Pinko Canuck Fag Extraordinaire?
Anth - Give the man what he wants.
Ghandi - You wouldn’t mind showing me where Matt denigrates Americans any more than he does, say… Canadians?
War is evil, bombs kill people. We know that.
I think it is troubling to many that many of the guys dropping that ordinance can be so extraordinarily ignorant.
Matt and people like myself have every reason to find this disturbing.
What Cheesesteak said. It’s just a generic insult, like “cocksucker”. But I bet that if they had written “hijack this, cocksuckers”, AP wouldn’t have picked it up.
One more vote here for this not showing any particular homophobic bias on the part of U.S. military forces.
If it had read “Hijack this, sand niggers”, it wouldn’t have showed any particular sandniggerphobic bias on the part of U.S. military forces, either.
It just shows the high level of cluelessness that human beings sometimes operate at, but then, we already knew that.
Not to mention that they spelled “hijack” wrong. Who spells it “highjack”? Perhaps they meant to say “cocksuckers” but couldn’t remember how it went (coksuxers? cocsukers? koksukers?) so they went with “fags”, which is easier to spell, as long as you remember there’s only one “g”, the opposite of “Fort Bragg”, but that’s easy to remember 'cause “fags” are the opposite of what’s at Fort “Bragg”, so “Bragg” has two "g"s, so “fags” is the opposite, so it has only one “g”.
While I don’t think use of the word “fag” necessarily makes one a homophobe, I do, however, think it makes one a fucking buffoon.
If our armed forces want the respect and support of their countrymen, then they should take it upon themselves to avoid using dehumanizing words that insult a not inconsiderable portion of those same countrymen when signing their bombs.
If they had written “This is going straight up Allah’s ass” on the missile, wouldn’t you expect most American Muslims to be offended, whether they were the intented target of the insult or not?
No comment.
I AM A FAG, YOU UNPRECEDENTED DOLT. If you call terrorists fags, you are comparing them to me and me to them. A sixth-grader could see the logic. GAH!
deep cleansing breaths
Uh, you missed this part, from gay.com:
Basically, what GLAAD complained about to the AP was not that the photo’s subject was offensive but that the AP sent it out just saying “A Navy officer signs a bomb attached to the wing of an aircraft on the flight deck of the USS Enterprise in the Arabian Sea, Thursday, Oct.11, 2001. The USS Enterprise is one of the ships involved in the attacks in Afghanistan.” with no reference to the offensiveness of the words being written on the bomb. They didn’t want it to be withdrawn; they wanted it to be talked about more than it was.
Funniest thing I have read in ages! My adoration of matt grows by leaps and bounds!
Sigh…if only I was a handsome gay man in Montreal…
Bolding mine.
This is the problem. Little kids toss the term “fag” around without even knowing what it means. It is indeed a “generic” insult, but the words themselves do have meaning. Allowing things like this to pass without comment is what helps reinforce the idea that being gay is wrong.
No, I don’t think everyone who uses fag as an epithet is a homophobe. The vast majority don’t even think of the meaning behind the word they’re using. But I still think people should be called on (nicely, of course) when they use the word fag without thinking.
Now that’s just silly. I didn’t miss any such thing, because a) you did not previously post that, and b) I don’t frequent gay.com, so I shouldn’t be expected to “see” it beforehand.
Based on the quote you did use from planetout, I felt your remark was unfounded; there was nothing in the original quote to indicate that it wasn’t pulled simply because it was deemed offensive (i.e., because some people complained about it). If you made your remark based on other, unposted evidence, fine - say so up front. There would be fewer misunderstandings. And for what it’s worth, I do agree with the GLAAD spokeswoman.
On an unrelated (though related) topic, I think that what Evil Ghandi was trying to say with his earlier comments is that the offensiveness of the language on the bomb pretty much pales when compared to the offensiveness of the bomb itself. Said bomb will violate person and sensibilities far more than anything written on it, and it seems somewhat odd that folks choose to focus on the former rather than the latter.
Note that this is not necessarily my viewpoint, but my interpretation of Evil Ghandi’s viewpoint. Do with it as you will.
Darwin’s, as it turns out, the articles at planetout.com and gay.com were exactly the same. Had you visited planetout.com and read the article I mentioned (which was on top of the news page there, btw), you would have come across the quotation one way or another.
Moving right along, I don’t exactly know why noticing the offensiveness of something written on a bomb would stop us from noticing that the bomb itself is offensive (as it were). Partially it’s the fact that this is the same armed forces whose members occasionally beat gay or suspected gay people to death. Partially it’s the fact that navy censors decided that a homophobic slur couldn’t possibly hurt the navy’s reputation.
But trust me, you’ll find few enough people here who think I let the offensiveness of a bomb itself pass me by. Actually, I’ve been quite viciously insulted here from time to time for the opposite.
**EvilGhandi wrote:
Trust me, a good number of the guys who watched my back in the bad ol days took showers togeter.
We pretended not to notice.**
What’s the matter, EvilGhandi? Afraid you might like it? 
I’m constantly amazed by the number of men in the American armed forces who, armed with nothing more than a Boy Scout pocketknife, will volunteer to parachute into enemy territory at night and do hand-to-hand combat with hordes bloodthirsty terrorists in order to kill the mastermind behind world domination. Yet when confronted with another grown man looking at his penis, shrieks in terror and runs the other way, forever doubting his own manhood and masculinity.
