Can stereotypes and potentially offensive terms be legitimately used in context?

[munnki]

Thread split from "My Idea of Hell" (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=12077) thread
{Link: http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=12077}


I'd actually love to go sailing around the world myself... just not with a bunch of oiled-up pooftahs... the thoughts of doing it with friends in a small ship is a lovely idea... but I (or they) don't have that kind of coin... I'm sticking to the equator though... I like my warm...

[Bane]

I'd actually love to go sailing around the world myself... just not with a bunch of oiled-up pooftahs... the thoughts of doing it with friends in a small ship is a lovely idea... but I (or they) don't have that kind of coin... I'm sticking to the equator though... I like my warm...

Look, that particular insult's about as original as Lady Gaga....and you managed to make yourself sound like the stereotypical embarrassing great-aunt. :p

[Goodchild]

I guess I'm kind of a pooftah although I'm not oiled up. :D Actually, I don't even know what pooftah means. I do know that I love being pampered.

I'm guessing it's 'poofter', which I believe is British derogatory slang for gay men.

[munnki]

Whose Great-Aunt?

[Bane]

Whose Great-Aunt?

Nobody's, it's a stereotype of the old relative who always makes you cringe because they say racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic things in public, and very loudly to boot.

[munnki]

Bane... chill.. the context of me seeing that ad was that it was in a newspaper sitting on top of a table in the house of a man I then lived with.

My objection was to the gay stereotype and not to gayness. I find the stereotype of gay-male as interior designer/buff/hairdresser/fabulous about as demeaning as the female stereotypes current in the media about fifty years ago.

If you had opened the advertisements we saw - then they were portraying an image of the gay male as playful, buff, unserious and boisterous to such a degree that any thinking person would actually have sworn that gayness was a downgrade.

This kind of false and hypocritical protectionism for stereotypes which we call PC actually is nothing more than its inverse. Instead of protecting people we are, in fact, herding them into typecasts.

I say fuck that... insofar as having chugged the occasional cock... then I'm as gay as anybody else is... within any other part of the category as represented in those kind of advertisements and that kind of media I find it daft, irrelevant and constructive of a weird community.

The best other example of my point of view can be found here... and lighten up y'all... FFS... if we can't be playful about identity then we need to strongly worry about it...


Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years

WEST HOLLYWOOD, CA–The mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians, a hard-won civil-rights victory gained through decades of struggle against prejudice and discrimination, was set back at least 50 years Saturday in the wake of the annual Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade.

"I'd always thought gays were regular people, just like you and me, and that the stereotype of homosexuals as hedonistic, sex-crazed deviants was just a destructive myth," said mother of four Hannah Jarrett, 41, mortified at the sight of 17 tanned and oiled boys cavorting in jock straps to a throbbing techno beat on a float shaped like an enormous phallus. "Boy, oh, boy, was I wrong."



Source (http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/)

So, if above makes me homophobic...then fine... but I see no harm in fearing stereotypes... I sense, however, a raw fist of righteous indignation coming my way...

I shan't bother to duck...

[Bane]

I just object to the term--would you like it if I called you or bunch of people similar to you "stupid fucking yuppie breeders" or "evil Daily Mail fanatics"? Probably not.

I don't agree with the stereotypes either, but let's not pretend it's a good idea to start talking like old Tory bastards--or children on XBox Live, for that matter. :)

Oh, and "political correctness gone mad" is the new Godwin's Law.

[munnki]

Fair nuff... objection noted... (and over-ruled)...

;)

No fat Tory bastard here...

Bastard, yes, the other two... certainment pas...

[Ozymandias]

I am a fat bastard, so I get two out of three. Can anyone go for the hat-trick?

[Bane]

Fair nuff... objection noted... (and over-ruled)...

;)

No fat Tory bastard here...

Bastard, yes, the other two... certainment pas...

I said "old", not fat. If you're going to respond, do it properly, don't actually behave like a Teabagger--not that I'm not already convinced you could as well be one. ;)

[munnki]

My bad... although I was teabagging while writing that...

I'll settle for Middle-Aged bastard... as, if my life expectancy matches the national average, I'm somewhere in the middle...

