I thought he was being sarcastic.
Point of order…
Wouldn’t that be community matron?
I know you’re probably joking, but if you wanted to be strictly accurate, the word is “patroness.”
While the feminine form might seem contradictory, given the etymology, this sense of the word means “supporter.” “Matron” has never acquired this specific sense.
IMO, the motives of someone who uses the word nigger are usually different from those of people who use words like queer. In fact, queer isn’t considered offensive by many people. In addition, your opinion that Jim Crow racism was based on blacks being seen as unclean or diseased is wrong, or, at the very least, incomplete. The treatment of blacks and gays is not analogous in most meaningful ways.
While working as a busboy at a restaurant, I had a waitress tell me I shouldn’t touch the tops of the glasses at the table previously occupied by two homosexual men because, “I didn’t know what kind of germs might be on them, or what they’d put in their mouths.” That’s an obviously a bigoted, and horrible statement to make, but it’s one that is most likely based on misinformation, than malice. It was only twenty years or so ago that many educated people thought HIV was a gay disease. Most people I hear make statements like that aren’t being malicious, they are stupid. I tend to give stupid people a little more slack.
And there are similarities between the way smokers and blacks are treated. Similarities alone don’t mean much. Either way, you are missing my main point that the addition of offensive language, a hypothetical situation, and the speculation that the powers that be would be treat hate speech differently was completely unnecessary. It’s like Godwin’s law. There are certainly times where the behavior of someone has similarities to something the Nazis did, but introducing the analogy detracts from the valid point being made.
No, nigger is offensive to damn near everyone. You could make the argument that “nigga” is consider non-offensive. It is a small, but important difference. It’s similar to the difference between “fag”, and “faggot”.
Because we got the point without bringing black people into it. It’s not appropriate because it’s not necessary, and detracted from the OP. Not to mention the bigotry is a pretty wide net.
Let’s look at the last part once more.
First, it comes out of nowhere, and lacks any meaningful context from which we can understand why he introduced the analogy. Second, the assertion that the university wouldn’t back him up is complete speculation which, I assume, he felt mitigated his responsibility to do what he feels is right. We have no idea what the school would have done, not to mention that the lady may have left and never caused anymore problems.
That’s a matter for Great Debates. Personally I think E. Lynn Harris (the gay black writer) said it well when he stated (I’m paraphrasing) “Gay guys don’t get arrested for jogging in straight neighborhoods, but you also don’t get disowned by your family when they find out you’re black.”
I can speak for the germs, but I can give a pretty good guess on the latter.
Having been called both, I can quite assure you that both fag and faggot are equally offensive (unless you’re a member of the Doody family- they love faggots).
Regarding the word patroness above, there’s a move across the board to make many terms gender neutral (actor can mean Kim Basinger or Alec Baldwin [but never Kevin Costner], stewardesses are flight attendants and server generally preferred to waiter or waitress, etc.). All library users are generally called patrons.
Hooey. Context is important. Sure, the word “queer” isn’t considered offensive by many people*. Those people are uniformly gay or gay-positive, though. Similarly, “nigger” isn’t considered offensive by many people*, and gosh, those people are black or black-positive. On the other hand, xenophobic usages, like “Eek, a dirty queer!” or “Eek, a dirty nigger!” are patently offensive.
Yes, the idea that Jim Crow racism was based on ignorant fears about disease is incomplete. It is not, however, wrong. Ill-founded fears about the spread of disease has historically gone hand-in-hand with racist attitudes. Antisemites propounded the idea that jews were an intolerable vector of disease for centuries. In the Jim Crow era, one of the most oft-cited reasons for segregating washrooms, drinking fountains, and seating was protection of public health. Those folks had typhoid and TB, and especially dreaded social diseases like syph and the clap, dontcha know? (Sigh.)
And, you’ll note, was never made.
Discrimination is discrimination, and it’s just an acknowledgement that gay folks are twenty or thirty years behind the curve as far as public education is concerned.
Honestly, I have no idea why anyone would get a bug up their ass about this analogy.
*On preview, I see that this is unfortunately ambiguous, but I’m just duplicating your awkward phrasing.
Ayuh. Personally, I would never use “patroness.” It just sounds so… what’s the word…? Oh, yeah: Patronizing. 
I must admit that I do wish they’d bring back the term Jewess, though. It just sounded somehow so…pleasant.
You’d think that, and yet there are still fucknuts talking about gay men sharing make-up tips, and the fact that it’s near-impossible to find a thread on here that mentions gay men that doesn’t descend into double entendres about blow jobs and orgies. Which means that people still make an awful lot of stupid generalizations about homosexuals, and that the readership of the Dope isn’t quite as enlightened as you and brickbacon seem to believe.
I still don’t understand why “you black folks” or more relevantly, anyone, would take offense to comparing bigotry against homosexuals with bigotry against blacks. But then I don’t understand what are the “meaningful ways” brickbacon is alluding to when he says this:
Seriously, what are the meaningful ways? Bigotry is bigotry.
And I’d give a vote for Negress too, just because of the alternative and much funnier answer to “When is a door not a door?”.
Yes, it is debatable, but I think Harris’ comment is pretty weak. Remember that plenty of non-black people are disowned for bringing home a black boyfriend/spouse.
True, but it’s a crappy thing for her to say.