Osama bin Laden and his ilk have been doing it all wrong! To thoroughly undermine the US armed forces, they need only confront our advancing ground troops with a few lisping drag queens who will oogle their penises while doing bad Bette Davis camp. Our ground forces will be so demoralized they’ll be in therapy forever.
IMO, you ought to be able to do your job, no matter how difficult or stressful or crucial, without randomly insulting cross-sections of the population who have done nothing to merit attention, much less insult. I don’t care if you’re saving my own personal ass from a house fire, I don’t need to hear you insult people as you do.
I think it’s a shame such a slur was written, and I don’t care if it’s on a bomb or on a napkin. It saddened me to see it, and I think it can only be explained – not excused – as an ignorant act. That anyone would attempt to defend it or excuse it surprises me greatly.
Given the standard Taliban treatment of gays–I think they drop walls on them or some damn thing–it strikes me as being a bit like writing “Take this, Kikes!” on a bomb you’re about to drop on Nazi Germany.
This is somewhat tangential to your main point, and believe me, I’m squarely in your corner on this one, but AFAIK what you mention above has happened exactly once in recent memory, and the perpetrator of that act was dishonorably discharged and sent to prison. “Once” is about as occassional as you can get. Has this been happening more often than I’m hearing about?
Well, it isn’t just the US that attacks gay sailors. PLD, there was also the case of Allen Schindler, beaten to death in Japan by fellow sailors in 1992.
OTOH, Matt, I am personal friends with and have family in the US military, all of whom are warm, loving, pro-gay folks (they all love me, a confirmed homo), and I would be grateful if you would rethink your anti-military stance.
FWIW, the photo pissed me off, too.
Well, it isn’t just the US that attacks gay sailors. PLD, there was also the case of Allen Schindler, beaten to death in Japan by fellow sailors in 1992.
OTOH, Matt, I am personal friends with and have family in the US military, all of whom are warm, loving, pro-gay folks (they all love me, a confirmed homo), and I would be grateful if you would rethink your anti-military stance. In addition, there are many pro-gay military folks on this board, and your lumping them in with this asinine act is insulting.
FWIW, the photo pissed me off, too.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gobear *
**
Just because you have family and friends in the military does not mean anything more than they are the exceptions to the rule.
In a recent Advocate it was shown that discharges from the military on the basis of sexuality were rising steadily.
As there is harassment and punishment, which is the norm, the people who know they are not a part of that harassment should not require defending as they know what the policies and climate are within the military.
It is no different than people saying how many gay men make fish remarks about women. It is often true, and though I do not, I don’t feel a need to decry it.
PS: The photo should piss you off.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gobear *
**
Just because you have family and friends in the military does not mean anything more than they are the exceptions to the rule.
In a recent Advocate it was shown that discharges from the military on the basis of sexuality were rising steadily.
As there is harassment and punishment, which is the norm, the people who know they are not a part of that harassment should not require defending as they know what the policies and climate are within the military.
It is no different than people saying how many gay men make fish remarks about women. It is often true, and though I do not, I don’t feel a need to decry it.
PS: The photo should piss you off.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone have any figures on the number of gays or suspected gays beaten to death in the military as compared to, say a city of the same size (I think the US military has a bit over a million servicemen and women) over a given time period. I suspect that the military is not any more prone to homophobic violence than other cross sections of society. US servicemembers are an unbelievably broad and diverse group of people, and that some of them are violent homophobes is to be expected.
Of course, I don’t mean to imply that I in any way support the military’s policy on homosexuality. That is indeed wrong. However, I think the implication that the US military condones violence towards homossexuals is wrong.
It’s entirely possible, and even likely, that Navy censors do not have carte blanche with what can be withheld from circulation. They probably look to make sure no classified information is being released, and wouldn’t stop something that may hurt the Navy’s reputation. The picture would probably not have been reviewed by anyone with the authority to decide what image the Navy wants to project.
You are making the assumption here that GLAAD’s complaint was the only one, or at least the one that the AP responded to. There may also have been several other complaints about the offensiveness of the language as well. In any event, the AP recieves complaints, and withdraws the photo, no need to ascribe any ulterior motives to them.
We shouldn’t be obliged to believe there is a rule just because you say so.
I really can’t get pissed at it. Yeah, I don’t condone the use of fag as a generic insult. But as long as it’s not part of any homophobic action, I just accept it as an unfortunate consequence of other people’s ignorance. And not one of the worst ones either.
I love that link you have for Allen Schindler. "Not coincidentally, Schindler died shorty after newly-elected President Clinton broke his first promise to the gay community and did not sign an executive order allowing gays to openly serve in the military.What Clinton effectively had done was to create even more of an atmosphere of hatred towards gays in the armed services, and subsequent “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has led to more anti-gay witch-hunts than ever before. <emphasis mine>
So basically they’re laying some of them blame on President Clinton, real nice of 'em. I’m not a fan of Clinton and I used to criticize his decision not to sign that executive order. But at the time the best he could really do was the lame “don’t ask don’t tell” policy.
Marc
Man, you are so gay.
( :rolleyes: )
Esprix