OK, I searched. The link is here.
It does not shed much light, but it seems relevent.
I’ll be bold and say that I honestly have never heard the term “kike.” I’m 26 years old, grew up in a small town, and I have no idea what it means! Nor do I care to, it is lumped with racial slurs, so I can guess it’s about some race. I guess I represent something about the positive direction of the country. However, I’m not going to continue reading this thread in case some yahoo sees fit to define the term.
But “kike” is an offensive and derogatory term for a Jewish person.
It always strikes me as ironic that Jesus is often portrayed as having a bleeding heart.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rjung *
…because Japanese and Middle Eastern people have made it known that they do not wish to be referred to with those words, while AFAIK fundamentalists have not spoken up against the use of the word “fundie”.
[QUOTE]
Hmmm… this raises an interesting question. Is it our responsibility to ‘avoid’ offending others, or is it their responsibility to let us know that we have offended?
Should we not think carefully before we use any descriptive term by which we conveniently label others.
If the onus is upon the receiver to respond, then they run the risk of being accused of being overly sensitive or defensive.
Just a thought.
Quite a lot of people have agreed with Fenris’s stand on this issue, as do I. I believe him to be 100% dead on accurate. However, just out of interest, if Wildest Bill had posted a similar OP would as many people have agreed with him have agreed with fenris?
Just curious.
Would as many people have agreed with him as have agreed with Fenris.
Let’s put it this way: if you want to convince people not to use slurs, it helps if you yourself are not an unapologetic bigot. WB did post a thread talking about the term “fundie,” right after he chortled over how fun it is to antagonize evolutionists by calling evolution “the Monkey Theory.”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=56149
-Ben
Given WB’s history, my default setting is to automatically disagree with him. This seems to work out ok in over 90% of the cases. I just have to remember to stop and think before replying to any threads he’s involved with, and make sure it’s not the <10% case that I’m in agreement.
QtM
Probably not as many. As a matter of fact, WB actually did a thread like this one and I don’t believe he got very far, mainly because he started it off with something like “How do ya’ll Godles Atheists like beeing caled theese names, huh?” followed by a list of, frankly, pretty lame insults.
I tried appeal to other Doper’s reason and courtesy (not that those who disagree are discourteous or unreasoning). In Bill’s thread, he started it off by calling anyone who disagreed with him names.
If WB actually has serious points he wants to make, rather than just saying whatever thing he thinks will shock people into responding, he’s gonna have to work at it.
I actually worked to phrase the OP carefully so I wouldn’t be associated with any of Bill’s other opinions.
Fenris
I don’t agree with your assessment of the term ‘fundie’, Fenris, for pretty much the reasons that Irishman and RTF stated in a much more eloquent way than I could have.
This have happened in political debates for ages. Leftist politicians have fled from the word ‘liberal’ (tax-and-spend! limousine!) because of the evil connotations suplied to it by conservative commentators and pundits for the past thirty or so years. The same thing has happened to ‘environmentalist’ (militant! tree-hugger!), and ‘intellectual’ (pointy-headed!). Conversely, few people outside of the Free Republic fanbase would want to be called a ‘freeper’.
Anyway, I’m rabling again. I’ll just get to the point. Basically all you’re going to do with getting people to change from using ‘fundie’ to ‘Fundamentalist Christian’ is that you’re going to turn the longer word into an epithet, while losing the distinction between he folks who desire special theocracial concessions from the government (Bible classes in public school, elimination of evolution from class curriculum) and those who just believe in certain set of tenets.
Like I said, I’m not very eloquent. I think there is a difference between ‘fundie’ and the likes of ‘kike’ and ‘raghead’ which is that there is an internal distinction trying to be made in the onset, rather than as an afterthought.
The distinction is that neither one of these is an abbreviation. A term analogous to ‘fundie’ for fundamentalist would be ‘enviro’ for environmentalist. It doesn’t seem to have any spin to it, really.
‘Tree-hugger’ is, unquestionably, intended as a disparaging term: it suggests that the environmentalism of the persons so described is based on nothing more than emotion.
As far as ‘bleeding-heart liberal’ is concerned, I have to second Qadgop. If called that personally, I’d note that even Dubya seems to recognize the value of compassion, so it must be OK these days. I also don’t mind being called a ‘do-gooder’ (beats hell out of being a ‘do-badder’) or a member of the ‘intelligentsia’ (what’s the opposite of ‘intelligentsia’, anyway - the ‘dumbsia’ ? ;)). These terms are certainly intended as slurs, but they can backfire.
