearly both the context and the substance of the quote is arguing against double standard usage. As I’ve said, this is a very different thing.
What you have accused me of is saying that it is ok to use the words nigger and queer in general discourse. That is false.
I’d go so far as to say that it is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and an out and out lie.
Lie? Hardly. You have repeatedly argued that, yes, there is a double standard, so you should be able to use those words too. Are you saying now that you DON’T want to use those words?
In that quote, you said you thought about calling that guy a nigger. Is that a misrepresentation? You have an amazing ability to twist the sense of any post to suit your interpretation. since I am poor at casuistry, I’m done with you. Argue with yourself.
goboy
Yes, I thought about calling him a nigger in the same way that Esprix called his oriental friend a “rice queen.”
HE called himself a nigger in humor over a missed putt, and I contemplated calling him one in the same spirit over a shanked drive, but thought better of it. I wasn’t comfortable enough in the relationship, and he was genuinely pissed over his bad shot.
How you equate this with a blanket statement that I defend general derogatory use of these terms is beyond me. You’ve taken my quote out of context and attempted to put words in my mouth.
It’s a gross misrepresentation on your part. It’s clearly deliberate.
You’re a liar.
In all fairness, this is [insert polite word for “bullshit”]. Here is my second post in its entirety (my first simply [and, OK, sarcastically] asked the OP to more clearly state what he saw as the differences between “queer” and “nigger”):
My “position” has never changed. (Though we’ve ranged from discussing history to discussing effect to discussing mechanism, etc.) Rather, I have explained so many times and in so many different ways that, bit by excruciating bit, I was, apparently, finally able to communicate these two primary and basic concepts:
[ul][li]That we have collectively agreed as a society that some words can have a hurtful effect, and we agree therefore to avoid using them when we want to avoid causing pain;[/li][li]And that the language used by individuals within a self-defined relationship is a private matter and not subject to the dictates of anyone outside of that relationship.[/ul]I don’t think we disagree about these two concepts. Where we’ve had trouble seeing eye to eye is my insistence that these are, indeed, two separate concepts.[/li]
Do you see the point? I’m not asking for special dispensation for (specifically) gay people in regard to the (specific) word queer: I’m pointing out the general principles involved: politeness, and privacy. It’s not a gay thing. It is absolutely, without any variance whatsoever, analogous to a person’s (hypothetical) decision to feel comfortable with people he went to school with calling him by his first name, and feeling uncomfortable with strangers doing the same thing. Same name, different situations, different reaction. It’s not a double standard: it’s a private decision. The fact that a lot of gay people have had similar experiences and that many of them have made a similar decision about a word that has a common history for them doesn’t make them a conspiracy to steal the word “queer” from your vocabulary. It makes them private individuals whose private vocabulary is none of your business. This remains a separate issue from the cultural consensus that has removed the word from your vocabulary.
I have a group of friends that have known each other for years. We call each other “Bunny” (trust me, you don’t want to know). This does not ( !!! major point here !!! ) remove that word from your vocabulary, but it does give it a different meaning for us than for you. The “major point” is where this analogy diverges from the story of “queer.” To rewrite the analogy for “queer/nigger/dyke/whatever”: There’s a group of people with whom I share a common experience, and there are some words we use in private, to demystify them and defuse the marginalizing power they used to have over us. This does not remove these words from your vocabulary: society has agreed to remove them from its vocabulary
Do you see the separateness of the two concepts?
It only engenders the possibility of mislabeling as much as any other exchange you have with a person with whom you are not in a personal relationship. I’m only as good a judge of character as the next guy. Personally, I tend to be pretty generous with the benefit of the doubt. But you can read signs of hostility in some situations and not confer that benefit; you read as you go. No human exchanges are entirely free from the possibility of misunderstanding, so that’s really not a valid criticism here.