Tory... fuck no...

[Bane]

I meant a member of the Tea Party, you sure talk like a Daily Hate Mail reader ;)

[munnki]

Do Tea Party members read British publications?

That would imply several unlikely things, namely:

a) They have the literacy to read newspapers rather than passively munch on whatever's on TV.
b) They give a damn what is happening outside of the four borders of the known world (the four, that is, which border the US)
c) They are spurned on by the same petty prejudices and right-wing diatribes as their UK counterparts.
d) They buy newspapers or approach any part of a store that contains texts.

As for me... if you still think I'm prejudiced, in the way you seem to be representing, having read my reply in the previous post above then you'll always think I'm prejudiced irrespective of what I say... since it suits whatever weltanschauung is floating yer boat...

And as for the Godwin's law for PC... well... the only correct response would be the one given about paranoia... namely 'just because you're paranoid - doesn't mean they're not all out to get you'... in other words, just because some people in some other places have resorted to discussing PC in some cliche'd aspect doesn't mean it isn't apt to compare your compassion on behalf of a stereotype to the cries of victimhood against language of the PC jet-set. If an appropriate comparison can be made... then make it...

The PC thing is apt here... and your defence on behalf of a strawman based on a misconception reeks of chimeral nonsense and false compassion. You act as if I had clubbed somebody on the street...rather than made a reasonable point about the nature of stereotypes.

I await the continuance of the act...

[Bane]

The thing is, I don't think you made your point well at all. I'm not acting like you beat someone up, just trying to say that you've really not made a great case for yourself. You sound obsessed with "political correctness" and buzzwords, a bit like the Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling, or Glenn Beck calling Obama things like "Communist Nazi Muslim Kenyan".

You're just pissy because I told you using that term is as nice as somebody calling you a Stepford breeder, stupid old bat or a redneck.

[munnki]

The thing is, I don't think you made your point well at all. I'm not acting like you beat someone up, just trying to say that you've really not made a great case for yourself. You sound obsessed with "political correctness" and buzzwords, a bit like the Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling, or Glenn Beck calling Obama things like "Communist Nazi Muslim Kenyan".

You're just pissy because I told you using that term is as nice as somebody calling you a Stepford breeder, stupid old bat or a redneck.

Thing is... you know I amn't obsessed with 'political correctness' so that's out.. you're not new here... and you also know I amn't obsessed with buzzwords... for the same reasons.

So that's those two gone...

As for pissy.... yes... but as for the reasons why... they have more to do with a low tolerance for foolishness than on any more intelligent observation you may have had which I perhaps *missed*...

So.... we're on to round whatever...

[Bane]

The thing is, I don't think you made your point well at all. I'm not acting like you beat someone up, just trying to say that you've really not made a great case for yourself. You sound obsessed with "political correctness" and buzzwords, a bit like the Chicken Little screaming about the sky falling, or Glenn Beck calling Obama things like "Communist Nazi Muslim Kenyan".

You're just pissy because I told you using that term is as nice as somebody calling you a Stepford breeder, stupid old bat or a redneck.

Thing is... you know I amn't obsessed with 'political correctness' so that's out.. you're not new here... and you also know I amn't obsessed with buzzwords... for the same reasons.

So that's those two gone...

As for pissy.... yes... but as for the reasons why... they have more to do with a low tolerance for foolishness than on any more intelligent observation you may have had which I perhaps *missed*...

So.... we're on to round whatever...

Then why on earth say things you know are quite likely to be taken as homophobic and then start caterwauling "You're politically correct!" when you're called on it? Even if you are using the term just to mean the stereotypical ones, that's still othering.

[MattShizzle]

Does anyone remember that joke about nationalities in heaven/hell?

I remember in heaven the cops are British, the teenagers are Japanese, the cooks are French, the Engineers are German and the women are Swedish.

In hell the cooks are British, the teenagers are American, the cops are German, the Engineers are French.

[Bane]

I did hear a variant of that one, but fridge logic killed it for me :p

[munnki]

Bane.. the only one taking issue is you... take note... and given the totality of what I have to say .. you don't have much ground to stand on with the homophobe thing... but boy will you go on... perhaps there are specific issues that you have which are generating all of this heat... I'd be happy to listen should you wish to elaborate...

