Jump to content
Leoo

Today...

Recommended Posts

Go to brazil get shit stolen and get called a stupid gringo by the cops is about the only one i can think of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to brazil get shit stolen and get called a stupid gringo by the cops is about the only one i can think of

Was that more than an annoyance because they called you a stupid gringo, or because of some action/inaction on their part in addition to the insult?

rnHJQwZ.png
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. ~Samuel Adams; 1 August, 1776
There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster; 15 March, 1837

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for real though I think being an outsider and being made fun of for it is extremely unpleasant and depending on where you live or what you like to do you can experience that feeling no matter what your background is.

  • Like 2

TANSTAAFL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Go to brazil get shit stolen and get called a stupid gringo by the cops is about the only one i can think of

Was that more than an annoyance because they called you a stupid gringo, or because of some action/inaction on their part in addition to the insult?
If you believed the racial profiling is the reason for both the term and the action

 

The term is just a verbal "i dont like you" and the action is a result of it

 

Kibd of like a cop that calls black people [racist term] behind their back and suspects them to be committing crimes to their face

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASCIOtM.gif

This.


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


t3aGt.png

 

So I've noticed this thread's regulars all follow similar trends.

 

RPG is constantly dealing with psycho exes.

Muggi reminds us of the joys of polygamy.

Saq is totally oblivious to how much chicks dig him.

I strike out every other week.

Kalphite wages a war against the friend zone.

Randox pretty much stays rational.

Etc, etc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative. The very use of this word as an insult further strengthens the idea that being a gay man is something to be ashamed of. This is the point that I think champion is trying to make and is why one of those cases is worse than the other - calling a straight person a f*g is saying that they are similar to something that is to be ashamed of, but ultimately they know that they are still straight and not of the targeted identity and can brush it off. Calling a homosexual male a f*g is telling that person that their existence is something to be ashamed of, which reinforces the hierarchy of them being in lower social standing and can thus cause much more psychological damage.

 

And yeah every single "white racial slur" in that list obfuscator posted is laughable at best. None of those words have the power that slurs against minority groups have towards them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative. The very use of this word as an insult further strengthens the idea that being a gay man is something to be ashamed of. This is the point that I think champion is trying to make and is why one of those cases is worse than the other - calling a straight person a f*g is saying that they are similar to something that is to be ashamed of, but ultimately they know that they are still straight and not of the targeted identity and can brush it off. Calling a homosexual male a f*g is telling that person that their existence is something to be ashamed of, which reinforces the hierarchy of them being in lower social standing and can thus cause much more psychological damage.

 

And yeah every single "white racial slur" in that list obfuscator posted is laughable at best. None of those words have the power that slurs against minority groups have towards them.

 

I want to point out that I didn't post that list saying "all of these things offend me", only in response to someone saying "there are no slurs against straight white people".

  • Like 3

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative.

I disagree. That may be true with some other people, but in my case, I didn't want to be called a f*g simply because I wasn't gay; it was an inaccurate label. More specifically, being called a f*g as a straight dude basically meant you were repulsive to women and couldn't get laid to save your life... which was true back in the day :P It's not like I was thinking, "I'm not one of those people! Don't you dare call me that! I hate those people and don't want to be grouped in as one!" That would be homophobia.

 

If I were gay, I'd be upset for different reasons, as other posters have mentioned.

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you guys' points...

Do you both agree that getting murdered is worse than not going to the bathroom where you desire? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that the bathroom bill is an issue worth discussing? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that members of the LGBT are discriminated against in the US? If so, you're in agreement.


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

But the reason why calling a straight white male a f*g is offensive is because it likens them to a gay man, which is seen as a negative.

I disagree. That may be true with some other people, but in my case, I didn't want to be called a f*g simply because I wasn't gay; it was an inaccurate label. More specifically, being called a f*g as a straight dude basically meant you were repulsive to women and couldn't get laid to save your life... which was true back in the day :P It's not like I was thinking, "I'm not one of those people! Don't you dare call me that! I hate those people and don't want to be grouped in as one!" That would be homophobia.

 

If I were gay, I'd be upset for different reasons, as other posters have mentioned.

 

If you think about it, you're actually just confirming what I'm saying though. It's inarguable that the word f*g is used to refer to homosexual men. If it was truly inoffensive to be given that word simply because it was an inaccurate label, then it would be equally as offensive as calling you a squid or a strawberry. However, if somebody called you one of these words to your face, you'd probably just laugh, whereas calling you a f*g is a lot more likely to be construed as offensive.

