Uh…so you were there, Faruiza? How many Dopers hang out at this high school?
Faruiza, while it is… possible you’re right, I find it just a touch of a stretch. And the simplest solution is usually the right one.
In any case, I wanted to clarify that there was really only one person doing anything - he didn’t own the phone but he was the one fiddling with it and calling it lesbian. And no other relevant information was passed between the kids, they were stadning right in front of me and no one else was speaking, I didn’t miss anything.
Even if that rather strange explanation is correct, it’s no less homophobic. Not to mention sexist. “You have failed to please me, cellphone! Thus, I must compare you to a lesbian, a distasteful type of woman who does not instantly cater to the whims of men the way a proper woman should!”
Just a thought here…
If I was angry at someone and called them a cocksucker, would that be insulting to people who enjoy giving head?
Not taking sides here, just posing a question.
What do Dopers have to do with it? Faruiza mentioned it was a joke.
Search the Pit. It has been debated several times. In short, many of us cocklovers believe so. The gist of the discussions is that if you use a term as an insult, then you must consider that there is something inherently insulting about the term. If being gay or a cocksucker is inherently bad, then we who are one or both must have the same innate fault.
That’s a good point. Usually - your mileage may vary - when someone calls another person a ‘cocksucker’ they’re using it as an insult and are aiming it at a man, not a woman. It’s a term of derision.
That’s the point. If calling a man a cocksucker as an insult then the speaker is making the implication that there is something inherently wrong with men who suck cock, who, by and large, are gay men. Hence, the insult to gay men.
I hope you’re not correcting me, Homebrew, as I was agreeing with you… 
Yes, and I’m wondering how Faruiza felt capable of “answering the original question” and explaining the boy’s joke, since s/he almost certainly was not there and could not possibly know what the boy actually meant.
Faruiza mentioned that the boy in the OP was making a joke, and offered what strikes me as a rather bizarre explanation for this joke. I’m just wondering why s/he decided to present this explanation as the “answer to the original question” if s/he was not actually there and didn’t talk to the boy.
D’oh! Sorry about that, folks. I thought the first one didn’t go through. It didn’t show up when I reloaded the thread!
I realize she was saying the boy in the OP was making a joke. I think you’re probably overreacting a tad. I didn’t get the impression Faruiza was presenting it as the definitive answer, just as a possible explanation. You can answer a question with an opinion, after all.
And if we presume that this is a possible - unlikely or not - explanation, then we can also say that one does not need to be present to offer this as a possible explanation. There have been many explanations offered in this thread, but my Spider Senses are telling me most of those posters were not present when the OP occurred.
Of course, it’s entirely plausible that Faruiza actually was present when the situation occured. But you didn’t wait for a response before jumping his or her case. After all, at least one Doper WAS there (hence the OP).
(Personally, I don’t find this particular possible explanation to be bizarre in the least. A little off-kilter, but not bizarre.)
Okay, another veer off topic. Last week at the local poker game, we had a new player; a friend of the host. When I came in, he was just saying something to the host about how the host had been ‘a jew’ about some monetary issue. The host looked at me (jewish) appologetically, and tried to cover up for his friend. I was a little offended, but… I dunno. I mean, what do you say to something like that? The ignorance level was just creepy, and put me off to this guy immediately.
**
If you think that, I must be coming across as far more upset than I actually am, which is not at all. I am merely slightly perplexed.
Actually, I don’t think it is plausible, as the school described in the OP must be in the Montreal area and Faruiza is apparently located in Southern California.
I don’t believe I did jump on Faruiza’s case, and if s/he took it that way then I am sorry. But I’m not sure how I could “wait for a response” since the only post I directed at Faruiza was the one in which I asked if s/he was actually there! (The double followup was a reply to you in which I explained what I meant by my question.) I’d be waiting a long time if I decided to wait for a response to a question that I hadn’t yet asked!