Your “simple disagreement” was a demand that I defend my basic right not to be called names. You’ll agree that this might be somewhat infuriating. What I see as a tiny, almost insignificant step in the apparently neverending process of society’s condescension to agree that I’m a whole human being with the same needs and rights as the next guy–as you, Scylla–the tiny step represented by the societal agreement that words which denote homophobia can now be considered impolite in mixed company, you insisted I fight for all over again. I have only one lifetime on this planet, Scylla, same as you, and I resent like hell having to devote such a huge chunk of it to educating people as to my humanity. How much time do you spend defending your right to be seen as a whole human being, Scylla? How many times do you think you’d have to have this debate before you’d sell your soul to trade places with Sisyphus? Forgive me if I get frustrated, but it’s pretty fucking frustrating that the burden of proof is ever and eternally on me, when perhaps you’ll agree that a person should be presumed to have such rights of dignity, and shouldn’t have to prove, over and over and over again, that he’s as entitled to them as the next person.
This is still not the point. It is a point, but it’s not the point. Of course it’s true that intent is extremely important; as I’ve said I’m pretty generous with the benefit of the doubt. And no group is immune to insult. But one of the most important points here is that these words are words used by those in power to diminish and marginalize those who are not in power. In this single aspect, the insults are not interchangeable: in this single aspect, “breeder” and “faggot” are worlds apart. Of course, we agree that it’s every bit as rude for me to call you “breeder” as for you to call me “faggot.” But there’s an implied (at least an inferred) threat behind such words as “faggot” and “nigger”; there’s no such threat behind “breeder” or “honky.” Not a physical, immediate threat, necessarily; not a specific threat from the namecaller to the person being called the name: the implied threat is the reminder that the culture at large is behind the namecaller; that the victim is powerless. It’s a threat in that it’s an emphasis on the threatening position of power held by one party, and the position of isolation and powerlessness held by the victim of such an exchange. And it’s that feeling of isolation caused by such words that I’m claiming the right to fight, to exorcise, in any way I feel is effective, including the use of particular words as talismans; as something stolen from the powerful; as perhaps nothing more than a little hair of the dog. Why we feel the need to reclaim such words is probably still not fully understood. That we have the right to do so, however, I hope you will not question; and that it does not invalidate the cultural consensus, which is truly a separate issue, I hope you will try to understand.
Horse… dead… still… beating… oof… argh…
Esprix
Lissener:
Let me chew on the rest of your post for a little bit, and try to give it the thoughtful answer it deserves.
For the moment:
I’m not sure there IS a “cultural consensus” (as you put aptly put it) on the word “queer.”
Rudy certainly didn’t think it an insult IMHO.
It is so prevalent in common everyday usage, that I didn’t think it necessarily offensive. “Queer Nation,” “We’re here, we’re queer” et al. With the gay community openly and publicly referring to themselves in this manner, I am having a hard time reconciling the use of that word in an open and public forum, but also being strictly familial to the point where it is intrusive if I utter it. I mean they I say it on TV! It don’t get much more out there than that.
I would suggest that there is NOT a consensus on the word.
That being said, I had no idea that some found it so truly and deeply insulting. I know I’m not alone in this.
Anyway, I won’t be using it.
Ok, I was wrong about you, Scylla. I was positive you were hiding an agenda, but it seems you weren’t. I really do sincerely apologize to you for all the harsh things I said. (althought the Mom comment was still out of bounds)
Scylla–
This discussion ceased being about the specific word “queer” a long time ago: it’ been about your insistance that for a group to use a word–any word–and yet be insulted when an “outsider” uses it, is to make use of a double standard. It’s your refusal to acknowledge the private rights of that group, or any relationship, that I’ve been addressing. “Queer” has merely been one of many examples.
FWIW, I will certainly agree that “queer” is less cut and dried than some of the other words mentioned. It’s still not without baggage, however, and I agree with you that it’s usually best to avoid it, on the principle of politeness.
