In this thread, WB wonders about the correctness of using the terms “towel head” or “rag head” to describe Arabs or Muslims, given the current situation.
When the dust settled, he suggested directing the term only at Muslim Terrorists (if I understood his position). Again, the dust is still settling from the responses he was given.
However, in passing, Bill pointed out that the term ‘Fundie’ is often used on this board to refer to Fundimentalist Christians.
Here’s the thing: If (and I believe it is) it’s wrong to use the term “rag-head” for Muslim, it should also be unacceptible to use the term “Fundie” for Christian.
When this has come up before, one of the main answers given was “Oh, well I only use the term to refer to extreme fundimentalist Christians, not people like So-And-So!” (“so-and-so” usually being replaced with “Polycarp”, who’s admired and respected by all!:)) I don’t see a difference between that statement and “I only use the term “Raghead” to refer to Muslim Terrorists” or “I only use the term kike to describe rich New York Jews”.
I believe the term is a slur. It’s offensive and, more importantly, it’s meant to be so, it tars too many rational people with too big of a brush, it’s imprecise enough to need the “Well, I don’t mean Poster X when I say ‘fundie’” qualifier. I’d like to see the term put in the same social (within the context of the SDMB) category as “raghead”, “JAP”, “Kike”, “Sand-nigger” and so forth.
Opinions?
Fenris (who’s not on WB’s side in the “Towel-Head” debate!)
Name calling is offensive. There is no justification that can be offered to give it dignity. It indicates a lack of respect for humankind, regardless of who it is targeted at. Terms that seem innocent to some are hurtful to others. Anyone that presumes to know the difference beforehand is a fool.
(For context, I am Christian and don’t consider myself a fundamentalist.) I agree that “fundie” is offensive and is used derogatorily on this board. It’s made me uncomfortable a number of times, even when I agree with the arguments of the person who uses the term. I mentioned my feeling to the friend who introduced me to the SDMB that the open mindedness of the board is skewed and that certain types of offensive and bigoted behavior are in fact tolerated here. I find myself struck by the hypocrisy of it, because just about any other offensive term would be shot down on this board in an instant, except that one.
I don’t get the comparison. Muslim terrorists aren’t the only people who can be referred to as “towel-heads”, that’s why the selectivity doesn’t work there, but Fundamentaists are the only people who are refered to as “Fundies”. Most people who use the word “fundie” don’t view any of the people they tar as rational at all, or else they wouldn’t be “fundies”.
I can’t guarentee that I’ve never used the term, but I generally tend to avoid terms meant to be derisive.
And, this whole situation has once again brought home to me that words can be powerful - healers or weapons. And humans are fragile beings worthy of care.
Well ** Wildest Bill** has just been given a huge victory IMHO. This disparity that Fenris has just commented on has been the most irritating aspect of this message board for me. Due to past flames I have no good feelings for Fenris, but it is mature and courageous people like him who seek fairness and justice regardless of the popularity of their opinion, that impress me.
Not all Fundamentalists are of the “God Hates Fags” or the “God created the Earth in 4004 BC. I have proof! Lookit these photos of dinosaur and human footprints together!” variety. In fact, I believe we have several respected posters who would describe themselves as Fundamentalist Christians. (I believeNavigator is one).
Besides (correct me if I’m wrong): as far as I know, the term Fundamentalist Christian only means that they believe that the Bible is the word of God as opposed to it being a book of stories, philosophy, etc. It’s a pretty broad umbrella of a term.
There’s the problem precisely. AFAIK, there’s no generally accepted definition of the term, so it basically is only used as pejorative, meaning, “Far enough out of my idea of mainstream that I think it’s weird.”
As in all things, when a word is applied to people and those people object and say that it is offensive to them, then that word should not be used unless the intent is to be offensive/insulting.
In almost every context, the word “fundie” isn’t used as just a descriptive adjective, but as a prejorative applied to a particular brand of Christian for whom the writer has no respect. As such, IMO, it is no different than than the other slurs mentioned here, and should really not be viewed any differently or given any use a general “abbreviation.”
emarkp, I disagree. I’ve seen people who I wouldn’t classify as “out of the mainstream” who would describe themselves as Fundamentalists. Some of my coworkers for example have referred to themselves as Fundamentalist Christians and, while I disagree with them on a number points, they’re not bigots, morons, or weirdos.
As in all things, when a word is applied to people and those people object and say that it is offensive to them, then that word should not be used unless the intent is to be offensive/insulting.
In almost every context, the word “fundie” isn’t used as just a descriptive adjective, but as a prejorative applied to a particular brand of Christian for whom the writer has no respect. As such, IMO, it is no different than than the other slurs mentioned here, and should really not be viewed any differently or given any use a general “abbreviation.”
Ah, but would you have applied the label Fundamentalist to them if they hadn’t claimed it themselves? Note that from what AbbySthrnAccent says, by the strict label she (he?) would be included but doesn’t feel like the label should apply.
I agree completely with the OP. I rarely see the word fundie without the word crazy before it. I very rarely see that word in a non-pejorative context. Fundie is every bit as bad a word as, say n*****, IMHO. WTG, Fenris!
Until I came to the SDMB, I had never heard the term “fundie” before. And almost immediately, I formed a picture in my mind of what was meant by it. So there was no doubt, in my mind at least, that the word was a slur.
I’ve also seen discussion about other words, like redneck, hillbilly, yuppie, etc. and think that these words probably fall into the same category. I could argue that there’s a degree of difference, but the more I think about it, the more I realize there probably isn’t. And I’m guilty of using these words as much as anyone… me, the self-apointed queen of anti-racism!
So, I’ll be watching myself better on this one. To paraphrase seawitch, it’s damned hard to be self-righteous when you realize you’re self-wrongous!
Hmm… fascinating. Never thought of it that way. Always was more on the side of SisterCoyote, just did not want to spell out “fundamentalist”. “Fundie” was efficient.
But you are right in that when it comes up at some point or another there pops up the implication that the person addressed belongs to a “lesser” christianity that the mainstream writer. Though quite a few times, in the individual cases at hand, someone HAS proposed or done something silly in Jesus’ name, I can understand it’s unfair to tar everyone with the same brush. Yet I hardly think it’s on a scale of the n-word or the k-word.
But maybe the “regular” Fundamentalists should reclaim the word “Fundie” ( ironically, in the same way the gays reclaimed the the q-word ) before it degenerates completely into unspeakability? Then we’d just need to figure out an efficient way to communicate when we’re referring to the kook fringe as opposed to “Fundies” in general.
(BTW… I guess “Thumpers” is out, too? It’s been years since I’ve seen THAT usage to refer to this crowd. I’d go with “X-Treme Christian” myself) But though I’ll try to behave, I won’t knock myself out over it. There may be circumstances when words someone does not like ARE what is right for the context, the time and the place.
Oh, and “yuppie” a slur that should not be used? That’s just PC overload. There is nothing intrinsecally immoral about broadly labeling demographic groups (Yuppies, Baby Boomers, Soccer Moms). I believe it is wrong if the label is prima facie offensive, used as a weapon of oppression, or negates the individuals’ identities beyond that category (“Soccer Moms” probably crossed that line when politicians grabbed a hold of it).
jrd