Thats soooo gay

[Tames D]

Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined? While I disagree with alot of beliefs of the Mormon church, I don't think it's right to make fun of their members. If those students had asked a Muslim student where their turban was, or if they asked a Jewish student if they'd like some bacon, I'm certain the administrators would have been all over them. For some reason, it's ok to make fun of someone for a misconception of their religion as long as it's not minority dominated. Free speech, my ***.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Andrew Green]

On a somewhat related topic, the people that really annoy me are the ones that get offended by swearing or bad language, but then go on about suggesting "replacement" words. Common example, "Fudge you", anybody not know what they mean? Yet they claim moral supperiority because they said fudge, which isn't offensive, rather then that other nasty word.

Words are words, it's what is meant by them that counts. This girl obviously did not mean to use a homosexual slur, so it wasn't.

 

[BrandiJo]

I would have to say the student saying thats so gay was in the wrong, so where the students teasing her, and so where the admin for not fairly implamenting policies, should she sue pry not.... but thats on way to make your voice heard

 

[Don Roley]

Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined?

I am not so sure they were not. This article is about the lawsuit the girl's parents brought to take the note out of her records. It does not deal with the matter of what was done to the kids who taunted her. The closest thing I could find was this in the article,

Rice's parents, Elden and Katherine Rice, also claim the public high school employed a double-standard because, they say, administrators never sought to shield Rebekah from teasing based on Mormon stereotypes.

It seems a bit strange that the parents are saying that the school failed to protect their daughter from taunting, but do not complain about different values when giving out punishment. That would be a big point of showing a bias against one group over another if it were the case.

So I really don't know if the kids that started all this by making fun of her religion were also censured, but their parents accepted their punishment and did not contact a lawyer like this girl's did.

 

[Marginal]

It seems a bit strange that the parents are saying that the school failed to protect their daughter from taunting, but do not complain about different values when giving out punishment. That would be a big point of showing a bias against one group over another if it were the case.

So I really don't know if the kids that started all this by making fun of her religion were also censured, but their parents accepted their punishment and did not contact a lawyer like this girl's did.

Since no Mormons were beaten the year before, probably not.

 

[Shaderon]

Words are words, it's what is meant by them that counts. This girl obviously did not mean to use a homosexual slur, so it wasn't.

I totally agree Andrew, that's so right. You can tell by the way someone says something if they mean offence, and if no offence is meant, why take it? THAT'S offensive to me.

 

[crushing]

More information in this article that the MSNBC article didn't have.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1581

 

[rutherford]

Apparently the Mormon lobbyists aren't all that great... :lol:

Reading the second story, it sounds to me like the Mormons are lobbyists.

 

[Xue Sheng]

quote=Andy Moynihan;738284]Buttons....END HIM. [/quote]

Hey now, he said he would NOT sue. Keep Buttons standing guard

WHEW!!! Thanks Carol

Oh fine.

Buttons, stand down and keep to THREATCON Charlie, maintain patrol of sector 18 Bravo.

Must watch more enter the Dragon as a training supplement….…DAME!!! that is only if he is sending snakes…not cats……

Is that the sector with the most amount of trees?

Well if it is I’m not there…. Hopefully he gets thrown off by my evasive tactics

That's classified

DAMN… I’m so doomed.:uhohh:

 

[CoryKS]

Frankly, with all the lawsuits, protests, complaints, boycotts, and other reactions, I think the homosexual population is quickly losing its claim to the word "gay".

 

[tellner]

Alright, then. If words are just words, how about if I refer to Blacks with That WORD, the Unspeakable, Unutterable "N-word" here on MT? I promise I won't use it in a derogatory way. It's just the way I'll refer to them in regular conversation. I'll use similar terms for Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, Jews and anyone else. Oh yes, same with the Christians. But since they've, to paraphrase the previous correspondent, given up the right to be called "Christian" I won't even be polite.

That would last about a minute and a half. Then my *** would be bounced from here. And every single one of the people cheering for the girl would cheer for that decision.

The only reason people are so disparaging about the queers' sensitivity is because it's safe and Ideologically Correct by right-wingnut standards to hate them.

 

[Empty Hands]

This may be the case, but If I say to somone who is happy, "My you are quite Gay today" or to the English girl who trains with us "lemme have a pull of your fag" should I be punshied for "hating homosexuals?"

No. Don't be surprised if you get some weird looks though.

Are you presuming I am obnoxious, or white?

Complaining that you can't use words perceived as slurs is obnoxious, yes. Since this is a complaint I generally see from white men that really ache to be able to use the word "******" or "fag" in polite company, I am also presuming you are white.

BTW mods, aren't we all adults here? Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored? Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.

 

[oddball]

Eh, my professor actually talked about something like this recently that made sense - how words are taken and then applied to a group of people, and as such, those terms eventually become NPC to use. The problem itself isn't really the word itself, but how when it becomes applied to a group of people it becomes derogatory because it was applied to that group of people. So, for example (hope it works), a term like Laplander (the people that live way north in Scandinavia) has become offensive. It was used to describe the Sami people, but became derogatory when it also gained the connotation of poverty or stupidity.
So, umm, fixing a word won't actually change the problem. The people have to change to not be biased against the target of the word.
(I wonder if calling people by "racial colors" will become completely NPC, since that would go with the trend?)

 

[crushing]

The only reason people are so disparaging about the queers' sensitivity is because it's safe and Ideologically Correct by right-wingnut standards to hate them.

Will those targetted by this comment find it disparaging, maybe even hateful? To where will the slope slide? Any 'right-wingnuts' care to respond?


