The very obvious and important difference being that the vast majority of the people upvoting and posting that word in that context are unlikely to be gay.

So are only gay people allowed to use that word?

 

In fact yes, for all intents and purposes I can't think of a circumstance where a straight person saying that would really be okay outside of contexts like being in a close group of gay friends who 'allow' you say it. But that's not similar to the context originally being referred to.

 

 

 

The very obvious and important difference being that the vast majority of the people upvoting and posting that word in that context are unlikely to be gay.

So are only gay people allowed to use that word?

In fact yes, for all intents and purposes I can't think of a circumstance where a straight person saying that would be okay.

That's a bit extreme. I can't get on board with that argument lol

 

Edit: you edited your post. I still disagree, I think you're making mountains out of molehills here

If you're a straight white male, there are no slurs that can be directed towards you, so you will never understand how a gay person feels when they're called a [bleep], or how a black person feels when they're called a [racist term], so you just have to listen to them when they tell you not to say it.

You're saying that straight white men never get called [bleep], or get their feelings hurt for being called [bleep]?

If you're a straight white male, there are no slurs that can be directed towards you, so you will never understand how a gay person feels when they're called a [bleep], or how a black person feels when they're called a [racist term], so you just have to listen to them when they tell you not to say it.

This is demonstrably untrue. http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites

Insults directed at straight white males are only an annoyance at best.

Insults directed at straight white males are only an annoyance at best.

What makes you think that?

 

Insults directed at straight white males are only an annoyance at best.

What makes you think that?

 

He's having fun with my previous words saying the bathroom bill was an annoyance. However, I also qualified that by saying "compared to literal murder", so the comparison isn't really fair.

 

But yes, insults directed at anyone (including straight white males) are an annoyance compared to murder.

 

 

Insults directed at straight white males are only an annoyance at best.

What makes you think that?

 

He's having fun with my previous words saying the bathroom bill was an annoyance. However, I also qualified that by saying "compared to literal murder", so the comparison isn't really fair.

 

But yes, insults directed at anyone (including straight white males) are an annoyance compared to murder.

 

I was mocking you for saying most transgressions against the LGBT community by the majority group are an annoyance at best. Here's your words:

 

It doesn't mean all muslims should be demonized, but western/white/christian transgressions against the LGBT community in most cases amount to an annoyance at best, not literal murder and torture.

Specifically, "western/white/christian transgressions against the LGBT community" are much more inclusive than your singular fascination with "the bathroom bill". Which itself is one of countless transgressions throughout the history of oppression and prejudice against LGBTs in America.

 

By the way, is your response to Black Lives Matter something like "What about white lives?" or "All lives matter!", by any chance? You dance around on any issue and never clarify any sort of stance so you're only some vague conservative-libertarian sort-of-trope to me, sorry.

I was mocking you for saying most transgressions against the LGBT community by the majority group are an annoyance at best. Here's your words:

 

It doesn't mean all muslims should be demonized, but western/white/christian transgressions against the LGBT community in most cases amount to an annoyance at best, not literal murder and torture.

Specifically, "western/white/christian transgressions against the LGBT community" are much more inclusive than your singular fascination with "the bathroom bill".

Which itself is one of countless transgressions throughout the history of oppression and prejudice against LGBTs in America.

 

I meant to refer to contemporary organized/society wide transgressions (which is the most direct comparison to modern Islam). The bathroom bill was the obvious one I could think of from the top of my head. I certainly accept that plenty of individuals commit much more serious infringements against LGBT people, and white/western/christian nations have historically behaved rather poorly towards LGBT people.. Nonetheless, my original intention was to make clear that these things pale in comparison to what is close to a "culture-wide" hatred of gay people, which ends in many cases in torture and death.

 

By the way, is your response to Black Lives Matter something like "What about white lives?" or "All lives matter!", by any chance?

You dance around on any issue and never clarify any sort of stance so you're only some vague conservative-libertarian sort-of-trope to me, sorry.

