It's obvious you don't understand how language works and it's pretty clear that no matter how much it is repeated you won't get it, so lets just call it a day.

 

The maypole is developing trenches with all the effort here.

 

 

Brian, you are creating straw men in the form of rhetorical questions so that you can knock them down with your preconceived conclusions.  This is exactly as bad as what many theists who come here continuously do.  Your ignorance is astounding and your thick-headedness is disappointing, but not surprising.  I can hardly believe I'm writing this: I'm glad that we have people like you here in the way that Hamby is glad to have EXC here.  Let us know when you're ready to learn something.

Thomathy wrote:

Brian, you are creating straw men in the form of rhetorical questions so that you can knock them down with your preconceived conclusions.  This is exactly as bad as what many theists who come here continuously do.  Your ignorance is astounding and your thick-headedness is disappointing, but not surprising.  I can hardly believe I'm writing this: I'm glad that we have people like you here in the way that Hamby is glad to have EXC here.  Let us know when you're ready to learn something.

Ok, I am ignorant, fine.

So if that is the case, then you are making my case for me. If I am "blowing it" as far as not taking the right processes to get through the right use of logic, then OTHERS, besides me, outside of this thread in real life are capable of the same.

They would be capable of mistaking and mixing and confusing issues. Humans are flawed and that makes it all the more important not to make life "black or white" with a "never" tactic. Once you start doing that others will aim it right back at you, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG.

All I am hearing is "you shouldn't say that".  I responded with "it depends on when where and why and intent and context"

I disagree that every time a word is used it is used to perpetuate something just because it had a history. People still drive on the Autoban built by Hitler. Do all modern Germans hate Jews?

Otherwise gay people are demonizing themselves with a word used originally to demonize them.  I don't think they do. And I don't think if someone says, "that is so gay" refers to gay people being bad anymore than "lets have a gay ol time" means all gay people are happy 27/7 and never get sad. I do think people read into something what they want to even if it is not there.

Please do not come back with, "well if you were specific there would be no confusion". The english language is constantly changing and one word can have more than one meaning. Now unless you can write a new language for the human species that we can all agree on, I think you have to accept what we are delt with and accept that without passing judgment every time you hear something you don't like.

Here is reality. I could be wrong. I never claimed to be the smartest person on this board.

What do you do with people you know are wrong and never end up seeing it your way? Do you try to force them to do what you want? Or do you do what you can along the way and accept that life isn't perfect ?

Brian37 wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Brian, you are creating straw men in the form of rhetorical questions so that you can knock them down with your preconceived conclusions.  This is exactly as bad as what many theists who come here continuously do.  Your ignorance is astounding and your thick-headedness is disappointing, but not surprising.  I can hardly believe I'm writing this: I'm glad that we have people like you here in the way that Hamby is glad to have EXC here.  Let us know when you're ready to learn something.

Ok, I am ignorant, fine.

So if that is the case, then you are making my case for me. If I am "blowing it" as far as not taking the right processes to get through the right use of logic, then OTHERS, besides me, outside of this thread in real life are capable of the same.

They would be capable of mistaking and mixing and confusing issues. Humans are flawed and that makes it all the more important not to make life "black or white" with a "never" tactic. Once you start doing that others will aim it right back at you, EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG.

All I am hearing is "you shouldn't say that".  I responded with "it depends on when where and why and intent and context"

I disagree that every time a word is used it is used to perpetuate something just because it had a history. People still drive on the Autoban built by Hitler. Do all modern Germans hate Jews?

Otherwise gay people are demonizing themselves with a word used originally to demonize them.  I don't think they do. And I don't think if someone says, "that is so gay" refers to gay people being bad anymore than "lets have a gay ol time" means all gay people are happy 27/7 and never get sad. I do think people read into something what they want to even if it is not there.

Please do not come back with, "well if you were specific there would be no confusion". The english language is constantly changing and one word can have more than one meaning. Now unless you can write a new language for the human species that we can all agree on, I think you have to accept what we are delt with and accept that without passing judgment every time you hear something you don't like.

Here is reality. I could be wrong. I never claimed to be the smartest person on this board.