Anyway, isn't Kirk Maltby a a right-wingnut.

 

[tellner]

[Note to the mods: I'm trying very hard to make a point about the pernicious nature of bigotry. There really isn't a clearer way of saying what needs to be said. If you ding this post for racism I suggest you take a second look or examine your reading comprehension skills.]

Fixing a word may not completely fix the problem. But it can certainly help. When Whites stopped calling Mexicans "spics" or Blacks "darkies" it forced people to use terms which did not come with heavy emotional weighting. The words came with certain associations that placed the people it referred to in their "proper" place - somewhere lower than whale dung. No doubt. No argument is possible. Changing the words that were used did not completely change the feelings, but it helped stop their constant reinforcement.

The "burakumin" are still crapped on by Japanese society, but their lot has improved. Part of it is because people stopped calling them "eta" which means "disgusting filth". It became a bit harder to reflexively dismiss them as sub-human.

I'll give you an example that happened to my wife a few weeks ago. She was riding the MAX. There was a young (Black) man sitting a few seats behind her talking loudly on his cell phone. Every second word out of his mouth was "*****" this and "*****" that. An older man with the sort of very West African features that you usually only see in Africa or heavily segregated parts of the Deep South was sitting across the aisle from her getting angrier and angrier. She was afraid she was going to have to intervene to keep him from knocking the kid around.

Finally another young Black man turned to the caller and said "If you don't stop saying *****, someone's going to come over there and ***** your ***." There was a pause. Then applause and cheering from everyone in train car. The first young man hung up, looked very embarassed, and apologized, saying that it was a bad habit he knew he had to break.

There is magic in words, sometimes Black Magick. It's because we are fundamentally irrational magically thinking creatures. We have an industry worth billions upon billions every year called "marketing" which is based on the assumption that we are jsut that and can be manipulated through symbols, emotions and prejudice.

 

[CoryKS]

Will those targetted by this comment find it disparaging, maybe even hateful? To where will the slope slide? Any 'right-wingnuts' care to respond?

That had occurred to me too. Couldn't even deplore the use of derogatory terms without throwing out a derogatory term. And then there's this:

Complaining that you can't use words perceived as slurs is obnoxious, yes. Since this is a complaint I generally see from white men that really ache to be able to use the word "n!gger" or "fag" in polite company, I am also presuming you are white.

BTW mods, aren't we all adults here? Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored? Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.

Isn't the second paragraph a complaint that you can't use words perceived as slurs? Seems like the only white folk on this board that are aching to use slurs are the ones who accuse white people of racism. And BTW, "racist white people" is a racist stereotype.

 

[Empty Hands]

Isn't the second paragraph a complaint that you can't use words perceived as slurs?

In the context of discussing those words *as* slurs in a debate setting, yes. Quite a bit different than using a word indicating someone's identity (gay for example, or retarded) to express how bad something is. "That's so gay!" How about I use "That's so CoryKS!" when I think something sucks? I don't mean it against YOU of course, it is merely a word expressing my disapproval. :angel:

Seems like the only white folk on this board that are aching to use slurs are the ones who accuse white people of racism.

I have accused Cryo of being obnoxious, not racist. I don't know enough to say if he is racist or not. Complaining about how those nasty homosexuals have co-opted perfectly good words isn't a good sign however.

And BTW, "racist white people" is a racist stereotype.

Sure it is, if the speaker is claiming that all white people, or even most, are racist. Has anyone claimed that here?

 

[Cryozombie]

I have accused Cryo of being obnoxious, not racist. I don't know enough to say if he is racist or not. Complaining about how those nasty homosexuals have co-opted perfectly good words isn't a good sign however.

I know, my racist and homophobic tendancies really irritate my black and gay freinds. :rofl::rofl::rofl: In retrospect, I don't understand why they spend so much time with me.

By the way, Just to clarify, friend... *I* never said Homosexuals were "nasty". THAT came out of YOUR post. *I* never used the N-Word. I don't use that word in fact, it has no legitimate use in conversation. Funny how you guys who actually keep saying it wanna tag me with its use.

But, yeah... *I* am the one displaying Racist behavior.

 

[Cryozombie]

BTW mods, aren't we all adults here? Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored? Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.

I'd also like to point out that my entire argument was one that given the proper use of a term it shouldnt be considered hate speech... an argument that you called me obnoxious for, and hinted at the fact that I was racist because of it... and yet... right there... you made the exact same argument because the mods "corrected" your post...

Tsk Tsk.

 

[Empty Hands]

I know, my racist and homophobic tendancies really irritate my black and gay freinds.

Wow, was that irony unintentional? Here's a hint: Governor Wallace would say to anyone who would listen that he didn't hate black people, and even had a very fine black friend...while he was standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent desegregation.

By the way, Just to clarify, friend... *I* never said Homosexuals were "nasty". THAT came out of YOUR post. *I* never used the N-Word. I don't use that word in fact, it has no legitimate use in conversation. Funny how you guys who actually keep saying it wanna tag me with its use.

No, you didn't call them "nasty", I did for sarcastic effect. You didn't use the n-word either, but calling someone "gay" or "fag" is functionally equivalent to calling someone "n-word". And no, you didn't call anyone "gay" or "fag"...but you are complaining that homosexuals have "co-opted" those perfectly good words. It isn't blatant, but it doesn't add up to a pretty picture either.

If you have so many gay friends that you love so much, why does it bother you so much that "gay" and "fag" are insulting to them? Wouldn't their hurt feelings matter more to you than idiosyncratic concern over the changing semantic meaning of words?