[MattShizzle]

I googled it and it was mostly what I said but not the part about teenagers (though when I heard it that was there) and adds in heaven it's all organized by the Swiss and in hell it's all organized by the Italians.

[MattShizzle]

Also it was Italian cooks rather than Frence and the lovers are French/Swiss.

[Bane]

Bane.. the only one taking issue is you... take note... and given the totality of what I have to say .. you don't have much ground to stand on with the homophobe thing... but boy will you go on... perhaps there are specific issues that you have which are generating all of this heat... I'd be happy to listen should you wish to elaborate...

I've never heard that term used in a context that wasn't specifically making fun of somebody for not being straight. It's the same thing with terms like "she-male" and "tranny"--I've heard them used either by mistake or intentionally used to debase someone. Just because there's a specific person you don't like (or group of people) who falls into a minority, it doesn't make it a good idea to start using slurs like "porch monkey", "shemale", "slag", "faggot", "dyke" and so on to describe them.

If you want someone like me to not get grief all the time, then don't fight fire with cooking oil. There's ways to show your support than acting like a mad old bat who thinks every new thing they don't like is attributable to "political correctness", which is bollocks. It's far more normal to hate people and take advantage of stereotypes (see: Lady Gaga) than to show support, wear some rainbows for your buddy who gets bananas chucked at him by chavs every day or just call someone on their muppetry.

[Politesse]

Bane.. the only one taking issue is you... take note...
Not true. I don't approve of the use of anti-homosexual slurs either, regardless of supposed intent.

[Bane]

Oh, and have a look at this too:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#sensitive

How to make people facepalm: Start calling everybody who disagrees with you crazy, hysterical, and "oversensitive".

[munnki]

You neither show support for somebody by adhering to a stereotype or preventing playful humour. You need to look at mens rea rather than blanket banning thoughts or words. If you are going to take offence even when offence isn't meant... then you have the issue.... hence my above comment about suffering fools. You see if somebody I knew was being playful called me anything from faggot, to Paddy, to cracker ... I'd try to take it in the sense it was meant... but if somebody wasn't then I'd try to call them on it.

You think you can blanket ban words and ideas utterly...because you don't like them... good luck with that. If you think that's all it takes to prevent people from acting in a nasty way to each other then long may you persist in that belief...because reality is much more difficult. And if you think it makes the slightest difference to what people think about each other... I'd suggest you're wrong again. What really happens is that the community co-opts those words for themselves as a sort of linguistic real-estate...

The difference between you and I is not one of intention - and that's what makes you so tiresome - you know I'm not a homophobe - you have a hang-up about language... I'm pretty sure we both want the same things... but our means of getting there is entirely different... I'm all about understanding other people, breaking down stereotypes and having fun doing it... your method seems more concerned with surface rather than intent and, seems to me, to be rather more authoritarian...

But then surface is easier isn't it... it's easier to react to what you want somebody to mean rather than what they really mean...

And, by the way, to judge by the fact that they're now selling copies of Mark Twain without the word 'nigger'... you're winning... but then devils do win in this world...do they not?

Might I just point out, while babbling, that the word 'Ethiopian' is derived from the Greek word for 'nigger'.... ('black face')...

Language isn't going anywhere... look for intention... and get off my back... I've nothing to prove...

As for terms being used to debase someone... they rarely are.. in fact, my example above illustrates this perfectly... in playfully discussing a type of cruise which I've never been on, never met anybody who has been on and which is being represented to me through crude stereotypes... I clearly can't specifically be debasing anyone... since there is no one known to me for me to debase...

Who am I debasing? Nobody...

It's what I am debasing that should be of interest... and that is, as I've said, a representation of someone/something that has no bearing on reality...

But you, you'd have me - sitting beside a guy I was sleeping with... be a homophobe for mocking a representation which I found demeaning and insulting...

So who's the fucking fool here?

