(bolding mine)
They ARE?! :dubious: <walking away, shaking head and mumbling>
;)
What you’re describing is criticism of Christianity, not hate speech. I wouldn’t expect you to like it, SDMBKL, but it isn’t hate speech. We can moderate comments that are off-topic or so rude that they’re going to create a distraction, but criticisms of groups (like Christians, Democrats, Americans, and so on) are allowed. It would be hard to have debates about serious topics if we didn’t allow that.
“Wishing harm on other people” and “hate speech” are two separate concepts. If someone says, “I hope John Mace gets cancer,” that’s wishing harm on other people, and is a warnable offense (although more likely to draw a mod note than a warning.) But it’s not hate speech. On the other hand, if someone started a GD thread entitled, “Why I hate niggers,” that would probably get a warning for hate speech, even if nothing in the thread could be considered a threat to anyone else.
Figs?
I think the following link would be helpful: List of Swear Words, Bad Words, & Curse Words - Starting With F
The three-letter f-word, although popular in vernacular use, is considered a vulgar English word when used against the homosexual community. I have never thus far seen a reappropriation of the term; all I know is that it is a word that is commonly used pejoratively. I think the word is associated with internalized homophobia.
That’s nothing like the post you reported, though.
It’s okay. As an Official Queermo, I give you special permission to type the word “fag” in this thread.
And your analogy doesn’t work if you change the word “Christian” to “fag,” because “Christian” isn’t a slur. There really is not a pejorative for “Christian” that’s equivalent to “fag.” “All Christians are assholes,” would be equivalent to saying “All homosexuals are assholes.” Neither would violate the rule against hate speech.
According to Wikipedia, the word “Christian” is a reappropriation. However, since this reappropriation took place a lo-o-o-ng time ago, I suppose the word “Christian” is no longer such a bad word anymore.
No, it isn’t. I’d say it hasn’t been one for something like 1,700 years.
One score and eighteen years ago, our forefather brought forth on this, er, continent?, a new newpaper column, conceived in knowledge, and dedicated to the proposition of hating ignorance. This hate of ignorance has lead to the great conflict in which we are engaged, testing whether ignorance is something that can be fought on the internet, or only fostered. Thus, the SDMB stands as a community founded on that hatred, and the desire to see ignorance stomped out in all its many forms and hiding places.
We stand here today, proud of our hate, and ready to give any speeches necessary to stand up against ignorance. So be proud of your hate. Hate ignorance!
Wait, that’s not what you mean by a hate speech?
I am beginning to think that the anti-Christian or anti-gay thing all take place on the Internet or something fairly new. However, there always seems to be sources on the Internet that portray homosexuals/gay people and Christians alike in a positive light. For gays, they are portrayed as having a stable family life. For Christians, they are portrayed as going to church with a big smile on one’s face and a bible in one’s hand. Now, please note that the aforementioned is only a personal anecdote of what I have seen thus far. I have not done any research on exactly how many anti-gay or anti-Christian sentiments there are; however, I do know that they are being expressed vehemently in notable social networking websites such as Youtube and even on this forum, the SDMB. On the other hand, it may be after all my perception of the whole matter.
Rereading the Wikipedia article on reappropriation, it says that, “for example, since the early 1970s, much terminology referring to homosexuality—such as gay, queer, and (to a lesser extent) faggot—has been reappropriated.” Call me ignorant or whatever you want, but I remember my childhood in the 1990s that “gay” was a very bad word. Because it was a very bad word, I associated this word “gay” with “bad”, and that’s how --don’t be offended-- I went by this shameful/wicked/homophobic/call-it-whatever-you-want mentality that gay = bad. My childhood took place in the 1990s. Wikipedia said that the term was reappropriated as early as 1970s, even though I grew up in the '90s. (You would think that such a word can be expressed freely back then. Perhaps, it’s a regional difference) On second thought, I am not sure about the credibility of the Wikipedia articles. Although I find them useful for general knowledge rather than esoteric knowledge, one may never know if there happens to be a weasel word that sways one opinion over the other or lack an important detail. So, I digress and leave others to confirm the etymology and reappropriation of the word “gay”.
Wait… what? 
“As an Official Queermo…”
Now* there’s *a term that I’ve never heard before now, and it implies that there are unofficial “Queermos”.
And for that matter, what constitutes being a ‘Queermo’, official or otherwise? :dubious:
And how does one go about getting qualified as ‘official’? 
What about “mackeral snappers”?
Hmmm… On second thought, I think that term refers to Catholics.
It means he’s been to at least 5 meetings in the last year and has the latest copy of the Homosexual Agenda.
You mean, there are ‘meetings’?! :dubious:
Haters gonna hate…
Christians are a bunch of silly-billies and, just for being Christian, should be treated with mild disdain from time to time.
Please link to them or report them. The stuff you have reported on or discussed so far is not hate speech.
Hell, you want reappropriation? My wife doesn’t like me calling other people the “g” word or the “n” word - no, not the ones you’re probably thinking of, but “geek” and “nerd”. As anyone who’s had a swirlie and/or a wedgie knows, “geek” and “nerd” were indeed slurs when we were growing up (I was originally going to quantify that with a decade, but I’m sure it’s still used as a slur with kids, and always will be with kids, being immature and all), and has since been “reappropriated” in that it’s perfectly acceptable to call someone that (provided they are a geek or nerd. I wouldn’t tarnish, say, George W. Bush, with that moniker).
Intent is key to determining hate.
What if in place of Christian, you used the slur “fundie”? Would it be hate speech then?
Nope. An insult maybe, but not hate speech.
Note that reappropriating a word merely means that the target group begins to use it in self-identification. It does not mean that the word immediately stops being offensive, especially when used by those outside the group. Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s near Detroit, I heard Polack used as a term of friendly banter among people of Polish descent and their friends at the same time that I heard it used as a term of disdain by people outside that group. Over the last twenty years, we have seen the same disconnect regarding the use of nigger (or niggah) by those who are or are not black. That homosexuals began to openly use the word gay to identify themselves in the 1970s did not mean that those who were homophobic stopped using it as a slur even today.
Actually, Wikipedia appears to be more accurate in terms of esoteric knowledge, where the authors tend to be limited to the geeks and mavens interested in those topics, than it is on more general terms where a broader interest invites more people to share more ignorance coated in personal prejudices.