What do you do with people you know are wrong and never end up seeing it your way? Do you try to force them to do what you want? Or do you do what you can along the way and accept that life isn't perfect ?

 

You are wrong, and I simply give up on you. Because you are undoubtedly going to work to convince others that you are racist and homophobic, even if you don't intend to.

 

It is sad, but if you refuse to pay attention to what other people tell you then there isn't much that can be done. Bye now!

If you refer to something as gay, you are insulting everyone that IS gay using it as a pejorative.

There is a difference between the words you are comparing "faggot" and racial slurs to. 

 

If you call someone a "faggot", you are not only using it as an insult to them, but also calling gays something to be abhorred by society by using them as the point of reference.

 

 

 

It is not a matter of people "taking it the wrong way" it is a matter of you seemingly not understanding what the words mean, and using them despite this. 

 

If you call someone a fag, even jokingly, even in using it in an attempt to make fun of homophobes, it is offensive. You might be forgiven for it but you still are saying that "gays are an undesirable", and it still doesn't make it feel better for anyone that IS gay.

 

 

I'm telling you. From experience. It is incredibly uncomfortable being the target of hatred for no other reason than existing. When those people coin a word or a phrase to be used against you...

 

Just because you aren't one of those people that doesn't excuse you. If you pick up their phrase and use it...you ARE communicating the same message as they are. Even if you don't mean to.

 

 

 

 

I tried my best here, and I'm done. I'm not contributing anymore, this whole conversation makes me sick. If you want to run around in circles further, feel free to. If you go around using racial slurs against a persecuted minority though, you should expect to be lumped in with bigots, as you are communicating you either are one, or at the very least do not care about the plight of the group you are trampling over.

If they want to take it that way, I cant stop them. But it is absurd to say that if one does they should stop, EVEN IF that is not the context the person saying it intends.

Like it or not folks, freedom of speech also includes the freedom to offend.

Atheists need to cram that into their craniums if we want the freedom to offend theists.

THANK YOU SOMEONE WHO GETS IT!

AND ALL I WANT TO ADD to this is that when people who aren't bigots use these same words, they do it to turn the tables on the people who hate them. Like an "inside joke'.

Now, if I used that same "Pakki" "epithet" in a skit poking fun of the people who hurled it at you in REAL hate, would you take offense or would you agree that the context is that, "BIGOTRY IS STUPID"!

Which is why, as an atheist I call myself a "cootie spreader" and talk about "barbecuing kittens". Does that mean I hate myself? Or does that mean I am conveying how STUPID those who hate me are?

Once again, no one here is advocating that a word not ever be used in any context.

The have to be free to say what they want, as much as it makes me sick.

I think the best tactic is to put a mirror to their face and to use the very same words they use to demonize others and stick it right back in their faces.

So, Brian, yes, it was a slur and no one is 'taking' it that way, it is merely how it is understood.  That's not going to change.  It will be a long time still before the connection is distant enough that the word won't automatically trigger it.  It is similar for the word gay.  This is why the word is used by homosexuals to self identify, or why nigger is used by blacks similarly.  By using the word that insults you you can take it back and remove the stigma and feel empowered by it rather than feel the pain associated with it.  It's exactly why the current trend of using the word gay to refer to anything as 'bad' or 'ugly' is inappropriate from the perspecive of gays.  It is undermining an identity which homosexuals have built up in order to advance themselves socially and it invokes a past where the word was used to hurt, and lo, it is being used to hurt.

OTHERWISE, you are maintaining  the same taboos theists and racists set up to maintain their power.

I'm talking about people not using words because they understand them.

And what if one insists on using words you think they shouldn't use?

You say you don't advocate censorship?

So even if my humor is not in your taste, and since you say you won't outright ban it, then what is the solution?

So Richard Pryor and Stevie Wonder should be what? If all you are going to do is advise them not to joke about themselves? And if those outside their race partake in the stereotype they are poking fun at, it shouldn't be done because YOU ADVISE, without "dictating" that it shouldn't be done?

Ok, just like I would ask theists, if someone doesn't conform, and all appeals fail, and people don't reach the same conclusions you do, what should be done?