It's interesting that you're so keen to place me in a particular stereotypical group, rather than judge my opinions and arguments on their actual merit. Is this what members of the LGBT community feel like, I wonder, when they're all lumped in together as one hive-mind with identical political affiliations and opinions?

 

Insults directed at straight white males are only an annoyance at best.

What makes you think that?

 

oh please. assuming you're a straight white male, can you tell me earnestly that insults directed towards you being a straight white male are any more than an annoyance in your daily life? because i'm a straight white male and never once in my life have i felt attacked or discriminated against for being so, let alone via anti-SWM slur. and i feel comfortable speaking for the majority of this demographic, given the complete lack of ever hearing fellow white dudes talking about being genuinely upset over being called a 'cracker' or something.

 

 

 

lmao @ obfuscator equating a historically and currently discriminated and oppressed group to conservative/libertarians, whose members represent probably the least discriminated-against group in U.S. history at least.  :roll:

You've never been called a [bleep] in your life? If you were, it never bothered you?

It's interesting that you're so keen to place me in a particular stereotypical group, rather than judge my opinions and arguments on their actual merit. Is this what members of the LGBT community feel like, I wonder, when they're all lumped in together as one hive-mind with identical political affiliations and opinions?

You don't provide any sort of stance for me to judge. You create fragmented, poorly articulated arguments that require constant clarification. To be frank, I don't know your views. All I know is many of your statements are vaguely conservative-libertarian.

 

But it's pointless. You'll never clearly present any of your beliefs, so there's no point. Reading or replying to your posts is like me using vim on Linux to read Ulysses, except without any sort of benefit.

You've never been called a [bleep] in your life? If you were, it never bothered you?

yer gonna have to do a lil censor evasion for me to be able to answer this one

 

 

You've never been called a [bleep] in your life? If you were, it never bothered you?

yer gonna have to do a lil censor evasion for me to be able to answer this one

F*g

 

If you're a straight white male, there are no slurs that can be directed towards you, so you will never understand how a gay person feels when they're called a [bleep], or how a black person feels when they're called a [racist term], so you just have to listen to them when they tell you not to say it.

This is demonstrably untrue. http://www.rsdb.org/race/whites

We should hit up the mods and get "caulkie" censored then, if you're so offended by it

.

.

 

Orlando shooting: Was gunman Omar Mateen a political extremist or repressed gay man?

 

This.

 

This.

This whole conversation really took a turn

In other news, had our first concert in Toronto today.

[bleep]ing epic.

 

Over 120 people came in to listen to us, the hall was packed and some people had to stand (there were tables for all the seats, I don't know why).

 

Leaving Toronto today, to visit the neighbourhood of Canadian Estonians about 100 km's to the north-east. 2 concerts there, will be fun.

Now that I'm sober :lol: here's a summation of my thoughts on the matter:

 

1. You don't have to be gay to get called a f*g and you don't have to be gay to get your feelings hurt getting called a f*g. Myself and plenty of people I know have been called that when we were younger and it wasn't pleasant. Therefore, to tell straight white males "Oh you got called a f*g? Deal with it, ya [kitty]!" and then turning to a gay person and saying "Oh you got called a f*g? That's terrible! We should do something about that!" is sort of hypocritical.

 

2. There aren't any specific straight white male slurs (e.g. cracker) that I'd get offended over in the US. I don't know of anyone who's been called a white racial slur and taken it seriously. I'm sure it'd be different if I lived somewhere where being white meant I was in the minority though. If I were in another country or if I went to a mostly-black school, then I'd probably get my feelings hurt for being called that.

 

3. Context matters. If someone calls a person a f*g, with the intention of making them feel bad, that's not cool. However if you're playfully calling your friend a f*g, then there's nothing wrong with that. I think if you get your feelings hurt from hearing the word f*g being playfully used by two people, and it's not being directed at you, then you're being a bit silly.

 

4. The "mere annoyance" thing is just a miscommunication/misunderstanding of each others points. I think you guys are in agreement but semantics are getting in the way.