I should have been more clear. Of course both can be used as slurs, but I think faggot is more offensive and less likely to be said in jest.
I should have given more gravity to the context of the situation. However, the word nigger isn’t considered positive by the overwhelming majority of black people. Many gay people don’t consider queer offensive.
I don’t think you can make a convincing argument that the disease fear was a main factor in the implementation of Jim Crow laws.
It was made. He said the following:
Clearly, he is expressing the belief that the university may not back him up.
No, discrimination is not discrimination. That’s my point. Let each situation succeed or fail on it’s own merits.
I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see the word nigger used as carefully as possible. In addition, the analogy is not useful , and is inaccurate in too many ways.
First, let’s clear something up right away. I’m only speaking for me.
Now that we’ve gotten that little tidbit of info out of the way, I’ll expand on my first post to this thread. I’m not offended by the comparison of bigoted comments and acts against gays to those against blacks. I’m tired of whenever someone needs to illustrate how egregious a bigoted comment or act is one of the first things they trot out is asking the reader to imagine the outcome if the same thing happened to or was said about a black person. I think its usage is lazy. Honestly, be a little more creative about it. Here, I’ll illustrate:
Instead of:
So I was walking down the street wearing my favorite Gay Pride t-shirt and this dude yells to me, “Hey, faggot, we don’t want your rainbow-flag-totin’ ass 'round here!” None of the other pedestrians said a thing. I bet if I were black and he called me a nigger, they would have spoken up.
Try:
So I was walking down the street and this dude yells to me, “Hey, faggot, we don’t want your rainbow-flag-totin’ ass 'round here!” None of the other pedestrians said a thing! I bet if I were Laotian and he called me a chink, they would have spoken up.
Or even:
So I was walking down the street and this dude yells to me, “Hey, faggot, we don’t want your rainbow-flag-totin’ ass 'round here!” None of the other pedestrians said a thing! I bet if I were a white woman and he called me a cunt, they would have spoke up.
The last sentence is just plain unnecessary. If you must use it, however, try using different ethnic minorities as your example. It would be a welcome and refreshing departure from the norm.
The tone of the above is like a flowchart from Sesame Street in hell.
OSCAR: So, this nigger, a cunt and a chink all go into a candy store…
BIG BIRD: Oscar! Nigger, cunt and chink are offensive! Don’t you remember we had this conversation when LaShonda Nguyen moved into the neighborhood? Instead of that, try this…
Of course I found all three of the above offensive, but mainly because he said “Hey Faggot” rather than the more polite and proper "Hey fag [you with the rainbows in your eyes, love never made a "- wait, I’m thinking of something on another message board.
Sampiro, if for some reason the admins smile upon me and grant me one more name change, I will change it to LaShonda Nguyen.
Another possible response: “Ma’am, if you’re worried about contracting a sexually transmitted disease from the computer equipment, you’re probably using it incorrectly.”
Or just a big show of shock and the exclamation: “What on earth were you planning to do with the mouse?”
Which should be assumed every time a poster makes a statement that he doesn’t explicitly state as a commonly-accepted fact or claim to speak for an entire group. And, I have to point out, is belied by your saying “us black folks.” It implies that there’s a solidarity there to which non-blacks aren’t invited.
And that’s a fine point, which I actually agree with to some extent. Arguments about gay rights always mention either black civil rights or left-handedness at least once, and arguments about any injustice at all have people comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. (There’s an essay by Sarah Vowell about that very thing). But I’d say it’s not “lazy” as much as “unfortunately relevant.” The black civil rights movement was the most visible, prolonged, and violent in US History – I never read about Laotian riots in civics class, for instance.
But fortunately we’ve seen some progress from it, which is exactly why it’s still useful as an analogy. Most people with a lick of sense will realize it’s absurd to say that discriminating against Bryant Gumbel is wrong but discriminating against 50 Cent is okay – however, you still get otherwise intelligent people saying what boils down to “I don’t mind gay people; I just wish they wouldn’t act gay.” People have, for the most part, started to understand why racism against blacks is bad, and it’s not just because people can’t help being black but because it’s a stupid thing to discriminate against. So as long as there’s relevance there, why not use it as an analogy?
The problem with Godwin’s Law, IMO, isn’t that it’s over-used; it’s that it’s offensively hyperbolic and irrelevant – when you compare a single unfair law to the genocide of millions of people and an attempt to conquer Europe, that’s offensive. When you compare the discrimination of one group of people for a stupid reason to the discrimination of another group of people for a stupid reason, that’s relevant.
And once again, please explain how it’s not useful and inaccurate instead of just overused. I’ve been admonished a few times for comparing gay civil rights to black civil rights, and I want to hear somebody explain how and why they’re not analogous. Why should each situation succeed or fail on its own merits? “Now that we’ve wrapped up that whole blacks vs. white situation, we can start over from scratch and deal with The Homo Problem. Let’s start by giving them 5/8ths of a marriage, and see how that works.” Doesn’t it make a hell of a lot more sense that we actually learn something from all the violence and nonsense of the past 250 years of American history and not repeat the same mistakes?
I didn’t think it implied a solidarity and if I did I would not have used it.
As I said before, continue to use the analogies. Just know I’ll be lounging behind my laptop sighing heavily and rolling my eyes when it gets dusted off and trotted out. Not that my histrionics matter, of course.
Yours,
LaShonda Nguyen