[Politesse]

The fact that you have a "right" to use this word or that doesn't mean that you are being oppressed somehow because people still get pissed off by the things you're saying. Welcome to the real world, where offensive speech offends people. Who knew? You're not scoring some great point for personal freedom by using language that is rude to others. You're just being rude. Pretending that everyone else is just stomping on your jive by pointing out the obvious, is disingenuous and immature. If you want people to judge you by your intent rather than your language, use language that communicates your intent.

You're a fucking fag. No, not, I meant that you are hot, like a cigarette. Cigarettes are hot, right? It's not my fault if you took it as an insult! This is real third grader stuff, here.

[munnki]

As you say... but I'm damned if I'm changing a thing I say to suit your narrow interpretations and nor will I be called a homophobe just to suit your dialectic... not this munnki...

Enough said... I'm clearly not getting the last word here...

[Politesse]

I don't support the banning of the word nigger from print versions of Mark Twain. Does that mean I should pretend I don't find the term racist when used in common speech? It is racist. Even if it "just means black people". Especially if it does, in fact. Very few are consciously racist, yet somehow racist attitudes, thoughts, and values fail to disappear from society or as a reality in the lives of people of minority races.

[munnki]

So which utterances of 'nigger' are racist?

i) A white man is walking down a street passing a black man and he shouts out 'nigger'.
ii) A professor is giving a lecture on an aspect of slavery and he uses the word 'nigger'.
iii) A rap artist is recording a hit single in which he frequently uses the word 'nigger'.
iv) A white writer is writing an antebellum novel in which he uses the word 'nigger'.
v) Two black boys are playing in the yard and one calls the other 'nigger'.
vi) A black adult is returning from military service to his family and his brother greets him saying 'Yo what's up my nigger?'
vii) A white boy asks his father on first venturing into the city 'Dad, is that a nigger?'

So which of these are racist or offensive... or are they all?

Look I now need to go to bed... I have a twofold point...

i) Removing words from language has little or no effect on changing how people behave. Providing people with narratives of the experience of others generally tends to be the effective approach...as it creates empathy.
ii) Words can only be racist, offensive...etc.. in context and never as they stand in any a priori sense or objective sense...they just can't be... as I hope the above example makes clear. And even common speech won't wash... I can think of many examples of "foul" language used in common speech setting in which it had neither the intention to offend nor produced the result of offense.

I must perforce sleep... doubtless there'll be more on this tomorrow...

[columbus]

You're a fucking fag.

No, munkki's not, he's a poser. He thinks that chugging a few cocks makes him gay as everybody else, but it doesn't. I'm the fucking fag.

Maybe a few others, too. I'm not naming names.

I am not OK with people making rules for other people that are different based on their skin color or orientation or gender or whatever. A rule that applies to everybody is one thing, a rule that depends on some physical characteristic is not. A rule that you decide for yourself to follow, without imposing it on others, is also different.

Tom

[munnki]

Poser eh... maybe... I'm certainly not gay in the narrow sense I've heard the word used... although I have had partners of both genders... I've always thought of sexuality as a continuum rather than as a boolean... although such thoughts have settled down as I've gotten older... Of course, I know people in the gay community who won't accept grey just as in the 'straight' community... which only goes to show that intolerance is far more widespread than one might imagine...

Anyway... I've probably wound enough people up at this stage... with little real gain.

Words, however, I would maintain are only offensive in context which means we do need to look at intentionality. Otherwise we end up with morons chopping up Mark Twain or James Joyce as it suits their definition of what is okay or not...

It's easier just to be somewhat more relaxed...

[Free in Freeport]

Ok, educate me.

Are any terms other than homosexual, gay, and lesbian acceptable?

How about fag and dyke?

[Bane]

Nobody is saying that words should be banned. You're the one with the nerve to call me hysterical, oversensitive and "politically correct", when you're the one with your banana hammock in a twist because somebody said you made them feel uncomfortable and gave them the impression you think they are gross/creepy/deserving of social rejection. Nobody is saying it is not wrong to cash in on stereotypes or perpetuate them, either.