Also, FWIW, I agree with goboy’s interpretation of your earlier post, and I feel like you’ve consistently argued for the right to use any words used within a private group, whether the members of that group would find your used of them offensive or not. You’ve consistently argued that not to be allowed to do so unnecessarily excludes you from that group. The overwhelming sense of your argument has been such that I agree entirely with goboy, and I think you are the one being disingenuous here, not him (though I’ll concede he’s being as rude as I have been in this thread). I especially feel that you’re being disingenuous in light of your gross mischaracterization–hypocritically without cites–of my initial “thesis” in this argument. I don’t expect you to admit this, nor even to consider it, but I wanted it said that, in accusing goboy of being dishonest and hypocritical, you are yourself being dishonest and hypocritical.
Also, FWIW, I heartily agree with Esprix that this horse has been beaten into horse jerky, and I concede to you, Scylla, the last word.
Bring it on home.
Don’t sweat it goboy. No apology necessary.
<not sure I want to go here and get into this but…>
Mother jokes have a long, prestigious, and time-honored tradition. (See Cecil’s column on “Signifying”)
Taking an insult and sending it right back at somebody using “Mom-Judo,” also has longstanding precedent. It is accepted that I actually know nothing of your mother, just as you know nothing of my wife and I’s previous fertility problems. Without such direct knowledge there can be no truly offensible insult.
Note: tradition holds that wives girlfriends sisters and such are supposed to be off limits. Only Moms are fair game. Not sure why.
As such tradition says that you can’t say anything or get offended without lending weight to the insult. What you can do is either turn it around (Mom judo is only one way,) or make fun of the insult based on its poor quality.
In the face of all this overwhelming evidence, history, and even the backing of Cecil I must claim the Mom-turnaround-insult-judo I perpetrated against you had precedent, was justifiable self-defense, not to mention funny (you said this,) and absolutely appropriate.
The defense rests.
But,
since you’re being big about this…
I take it back.
<smilie ommitted by request>
Lissener:
I see three levels
Private, family, S.O., etc. Usage here is familial and negotiated. It’s none of my business what you and your buddies call yourselves in private, and it doesn’t afford me the right to call you that.
Societal group. I.E. Gay, white, Black, etc. Here, I think we go by consensus within reason.
Formal. I.E. Homosexual, Caucasion, African-American, etc.
My poblem is pretty strictly within #2, and figuring out when you move into #1. Are there additional terms within #2 for use within that exclusive group? I think, that if there are they tend to be prejudicial in nature.
If white people called each other Aryans within the public forum and said that blacks and gays couldn’t, that would probably be a bad thing. I think it must be equally as bad for Gays to do so with “queer,” Black people with “nigger,” etc. etc.
I understand that this may represent solidarity against oppression. I don’t think that that is enough to justify it though, since at heart it is exclusionary, and counteracts a move towards tolerance and equality. Any step towards prejudice is wrong. If the words are bad and hurtful, they shouldn’t be used. By anyone. They serve no net constructive purpose.
Lissener:
I’m disapointed you think I’m being disingenuous. I assure you I’m not. I see your original position as being stated in this quote:
“Words invented by bigots to brand a group as separate must be relinquished to the labeled group; to refuse to do so makes you a bigot.”
I take this to mean that “queer” being derogatory must never be uttered by a straight person, but that Gays may continue to use it in the public and societal level, (the private being moot.)
I hope you understand that I wouldn’t seek to censor what you say in your own home or private, but I don’t think that a word can have a generally accepted Public usage (TV and speeches and such,) but by Gays only. That would be prejudiced. I am disturbed that “nigger” seems to e gaining such a status, and I’m not sure what to think about it. I am pretty sure though that it’s wrong for it to be this way.
Perhaps our problem is that “queer” is such an odd word, and there is not a general consensus. It might be fun to try this with another word where tempers might not run so high. Anyway, I think it is beaten to death.
I’d like to officially call for a group hug.
THe problem, as I see it is twofold. First, no group has a formal body that decided what all the members will be called. So when talking to an easily offended member of the group, you are walking in a mine field.
Second, perjoration of words is common. If Gays are called “bingoes” sooner or later “bingoes” becomes synonymopus with gayness and gets used as an insult.
I believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to not be easily offended.