 

In my experience, using the word f*g has mostly been used to attack men for demonstrating traits that conflicted with the typical definition of masculinity - for example, I've seen people use the word against people who dislike sports, or skinny men/men who wear skinny jeans, or people who like things that aren't "cool" for men to like (for a blatant example, bronies, though there is obviously a lot of less extreme examples that also fit). Of course there are exceptions to this, such as friends using it in a joking context, but this accounted for most "serious" uses I've heard of the word. The case you outlined falls under this umbrella too - if you are "repulsive to women" and "couldn't get laid to save your life", then you aren't displaying the masculine trait of being able to attract a woman. By attacking all of these people by using a word used to refer to gay men, you are reinforcing the idea that being gay makes you less of a man and attacking the identities held by gay men. Even if you're not consciously reacting to such an insult with blatant homophobia, subconsciously you are associating being gay with being less masculine and as a derogatory thing. So even if one straight male calls another straight male a f*g, actual gay men are hurt by the reinforcement of their identity as negative.

 

The end point is that, yes, both groups can be offended by use of the slur, but for very different reasons, and use of the word by straight men strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men, even if it's purely subconsciously, which is why it's not okay for straight men to use that word (the original point of contention that triggered this argument) if we are truly trying to work towards breaking societal discrimination against minority groups. As members of privileged groups, we can't understand how painful it is to have our identities used in a derogatory nature, so it is best to listen to members of these groups when they say that doing this is not okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4. I don't agree with obfuscator.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you guys' points...

Do you both agree that getting murdered is worse than not going to the bathroom where you desire? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that the bathroom bill is an issue worth discussing? If so, you're in agreement.

Do you both agree that members of the LGBT are discriminated against in the US? If so, you're in agreement.

 

Statements are used to support an argument. Agreeing with independent statements does not mean I agree with a conclusion. Your indication of our agreement in these summarized statements is also wrong (1. is the equivalent of 'a bad outcome is better than the worst possible outcome' so it's no more useful than agreeing that a 100 watt bulb is brighter than a 75 watt bulb and 2. the 'bathroom bill' is a minor issue so I do not agree).

 

Furthermore, I am sick of hearing about the bathroom bill because it is a single issue out of many, and in North Carolina's case, was used as a distraction to cause incredible damage to worker rights.

 

I believe using third-world countries as an example where LGBT have greater grievances to reduce the importance of grievances LGBT face in first-world countries is dishonest and counter-productive. The 'x is worse' argument is more often than not worthless in situations like this.


ozXHe7P.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62693453.jpg
  • Like 1

Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

62693453.jpg

 

 

 

I don't understand your point, but I somehow find it hilarious anyway.


19509_s.gif

 

“I had a feeling we weren’t coming back from this fight when it began.”

“Do you have any regrets?”

“I don’t. It seems surprising, I know, but I wouldn’t change a thing. This is how it was meant to be.”

“Huh, you never really notice how lovely the day is until you realize you’ll never see it again.”

“Mmmhmm.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

 

1. Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between feeling persecuted and feeling mislabeled, I don't know what to say.

 

3. Your friends might let you call them [bleep] because they're afraid to stand up to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

  • Like 2

My skin is finally getting soft
I'll scrub until the damn thing comes off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

 

Thank you for saying in like 5 seconds what took me 3 paragraphs haha.

 

In other news, I managed to patch up a spat I had with a close friend last night and it feels so good not to have to worry about that anymore and to be able to enjoy this gorgeous weekend in peace~

 

Also, it seems like I'll be seeing Modern Baseball, Thrice, and Phish over the course of the next week. Needless to say I'm pretty hyped haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, you're actually just confirming what I'm saying though. It's inarguable that the word f*g is used to refer to homosexual men. If it was truly inoffensive to be given that word simply because it was an inaccurate label, then it would be equally as offensive as calling you a squid or a strawberry. However, if somebody called you one of these words to your face, you'd probably just laugh, whereas calling you a f*g is a lot more likely to be construed as offensive.