[munnki]

Again...bullshit bane... you know that I don't have that impression (gross/creepy/deserving of...etc..) and nor does my language suggest I do because we've been in this forum together for a very long time... not buying it... I would suggest that you do over-react to certain things - just as I do...from time to time... and that this is an example... so yes, I am suggesting that you are being over-sensitive on this... although I'm partially enjoying having wound you up this much... (see above comment re: bastard)

[Barefoot Bree]

Again...bullshit bane... you know that I don't have that impression (gross/creepy/deserving of...etc..) and nor does my language suggest I do because we've been in this forum together for a very long time... not buying it... I would suggest that you do over-react to certain things - just as I do...from time to time... and that this is an example... so yes, I am suggesting that you are being over-sensitive on this... although I'm partially enjoying having wound you up this much... (see above comment re: bastard)
Fwiw, I agree with munnki, here. This entire tempest is ridiculous.

If I were working on more than about two hours sleep before my cunts-next-door cranked their fucking stereo, I might be a bit more erudite in my explanation, but this will have to do as an example. Objecting to every use of any given word is overreacting, and gets tiresome and absurd.

[Anne]

... can I ask Munnki to cut back on the ellipsis please? I'm having trouble reading what he's writing through all the heavy breathing.

Thanks.

[Bane]

Didn't say you are a homophobe. Just that you sound like one. Or, to be more specific, like a white, middle-class breeder who is afraid of everything.

If all you can think of is to call me hysterical, you are an anachronism.

[DMB]

People shouldn't pay any attention to munnki here. He's just a gobshite bogtrotter. :D

[Bane]

Nah, he's a fucking yuppie and a Stepford breeder. :p

[Anne]

um, why is breeder ok but munkki's terms aren't?

[Bane]

Making a point. If he can use "poofter" to describe me, I can use breeder to describe him. 'Tis only fair!

[munnki]

Heh... well I can be a bit of a gobshite...but it's been a while since I've been at a bog.

I think I get a certain whiff of smoke up in here.

As to being afraid of everything... that's something of a tall order...

Can I start with subsets of things or specifics... like I dunno insects or air travel? And we could work outwards from there... (that's the best response I can come up with for such a ridiculous assertion)...

Oh and pardon for the ellipsis.. I'm teabagging while I write this so my breaths are coming fast and harsh...

You'll note I take your banter with good humour... there may be something to be learned here (or not)...

:p

[Anne]

You use breeder a lot. It's equally offensive, isn't it? And I took the 'poofter' to mean the guys in that particular pic, not you, and not all gays.

Some gay men flame. Some Most don't.

[Bane]

Some do act like the Sex and the City characters. Not all of us do!

Besides, it's "just a joke" to call him a breeder. :p He's pulling the "just a joke" defence. Can't everyone?

[munnki]

I'm not pulling any defence... I'm merely attempting to explain something to you...

But I'll admit... I'm failing...

[Bane]

Yes, I really just don't get it.

You call me hysterical, go on about "political correctness gone mad" like the stereotype of old people and somehow think you're going to fix everything by using terms like "poofter". I must admit, I did have a funny mental image for a second: a rich, white kid goes on XBox Live and calls his opponent a poofter instead of the current preferred terms that I need not repeat because we all know them and I do not like saying them except when making a point.

[munnki]

Whatever, Bane... whatever...

[mood2]

In answer to the o.p., of course stereotypes and insults based on bigrotry can be used in a hundred ways in a hundred contexts, some offensive some not.

Eg it's sometimes done between a group who know each other well as a way of showing each other they know they are so unbigotted they can use these terms with each other, a self-congratulatory sort of thing. Sometimes it's like a kid saying fuck, a display of how daring they are. Sometimes it's done ironically, to take the piss out of people who use the terms seriously or thoughtlessly.

Now the 'PC' argument would say that when you use emotive language in these types of ways your first thought should be for how the person on the other end is likely to feel, rather than showing what a cool, clever chap you are. And I agree with that, when it comes people from privileged groups playing with the real life difficulties of minority/oppressed people just to show how sophisticated or maverick or whatev they are. IOW people who are using the currency of bigotry to show off basically. On a public message board I'm inclined to assume that's what's usually going on.



With you munnki, :wave: to me you come across as snide and demeaning re gay men. I know you don't say all gays are bad, you kinda imply there's the good ones who are just like 'normal folk' (ie like you), then there's the faggots and poofters who are fair game for ridicule and contempt. Just my impression, could be wrong, and to be honest your intentions are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things. It's the effect on others you need to think more about, and when a bunch of people point this out to you, it's time to reflect on whether you're doing it wrong....

