Foghorn Leghorn voice:
Sonny, I sees your problem. Yous gots your reading comprehension filters on backwards.
I don’t think that particular case is relevant, since Howard actually resigned, which suggests that even he thought the word had something to do with nigger.
Exactly. IMHO, Chessic is a touch homophobic (see his contributions to DADT threads), but that is neither here nor there.
What is relevant is his statement that he wasn’t referring to homosexuals. Seriously, what else do you want him to say?
Well, since that was a post in response to one of mine that entirely missed my point… there’s a problem with “pansy” being sexist language whether or not he was referring specifically to gay people, which you’ve ignored entirely.
dragoncat doesn’t believe that he wasn’t talking about gays, but I’m saying I just don’t care. Girly men, gays, pansies, whatever; there’s a problem with that language that doesn’t require him to have been thinking of actual men who actually have sex with other actual men.
Ah. So you are offended on behalf of effeminate men?
And you on behalf of sexists, I suppose.
No comments, Big T? I’d hate to think your cutting remark was just so much Guinastasian jujitsu.
Who said I was offended? If you’re calling me a sexist, that’s your choice. I’ve never been shy about giving my opinion on any matter.
I thought he was trying to imply that black women that shop at Walmart and complain to news networks were actually gay men that needed to be sent to military camps to actually have the faggot beaten out of them.
Thats one plausible interpretation.
IIRC, he’s in the Army, so maybe he just wants more black women soldiers around. You know what they say: once you try a sister, you’ll never… er… resist-uh.
try again.
Well? You gonna fight my ignorance or sit there and post lame attempts at condescending humor?
Well, you’re posting to the thread, same as me, so I figured the same rules must apply. I’m offended, you’re offended, everybody’s offended, or why else would anybody talk about anything?
Or are you saying it’s a stupid thing to say and a silly, page one of the internet clown’s handbook-level attempt at a cheap personal dig?
I talk about lots of things I’m not offended about. 
In this case, I’m talking about something I’m not offended about at all. I am posting to express my lack of offense, in fact.
Naw.
I’ll just call you an intellectual pansy instead.
I, for one, find this all very amusing. His comment, I thought clearly, roughly translated to “People getting all up in arms about this are a bunch of wusses.” Oh, wait, wuss wouldn’t have worked either because it’s wrong to employ a term that means someone is weak, if possible connotations or denotations may also include lack of maniless? Well, I got nothing then.
Buncha pansies, 'round here.
Jesus christ.
OK, everything that I’ve posted about being offended has been facetious, do you understand. I didn’t realize it was that unclear. I don’t actually think everyone’s offended. I’m not actually offended on behalf of effeminate men, and I thought it was a stupid thing to say.
That’s my point, that talking about something doesn’t mean one is offended. I’m not offended when Liverpool signs another terrible midfielder or when a monkey rides a dog at a rodeo, but I might post about it anyway.
Is that some kind of pansy sex code words thingy there?
I can’t believe one guy can come up with all of this material, you know that? You can’t be human. You’re like the Deep Blue of taking a single word or phrase out of twenty different posts and saying the same joke-like thing about all of them.
It can’t be that much material if it’s just one joke-like thing, surely?