ACCORDING TO YOU?

smartypants wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

If they want to take it that way, I cant stop them. But it is absurd to say that if one does they should stop, EVEN IF that is not the context the person saying it intends.

For fuck's sake.

Right, and if she didn't want to be raped, she wouldn't have worn that short skirt.

I really am trying to let this thread die because emotions are heated.

If you get anything from this please understand, and if you read the OP as heated as I myself was. I DO understand the passion of wanting people to get along and the good intent of getting rid of bigotry. I simply get upset when people take things out of context.

You cannot equate my useage of those words in this thread as being the same as that comment. 

The perpose of this thread was to OPEN THE DOOR for disscussion. Your side says "never". I say that is impractical. You say I got it wrong. I am not even arguing that.

AND YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of why "never" is not a good tactic.

One of the commercials in last night's Super Bowls depicted a car spotting game. The implication was that when you spotted a certain color car, you called it out. I used to do this with Corvetes as a kid. In this case red was the theme in this add. After several people spotting the red car, STEVIE WONDER CALLED OUT THE CAR AS IF HE HAD ACTUALLY SPOTTED IT! His friend standing next to him said, "How do you do that?"

So does that mean Stevie Wonder hates blind people? Does that mean he hates himself?

And if anyone else remembers the SNL skit where HE did a fake Cannon Camera commercial, where the implied photos he took were all out of focus and the slogan in the parody was, "A camera so easy even Stevie Wonder can us it".

ANOTHER EXAMPLE:

"Bitch" clearly a pejorative. Bart Simpson used it to describe a female dog. In real life we use it to describe wanting to complain. It is also used to discribe women who are mean. Women use it to describe other women. Does that mean women hate themselves if they say, "That woman is a bitch?"

Everyone who uses a pajorative is not nessearrally being a bigot. And since language changes and context matters you cannot assume someone is a bigot.

I HAVE ALREADY AND WILL ALWAYS AGREE BIGOTRY IS BAD.

But I disagree that words, even the ones we have a reaction to should never be used ever. It is impossible and does not solve the RIGHTFUL intent I see people here having. Including this response in this post.

But we cannot censor ourselves in every instance. This discussion is important, for you and for me.

I think the only way you can stop people from using words you dont like ANY WORD, is to pass laws banning them and fine people for using them. Not only do I think that is dangerous, it is impossible and even if you could, you'd also risk taking out lagit usage of those words, such as a discussion like this, or comedy that makes fun of bigots.

I think people who have known me since 01 on this board and elsewhere KNOW what I am doing here and know my intent.

There can be no black and white on this. YOU are right in wanting to end bigotry. And I have never said and I will repeat, I am not claiming I, or anyone, should have the right to say what I want wherever I want "just because".

 Now lets say that I am being an asshole. Or for others I am merely ignorant and misguided. A bigger point I am trying to make is ON ANY SUBJECT, you cant force people to be clones of you. Even if I am in the wrong. You have tried to appeal to me, and maybe I am wrong. The bigger view that I want you guys to take into account is that you cant always get what you want and force is not the way to get it.

And setting up a word as a taboo to me, without the ability for that word to change, or the ability to poke fun of it, give the word the power you say it shouldn't have. I AGREE certain words should not have power. I think a better tactic is to BE OUT IN THE OPEN WITH IT, discuss it without censorship, and even poke fun of it, and allow it to change, so it doesn't maintain the bigotry WE both want humanity to get away from.

You let someone or something have power over you, it will have power over you. All sweeping an issue under the rug does is create resentment and more missunderstanding.

Poooooor privileged straight white boy. Are your feewings hurt cuz we want you to stop talking shit on us? Are you feeling silenced because we won't put up with your shit anymore?

Ok, so the only way I can prove that I am not a bigot is to always do things the way you want?

Sounds like the same utopia "us vs them" attitude that politics and religion can take.

I used the word "faggot" to poke fun of homophobes. I am sorry you don't understand that. If you did, you wouldn't be taking this "us vs them" attitude.

I'd simply say if you are not comfortable using that word, then dont. But do not decide for me HOW I fight biggotry. I do not expect you to be a clone of me, but do not assume what is in my head.

I am quite sure the first thing a fagot is thinking about while bullets wiz over their heads is sucking their fellow soldiers dick.