 

In my experience, using the word f*g has mostly been used to attack men for demonstrating traits that conflicted with the typical definition of masculinity - for example, I've seen people use the word against people who dislike sports, or skinny men/men who wear skinny jeans, or people who like things that aren't "cool" for men to like (for a blatant example, bronies, though there is obviously a lot of less extreme examples that also fit). Of course there are exceptions to this, such as friends using it in a joking context, but this accounted for most "serious" uses I've heard of the word. The case you outlined falls under this umbrella too - if you are "repulsive to women" and "couldn't get laid to save your life", then you aren't displaying the masculine trait of being able to attract a woman. By attacking all of these people by using a word used to refer to gay men, you are reinforcing the idea that being gay makes you less of a man and attacking the identities held by gay men. Even if you're not consciously reacting to such an insult with blatant homophobia, subconsciously you are associating being gay with being less masculine and as a derogatory thing. So even if one straight male calls another straight male a f*g, actual gay men are hurt by the reinforcement of their identity as negative.

 

The end point is that, yes, both groups can be offended by use of the slur, but for very different reasons, and use of the word by straight men strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men, even if it's purely subconsciously, which is why it's not okay for straight men to use that word (the original point of contention that triggered this argument) if we are truly trying to work towards breaking societal discrimination against minority groups. As members of privileged groups, we can't understand how painful it is to have our identities used in a derogatory nature, so it is best to listen to members of these groups when they say that doing this is not okay.

 

How do you explain all my gay friends who not only throw around that word constantly, but also tease my politically correct straight friends who are afraid to use that word in their presence? Are my gay friends just masochistic and they're somehow making life harder for themselves and they just don't seem to realize it?

 

Or do they simply not give a shit because words don't hurt their feelings?

 

You need to understand that literally all of my gay friends find the word hilarious, and the only people I know who get offended by that word are, ironically, straight :P

 

Similarly, I have a difficult time understanding parts of your claims because they're really vague and they seem to be unfalsifiable. When you say using the word "strengthens systematic discrimination against homosexual men subconsciously," how do you provide evidence/proof for or against a claim like that? Give me data! Give me specifics! :D

 

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the masculinity discussion, as that's a completely subjective topic

  • Like 1

77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

1. You being offended by being called a [bleep] comes from your personal homophobia. A gay person being offended comes from fear of being persecuted. They are not the same.

 

3. If you have somebody's consent, you can call them whatever you want in private, but there is no such thing as consent when there is fear or pressure.

1. See my response to Kalphite; it's not homophobia. However, to take things a step further, I don't really see why we're splitting hairs here when the end result is the same regardless of their sexual orientation. They still feel bad about themselves either way. With that said, why does one group get sympathy whereas the other doesn't? It's hypocritical. Either tell both groups to grow a pair, or lend your sympathy to both groups since they're both getting their feelings hurt.

 

3. I have no clue what you're trying to say here, can you rephrase that?

 

1. Honestly, if you can't understand the difference between feeling persecuted and feeling mislabeled, I don't know what to say.

 

3. Your friends might let you call them [bleep] because they're afraid to stand up to you.

 

 

1. For the sake of this discussion, please clearly define both of those terms. Right now it looks like you're trying to opt out of the discussion and that's not doing anyone any favors :P

 

3. Considering they throw that word around constantly, I strongly doubt that. I feel like you guys are grasping for straws trying to argue against my "context matters" argument >_>


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone here is arguing that people not in the group hurt by the slur have to be okay with being called the slur. Just that using a slur in any negative context, and in many positive contexts, reinforces the negativity behind the slur, which is negative for the oppressed group regardless of whether the recipient is part of that group.

 

So, the argument is that the speaker shouldn't use the word in any context that reinforces negative stereotypes, not that the target needs to brush it off if it doesn't apply to them.

 

 

Just to clarify as well, "joking" insults are still insults, and they reinforce that negative stereotype just the same. Maybe worse, because it's often defended as being uncriticizable because it's a joke and no one really meant it. That's why calling your straight friend a f*g as another straight man is skeevy. I just can't imagine a situation where that's positive in any way.

 

If person A is jokingly using the word with person B, and they both "consent" to the term, then who, specifically, is that hurting? Especially if person A and person B never use the term maliciously and exclusively use it "consensually?"


77yLQy8.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word is meant to demean a sect of people and as long as people believe it does, it will. Same goes for all slurs.

 

Kalphite that's a pretty solid lineup. I think Phish is coming to Philly soon too


Quote

 

Quote

Anyone who likes tacos is incapable of logic.

Anyone who likes logic is incapable of tacos.

 

PSA: SaqPrets is an Estonian Dude

Steam: NippleBeardTM

Origin: Brand_New_iPwn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.