[Politesse]

IOW people who are using the currency of bigotry to show off basically.This is right on the mark.

[Politesse]

So which utterances of 'nigger' are racist?

i) A white man is walking down a street passing a black man and he shouts out 'nigger'.
ii) A professor is giving a lecture on an aspect of slavery and he uses the word 'nigger'.
iii) A rap artist is recording a hit single in which he frequently uses the word 'nigger'.
iv) A white writer is writing an antebellum novel in which he uses the word 'nigger'.
v) Two black boys are playing in the yard and one calls the other 'nigger'.
vi) A black adult is returning from military service to his family and his brother greets him saying 'Yo what's up my nigger?'
vii) A white boy asks his father on first venturing into the city 'Dad, is that a nigger?'You know, I'm more interested in your answer to this question. Does someone have to be literally stopping a black person in the street and yelling "hey you stupid nigger" for the charge of racist language to be justified? Somehow I feel like you'd still be defending the bastard and claiming that we don't know for sure what he really meant.

i) Removing words from language has little or no effect on changing how people behave. Providing people with narratives of the experience of others generally tends to be the effective approach...as it creates empathy.You know, I don't see anyone but you talking about removing words from the language. You're upset because everyone assumed something about you from the words you chose, that you hated gays. I'm not convinced that this is untrue, but even if it is, it has nothing to do with censorship. You don't want to be allowed to use the word; you obviously already are. You want to use it with impunity, without criticism. You want your all-holy and vaunted intentions to be the most important thing on everyone else's mind, even to the point that we will ignore the language you use to express those opinions even when those words imply something nasty. You want to have the privilege noblesse, a gross power imbalance that allows you to say what you wish and silence the elocutionary effect of your words on others by a panoply of rights that you extend primarily to yourself, and then to people who are most like you? It never occurs to you that I might be just as offended by what you actually say you meant; I don't actually share your belief that there are a class of gay people who are stupid and fluffy and okay to use as a rhetorical chew toy. But they are not like you, so you're upset that your denigration of them could be seen as *gasp* bigoted, most of all because in fact it is.

ii) Words can only be racist, offensive...etc.. in context and never as they stand in any a priori sense or objective sense...they just can't be... as I hope the above example makes clear. And even common speech won't wash... I can think of many examples of "foul" language used in common speech setting in which it had neither the intention to offend nor produced the result of offense.There are at least two contexts for every sentence, the hearer and the listener. The onus of understanding what someone is saying does not lie exclusively on the listener- the speaker is not justified in feeling angry or censored if they are perceived in a way they don't like as a result of the words they choose. If you feel you've been misunderstood, go ahead and try and explain. Your efforts so far have not been convincing, but you're welcome to make the attempt.

[munnki]

Callin' bullshit here... I made it clear from my explanation that what I had issue with was not any gays at all...but a stereotype of gayness...

It's clear that some of you are not amused, that others are, and that still more are annoyed that this non-issue has become an issue at all...

Given that there actually exists a diversity of views on this... rather than one solid agreed-upon one... I'll stick to my guns... I'd avoid using humour given that some of you are clearly devoid of it - but then that would be changing my behaviour to match with the opinions of what could be a minority for all I know... which really wouldn't benefit anyone in any way...

To be clear... I don't have any opinion on the type of lifestyle anybody chooses...couldn't give a monkey's arse... tbh. But I find certain stereotypes demeaning...

Stereotypes != people...

QED...

[munnki]

Poli as for demanding some kind of principality over language... gimme a f£$king break... I just wanted people to either a) lighten up or b) listen to explanations for things which they don't understand...

a) would have been far more preferable...

The part after 'you know' above is complete bullshit... there are situations in which offensive terms are used with the intention of hurting and causing offence to others... there are also many other contexts in which such terms can be used ... from f£$king etymology to lecture halls to within a given community... so bite me with your self-righteous false and humourless nonsense....

I don't demand that you don't be offended... I just won't pretend to regret that you are... That's about you and not about me...