You are taking the same black and white approach we rightfully accuse theists of taking.

What I see you doing is giving the word "faggot" more power by demanding I don't use it to poke fun of homophobes.

Setting up a taboo is not the solution.

If you want bigotry to end towards gays, I would say you are going about it the wrong way.

If you want bigotry to end towards gays, I would say you are going about it the wrong way.

No you don't know what I think and I do know what "faggot" means.

Now you have already admitted that under certain circumstances it has to be ok to use, otherwise "taboo" is an apt description.

Good, now we are getting somewhere.

"faggot", there, I just typed it out for the PURPOSE of this discussion. Now your argument. Correct me if I am wrong. Is that I shouldn't use it because of it's meaning and knowing that meaning helps one decide what words to use? And if you know a word is hurtful to someone else you shouldn't use it Right?

So, for example only, knowing that "nigger" is a hurtful pajoritive how does saying "the N word" change the meaning?

And if this is a mere discussion, and none of us are racist, wouldn't this be one context where spelling out the word wouldn't have to be treated the same because it is only PART of a bigger picture on the discussion of HOW and when we use certain words?

Being aware that a word can be hurtful and that people have reactions to a word ANY WORD makes sense. But that doesn't mean it should "never" be used. Otherwise we couldn't even discuss this.

IN THIS CONTEXT for the purpose of this discussion i think it is silly to dance around a ANY WORD since we both KNOW the meaning.

Thomathy wrote:

Smartypants, ClockCat and I have tried to show you the subtlety and nuance in this discussion. You are mistaken.

BINGO! You said it right there, "subtlety and nuance". Which is another way of saying CONTEXT which is another way of saying things are not black and white. Which makes things situational and not absolute.

If there were no other way but to assume bigotry when a negative pejorative is used because we know what the meaning is and we know it is hurtful, then there wouldn't be any "subltlety and nuance" and we couldn't and or shouldn't use it even for this purpose.

"subtlety and nuance" I AGREE

Since the purpose of this thread is to discuss negative pejoratives, and none of us are bigots, then the NEUANCE would change the use of a pejorative in this CONTEXT.

"fine" Alone it cant be understood because it has more than one meaning. But, with the nuance of more words around it, it can be put into context. "I got fined for speeding" Vs "That woman is so fine" Same sequence of letters different contexts.

You would suggest this is a bad analogy and that negative pejoratives are different. "Subltey and nuance"

]If I say "It is wrong to use the word nigger" Is that different than, "It is wrong to use the "n" word" There is no difference there so why dance around the word?

Now if I say FOR EXAMPLE ONLY: "I hate that nigger" Again, same sequence of letters different contexts. The subltey and nuance is that ONE usage was for the purpose of discussion. The other usage, WHICH I AGREE , would be inapropreate.

Otherwise what are you suggesting? "We shoudn't use that word because of it's meaning" WHEN, under what curcumstances is all I am adding to it. If you are not saying anything about "taboos" then when is it ok? Because I think I have pointed out examples where it is ok to use certain words.

Thomathy wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, so the only way I can prove that I am not a bigot is to always do things the way you want?

Nope, it's to not use words that aren't appropriate for your use.  You have to understand the words first.  You're capable of learning, I'm sure.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Sounds like the same utopia "us vs them" attitude that politics and religion can take.

Nope, it's not.

Brian37 wrote:

I used the word "faggot" to poke fun of homophobes. I am sorry you don't understand that. If you did, you wouldn't be taking this "us vs them" attitude.

I'd simply say if you are not comfortable using that word, then dont. But do not decide for me HOW I fight biggotry. I do not expect you to be a clone of me, but do not assume what is in my head.