“Uh…so you were there, Faruiza? How many Dopers hang out at this high school?” does sound to me to be in an accusatory vein. If that’s not what you meant, then I apologize for the implication.
Now, you’ll notice you asked two questions in your brief post: whether Faruiza was there and how many Dopers hang out at the high school.
My opinion is that perhaps you should have waited for an answer to the first question (that is, why did Faruiza seem so certain of the answer he/she provided) before launching the second, which seemed to me to be incredulous that Faruiza’s information and opinion could be valid.
So yes, you had asked the question.
It has taken me this long to get back here…I hope my post wasn’t also construed as a “drive by” to those of you who would like Lamia’s questions answered about whether or not I was actually there.
No. I wasn’t. As was pointed out, I’m some thousands of miles away from where the incident in question took place.
That being said…I didn’t need to know I had to also insert disclaimers every damn time I offer a possible explanation or answer to a question. I at first DID take offense at the tone of voice in which Lamia countered my post, and I thank Dantheman for pointing out things in my absence…he was right. Possible explanation. I have heard the statement of subject used this way before. That is all.
:rolleyes:
Faruiza, I think a big part of the problem is that you presented yourself as “answering the question”. That implies giving the final word on an issue. It confused me as well.
Allright. I’ll be more careful. Way more careful.
mrblue92,
Sorry for taking a day to get back to you on your Q’s and A’s. First, you state that the two terms that I used caused me to contradict myself. That is untrue, unless you consider that the two terms are in and of themselves synonomous, which they are not.
Second:
Homophobia is, by definition, a fear of homosexuals. I do not fear homosexuals, nor do I hate them on priciple. I hate them individually, the same way that I hate heterosexuals. But, if someone were to insult me in such a way as to indicate that they hatefully called me a homosexual (eg, called me a fag,) the simplest proactive recourse would then involve my hands in some way, their face in some way, and a piece of concrete or other similar surface. As far as being called Canadian or Australian, I would correct the individual, but would find no offense because those cultures by and large are wunnerful.
Third: This is, and correct me if I’m wrong, called third-party harassment. It shows that some people ought not be allowed in public. I could see the OP having a legitimate issue if, say, said boys were harassing a lesbian because of their sexual orientation. But because the OP was offended by the term used, I don’t see the point. She was 1: not the point of ridicule, and 2: not involved in the conversation. What’s the deal? I find myself biting my tounge every time a guy refers to me as a ‘chink’ or ‘gook,’ which happens suprisingly often (and even more suprisingly, the majority of it comes from black folks, but that’s a whole 'nother can of worms.) If a person in another conversation says something akin to “What about that chink over there?” and I just happen to be the only asian in the room…well, hands, face, wall. Was LaurAng being called a lesbian? Eh…no. Was her sexuality being called into question? Eh…no. Was she involved with the conversation either as a participant OR as the object of conjecture? Again, no. She got bent out of shape because someone else said something offensive about an inanimate object and used a term that may or may not have been offensive to the appliciable person. Bah…you know what I mean.
Medea’s Child had a somewhat valid point, but that would indicate that if I allowed someone calling me say, a GI or grunt in an attempt to be indicitive as having a lower than average self worth (please note the terms squid, jarhead, wing wiper, mobile sandbag, and the ilk. We already have our own derogatory terms about eachother,) then I would have to believe what the other individual was saying. More likely, being as aggressive an individual as I am, hand, face, wall would be more likely to happen. But I digress about that. Point is, you have to perceive yourself in such a way for any insult or comment to actually have any meaning or effect. I know of gays who don’t mind being called queers, as they are confidient with their own sexuality. Only you can ALLOW yourself to be offended.
And as far as your parting remark, when we repair a piece of equipment without sending it to the appropriate shop, we call it nigger rigging. And the worst offender of my squadron for this term? Well, that would be my lieutenant, a black guy with this disconserting habit of dropping into ebonics when on exercise (Hey Fush, you got that 203 nigger rigged yet?–Reply: A’yep LT. Duck tape and all)