[Politesse]

Callin' bullshit here... I made it clear from my explanation that what I had issue with was not any gays at all...but a stereotype of gayness...

It's clear that some of you are not amused, that others are, and that still more are annoyed that this non-issue has become an issue at all...

Given that there actually exists a diversity of views on this... rather than one solid agreed-upon one... I'll stick to my guns... I'd avoid using humour given that some of you are clearly devoid of it - but then that would be changing my behaviour to match with the opinions of what could be a minority for all I know... which really wouldn't benefit anyone in any way...

To be clear... I don't have any opinion on the type of lifestyle anybody chooses...couldn't give a monkey's arse... tbh. But I find certain stereotypes demeaning...

Stereotypes != people...

QED...
So you don't want to be stuck on a cruise ship with... stereotypes? Stereotypes that don't equal people somehow? How can you be stuck on a boat with an idea?

[Politesse]

Poli as for demanding some kind of principality over language... gimme a f£$king break... I just wanted people to either a) lighten up or b) listen to explanations for things which they don't understand...
This is not convincing me that my analysis of the situation is incorrect. You're shouting in a room, demanding to be perceived as something other than you are, and asking why everyone won't just "lighten up a bit" and get off your back about the situation you yourself created and perpetuated.

The part after 'you know' above is complete bullshit... there are situations in which offensive terms are used with the intention of hurting and causing offence to others... there are also many other contexts in which such terms can be used ... from f£$king etymology to lecture halls to within a given community... so bite me with your self-righteous false and humourless nonsense....
So, I was right? You'd defend any of the above? Automatically, before even really knowing the details of the case?

I don't demand that you don't be offended... I just won't pretend to regret that you are... That's about you and not about me...Not true. If you weren't upset over this, and ridiculously accusing Bane and I of "censorship" for calling you on using bigoted terminology, there'd be no thread; you'd just have shrugged and gone, "okay, whatever".

[munnki]

You were right how... What I was saying was that we need to look into the context in which words can be used which render them inoffensive or rather what makes them offensive is context... Now how what I've said above differs from that I fail to understand... Which either means I've miswritten something or you misunderstand me... I'll grant freely that either is possible..

[munnki]

Also sand in vaginas maketh not a man correct methinks

[Bane]

Also sand in vaginas maketh not a man correct methinks

Nice, so you use female characteristics as part of an insult too. You say you are this fantastic, enlightened person. Prove it.

[munnki]

Oh FFS... 'sand in vagina' is a common expression meaning 'annoyed'...

Really, grow the fuck up... enough said on this matter... I see no benefit in continuing further... you both no doubt will... and there's clearly a) nothing I can say which will reduce the offence you have taken and b) no desire in me to do so...

[Ozymandias]

Didn't say you are a homophobe.

Is it even possible for a homosexual to be homophobic?

[Anne]

yes. just like it's possible for a woman to be misogynistic.

And, no offense intended munkki (here y'all go, Anne being hypersensitive again!) 'sand in vagina' may be 'common' but that does not take away from the sexism of the comment, nor the huger implications of 'old lady' and 'not fucked enough'.

[munnki]

*sigh*

[Anne]

exactly.

[neilstone40]

Is it even possible for a homosexual to be homophobic?

Of course....

They've even got uniforms, their own banks, private army and their own curious little country over in Italy somewhere...

[Goodchild]

Since I don't consider Munnki to be a homophobic sort of person at all, I take his comments like 'poofter' with a grain of salt. Just like I would in real life with a friend that I know isn't homophobic and uses such terms in a friendly way.

But, and this is the only thing I have issue with, not everyone knows Munnki well enough to know that his comments don't come from a heart full of hate. How would a new member, who just happened to be gay, who came across such comments think of SC? If my first exposure to 'gay' discussion here was in the form of derogatory terms (no matter how they were intended) then I'd probably walk back out the virtual door.

Maybe the impression you give newcomers isn't high on your priority list, but particularly as a moderator I think it should be.

[munnki]

Perhaps it should... I've often thought that in that sense I'm probably not a very good moderator...

[Goodchild]

Perhaps it should... I've often thought that in that sense I'm probably not a very good moderator...