Yikes, so can I start a church and have all the members call themselves Godless Worshippers of the Great Human Incarnation of the Divinity of the World Tenebras (In a Wholly non-Goddish But Rather Self Actualized Way) Who Don’t Like To Be Referred To By Acronymns Such As GWotGHIotDotWT(IaWnGBRSAW)WDLTBRTBASAGOOSICIUTATDtF Or Other Such Iniquities Considered Improper Under Tenebras As They Demean the Faith?
Of course, you realize that my poor deluded followers would be rabid supporters of whatever cause I sicced them on, and you’d have to call them Godless Worshippers of the Great Human Incarnation of the Divinity of the World Tenebras (In a Wholly non-Goddish But Rather Self Actualized Way) Who Don’t Like To Be Referred To By Acronymns Such As GWotGHIotDotWT(IaWnGBRSAW)WDLTBRTBASAGOOSICIUTATDtF Or Other Such Iniquities Considered Improper Under Tenebras As They Demean the Faith or else they’d freak out and every discussion would turn into several hundred posts of flaming. Which on the plus side would jack up their post count. 
Hrm… I had so much fun typing acronymns that I forgot my point. Oh yeah, Fundamentalist Christian is too damn long, and FC is too obscure. However, if you say ‘fundie’ everybody know what you’re talking about. Of course, we could always just call them Jesus Freaks…
Tenebras
Remember, this is coming from somebody who hates using “gay” for lame…
I do not use “fundie” as shorthand for “fundamentalist” - I use it as I intend to use it, and that would be as an insult. For, you see, “fundies” are not Fundamentalists; as tomndebb wrote:
But, because of the fact that many people do read “fundie” as “Fundamentalist” and don’t know that I, personally, am able to see the difference, I tend to use “Jeezer” instead - fairly straight forward, and only insults those I intend to insult. As Mekhazzio pointed out, you can’t use either term without someone raising an eyebrow, and that’s understandable (although, as minty green mentioned, I don’t know any Fundamentalist who is actually insulted by the term - they rather take pride in it, from my experience, but if we can do it with “queer,” they’re welcome to do it with “fundie”).
So what’s my definition of a Jeezer? Fred Phelps. Jack Chick. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Pat Buchanan. The wacko on the corner telling me to repent my sins. The all-smiles zombie who approaches me at a restaurant to ask me if I’ve found Jesus. I even use it to encompass basically anyone who annoys the shit out of me with their Christianity, which might be a little unfair to those who are faithful but not necessarily rabid, but, hey, even the Gay Guy doesn’t go around chatting about his homosexuality and gay rights unless somebody asks. If you don’t throw bible versus in my face at every opportunity, I promise I won’t start talking about the intimate details of my sex life. Deal?
And, please, at if you’re going to berate me, know what you’re talking about. MrWhy said it nicely:
So, yeah, wield your Christianity at me as a weapon, and I’ll call you a Jeezer, 'cause you deserve it.
For similar reasons, I think “towelhead” is inappropriate (as would “kike”), but I think we can reasonably come up with some variation on “Taliban” if we put our collective heads together. I would also draw the line at racial, gender or orientation epithets, 'cause really, that’s never a reason for a disagreement - people are jerks no matter what race, sex or orientation they are, so if you’re going to insult them, insult them for their actions or attitudes, not something they have no control over. Cultural and familial influences aside, you still choose to believe what you believe, and if what you believe is hurtful, then you deserve what you get.
YMMV.
Esprix
Esprix wrote:
You might also find people who hate using “lame” to mean something other than having impaired use of their legs.
Well at least your honest here. So in otherwords it is ok for you to do it but no one else should make fun of a group of people by using a duragatory name. Here’s one for ya buddy :rolleyes:
I just wanted to use the term towel head for terrorist but other people said you still would be making fun of all the people from that nationality. But I guess you are saying the Christians fundies are smarter than the people in the middle east huh? Another one for ya :rolleyes:
I can’t believe ya’ll don’t flame this guy ya’ll would be hitting me with a blow torch for this kind of crap if I tried it. (it will be interesting to see who on this board is fair after these post) Now he not only is making fun of “fundies” he is making fun of anyone that calls Jesus as their Lord plus taking the Lord’s name in vein at the same time which he knows bothers Christians.
[quote]
So what’s my definition of a Jeezer? Fred Phelps. Jack Chick. Pat Robertson. Jerry Falwell. Pat Buchanan. The wacko on the corner telling me to repent my sins. The all-smiles zombie who approaches me at a restaurant to ask me if I’ve found Jesus.
[/quote
So with this reasoning are you saying anytime I see a gay person trying to shove homosexualality(which I could care less about) though one of those stupid parades or worse yet trying to actually pick up on me I can call them a faggot? Just wondering?