It's not an 'us vs them' attitude, Brian.  The fault is completely yours.  You must understand that when you write or do something you should make it explicit.  That is, if you were indeed trying to poke fun at homophobes, you need to remember that you're online and that your words speak for themselves and that statement you made, which reads exactly,

Brian37 wrote:

I am quite sure the first thing a fagot is thinking about while bullets wiz over their heads is sucking their fellow soldiers dick.

simply doesn't invoke the impression that you are poking fun at homophobes.  Rather, it gives the impression, considering I am acquainted with your posts, that you are using the term 'brotherly', as though you have some commoraderie with faggots.  You don't; you're not gay are you?  See, context is important, like you say, you're just piss poor at creating it or in delivering what you write well enough to invoke the context you want.  The point is exactly that we can't be in your head.  You need to make your head apparent.  You also need to admit that you mispoke.  You did.  I'm afriad you're going to have a very hard time convincing anyone, based on what you wrote, that you really did mean to be poking fun at homophobes.

Brian37 wrote:

You are taking the same black and white approach we rightfully accuse theists of taking.

No.  Smartypants, ClockCat and I have tried to show you the subtlety and nuance in this discussion.  You are mistaken.

Brian37 wrote:

What I see you doing is giving the word "faggot" more power by demanding I don't use it to poke fun of homophobes.

That's not what we're demanding.  Read above.

Brian37 wrote:

Setting up a taboo is not the solution.

I agree.  How many times do we have to tell you that that's not our intention?  No one here has said anything about setting up taboos except you.  You can stop telling us what you think.  We know what you think.  You've written it more than enough times.

Brian37 wrote:

If you want bigotry to end towards gays, I would say you are going about it the wrong way.

Thank you for your opinion, not-gay-person, but your mistaken as you seem to think that our tactic involves making a word a taboo.  Once afain, you're the one who's been saying that.  No one here has said they want to make a word taboo.  We know what you think, stop projecting what you think onto us so that you can tell us what you think about taboos again.  We don't want taboos and neither do you.  We get it.  You've written it many times.

No you don't know what I think and I do know what "faggot" means. Now you have already admitted that under certain circumstances it has to be ok to use, otherwise "taboo" is an apt description.

Quote:

We know what you think, stop projecting what you think onto us so that you can tell us what you think about taboos again.  We don't want taboos and neither do you.

Good, now we are getting somewhere.

"faggot", there, I just typed it out for the PURPOSE of this discussion.

Now your argument. Correct me if I am wrong. Is that I shouldn't use it because of it's meaning and knowing that meaning helps one decide what words to use? And if you know a word is hurtful to someone else you shouldn't  use it Right?

So, for example only, knowing that "nigger" is a hurtful pajoritive how does saying "the N word" change the meaning? And if this is a mere discussion, and none of us are racist, wouldn't this be one context where spelling out the word wouldn't have to be treated the same because it is only PART of a bigger picture on the discussion of HOW and when we use certain words?

Being aware that a word can be hurtful and that people have reactions to a word ANY WORD makes sense. But that doesn't mean it should "never" be used. Otherwise we couldn't even discuss this.

IN THIS CONTEXT for the purpose of this discussion i think it is silly to dance around a ANY WORD since we both KNOW the meaning.

Quote:

Using the word nigger in a discussion about the word nigger, and using it in an example of racist speech, is not wrong. That's not hard to understand, is it?

So we are on the same page on those contexts at least. GREAT!

Quote:

it is not my position that there is no context in which a word cannot be used and it is not my position that words should be stumbled around because of their meaning when used in discussions about them. It is not my position that any word should be a taboo. It is not my position that people should never use certain words.

Ignor the editor here, I cant figure out how to change the text back............moiving on.

GREAT! Moving on.

So if knowing what a word means determines weither or not we use it, WHO gets to decide? You've already said right here right now that it IS NOT your position to make a taboo. GREAT

What about jokes? Are negitive pejoratives never to be used in jokes? If someone does do we use guilt by association because both the bigot and the non bigot use the same word? Assuming they have the same definitional meaning in both cases?

 

 

 

Well, Brian, I'm not going to make an exhaustive list of circumstances in which it's appropriate for you to use the word. Essentially, the word is necessarily acceptable in academic discussions, discussions like the one we're having, particular comedy or specific/general social contracts whereby the use of the word is acceptable among people who aren't black (for instance in non-black 'thug' or 'gansta' culture).

Smartypants, you can fix it using Notepad.  Copy and past the source material and look for all the quote tags and find the one that is out of place or contains an error.  My guess is that there is an unclosed quote tag somewhere.  You can do this easily by using the find option and searching for the word quote.