Well, you don't seem to be much of a 'self-censorer', that's for sure :D I imagine you're a good moderator otherwise, so don't take my criticism as a suggestion that you should stop moderating.

[munnki]

Tell you the truth, Goodchild, I take no offence... I simply enjoy both banter and winding people up to a sufficient extent that I rarely self-censor unless I feel something is utterly inappropriate... I also think that there are times when dropping verbal bombs is both useful and apt depending on context... I would say I enjoy doing this sufficiently often so that I wonder if it is compatible with a 'taking the higher road' interpretation of what a moderator should do...

So, gasp, I agree with you... but there's also part of me that isn't convinced this is necessarily the role of a mod either... it's an interesting discussion to have...

[Ozymandias]

How would a new member, who just happened to be gay, who came across such comments think of SC? If my first exposure to 'gay' discussion here was in the form of derogatory terms (no matter how they were intended) then I'd probably walk back out the virtual door.


In that case munkki us doing us a service, weeding out all the weak, think-skinned, easily offended faggots.

[Bane]

You've made me think of those horrid, unappetizing-looking pork meatballs again. (There's a brand of frozen pork meatballs in gravy called Mr Brain's Pork Faggots.)

Excuse me while I'm sick in the wastebasket.

[Ozymandias]

Yeah, that's my reaction to faggots too.

[Bane]

Pork meatballs are disgusting.

Bundles of sticks are boring.

[mood2]

you're beautiful when you're butch fubg!

[Goodchild]

How would a new member, who just happened to be gay, who came across such comments think of SC? If my first exposure to 'gay' discussion here was in the form of derogatory terms (no matter how they were intended) then I'd probably walk back out the virtual door.


In that case munkki us doing us a service, weeding out all the weak, think-skinned, easily offended faggots.

You're funny when you try so hard to be controversial.

btw, what is think-skinned?

[Anne]

People who think?

[Barefoot Bree]

I've heard of shirts from super high-tech fibers that are close to woven computers - do things like camouflage, I think. Or advertising. I can't remember.

Perhaps think-skinned people have had those fibers stitched into their skins?

Perhaps I need another beer. No, definitely....

[Anne]

sweet! Harkens back to my Shadowrun roots!

I wanna be think-skinned!

[columbus]

Yeah, that's my reaction to faggots too.

I would say "Eat me! I like big hairy daddies. "

But I won't. Febble will just shunt my post off to the TrashCan. Or Notta, or whatever that middle aged chick in the shiny jack boots name is.

OOH, I am in so much trouble.

I like you because you so commonly say things that I would say, but it makes me think when somebody else says it.

Thinking is hard and uncomfortable, it pisses me off.





I'll just stop now.
Tom

[Bane]

I think he was responding to my comment about the disgusting pork meatballs. Yeuch. I think the only time I would eat those things is with a metric assload of hotsauce and if I was getting paid to do it.

[Xero]

edit: nvm... I just realized I don't give a fuck.

[Ozymandias]

edit: nvm... I just realized I don't give a fuck.

Good attitude! :thumbup:

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Can stereotypes and potentially offensive terms be legitimately used in context?

Yes. Why wouldn't/shouldn't they be? There would be no such thing as satire without them - if we agree that satire is always meant to satirise that which needs it, such as racism, political incompetence etc.

[Full Tilt Boogie]

Can stereotypes and potentially offensive terms be legitimately used in context?

Yes. Why wouldn't/shouldn't they be? There would be no such thing as satire without them - if we agree that satire is always meant to satirise that which needs it, such as racism, political incompetence etc.

A case in point:


Yu5Q86V8lT4&hd

[Valheru]

Can stereotypes and potentially offensive terms be legitimately used in context?

Yes. Why wouldn't/shouldn't they be? There would be no such thing as satire without them - if we agree that satire is always meant to satirise that which needs it, such as racism, political incompetence etc.

http://edge.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/527873/80462491.jpg

(I agree, btw, the image is a form of q.e.d :))

[Rie]

it was an education to look out over the audience and see that america had indeed become a "melting pot'... so many shades of brown, black and creamy bosoms and just plain blond white!

BTW we in Oz spell it 'poofters':o