This is an out and out lie and I can’t believe you even said it. I remember one thread where you just bragged about how many times you got banged over the weekend in MPS forum. Plus look at your sig line and all your other threads heck even other people call you a one trick pony show. You don’t go chatting about your sexual orientation. You deserve another one for that. :rolleyes:
So if you throw your homosexuality around like a weapon, it’s ok for people to call you a pain in ass fag because you deserve it?
And who makes you in charge of what is or isn’t inappropriate?
What I said in this post in not for all homosexuals it is just for esprix to understand how he is full of crap he is. And like I said I really can’t wait to see what others say on this thread because if you are honest you will know that esprix is so out of line here it is ridiculous.
Hey esprix just one more for the road before I go :rolleyes:
Bolding mine.
Esprix, where exactly does Tom say that fundies aren’t fundamentalists?
He says that he personally uses the terms differently, and that there’s some support for the notion that ‘fundie’ is offensive. But that’s as far as he goes.
I hope not.
I’m certainly far from being a fundie, but I still consider myself to be a Jesus freak.
I do not use the term to make fun of Christians, I use the term to insult that very, very small number of people who go out of their way to insult me. Last time I checked, it was still open season to insult Fred Phelps.
Wearing a turban is not solely indicative of Muslims or the Taliban, so, yes, using the term “towel-head” is patently inappropriate. However, no one will call you a Jeezer unless you go out of your way to make an issue of it. Get up in my face, and yer a Jeezer; believe what you believe and allow me to believe what I believe, and you’re at least Christian, if not my friend.
OK, Bill, which part of my post aren’t you understanding? Polycarp is a good Christian, IMHO, who spreads love and understanding wherever he goes. His faith is part of who he is without letting it overwhelm him or every statement he makes. Include Triskademus in that list. Fred Phelps is a Jeezer. He goes to funerals and pickets “fags” in a deliberate attempt to antagonize and hurt. Using their faith as a weapon against others is due call for contempt, and I use the term “Jeezer” to show that contempt.
(And, as an aside, going out of your way to contemplate whether or not “towel-head” or “faggot” are appropriate ways to insult someone would seem to me to be far more offensive to someone’s Christian sensibilities than using the lord’s name in vain, IMHO. Take a look in a mirror sometime, bub.)
I figured you’d go down this road. I do not ride by church picnics yelling, “Jeezers!” I do not regularly burst into Baptist services to decry “fundies.” While in Washington, D.C. at the annual Gay Rodeo at the same time as the Promisekeepers march, I did not call them all “rabid Jesus freaks.” These people were not “shoving Christianity down my throat,” they were celebrating their faith. So, similarly, you calling anyone “faggot” at a gay pride parade would be out of place.
Ah, but what if someone were to approach you while you were eating dinner, minding your own business with your family, handed you a copy of The Advocate, and said, “Homosexuality is a completely acceptable lifestyle, don’t you think?” Guess what? In that particular circumstance, you have my permission to call that person a faggot. Know why? He’s completely out of line, and deserves to be insulted. So am I out of line calling someone a Jeezer when they do the exact same thing to me in a restaurant? Because it’s happened - while I was having dinner with my minister, no less!
No one is forcing you to read those threads. No one is forcing you to come to this board. However, if you were to come up to me on the street, uninvited and unwanted, and start quoting Bible verses at me, guess what? Yer a Jeezer! The difference, dear Bill, is forcing someone to listen and listening willingly. If I were to go to your church to hear the word of God, I’m not going to complain that you were “shoving it down my throat.” Similarly, if you’re going to participate on this board and read my threads (that others seem to have little or no problem with, BTW), then don’t tell me I’m “flaunting it in your face.” If you can talk about your wife and family, your steroid drug use and your faith in this forum, then most assuredly I can talk about my dates, my religion and my sexual orientation as well. Get over it.
As said above, if someone were to use sexual orientation as a weapon (and I cringe to think that people do), then yeah, they’re a pain in the ass fag. You’ll get no argument from me.
I’m not. Perhaps you misunderstand the words “I think?” They do not mean “You should.” It is merely my opinion. You have yours. We differ. Accept that people will call you on yours, as you are calling me on mine.
Esprix
Perhaps I extrapolated. Like he would use the term “fundie” to mean Creationists, I, too, would use “Jeezer” to describe them, as they are trying to impose their religious beliefs in my secular schools. I was just reiterating that point, but you’re right, I don’t know if he would also use the term “fundie” to describe the people I’ve mentioned previously.
If I misrepresented you, tom, my apologies.
Esprix