Log in

Videopost #25 - Hi, I'm a great big faggot... that CAN and WILL kick your ass if I really wanted to. 
25th-Jan-2007 02:21 pm
In which I rant a bit about the word 'faggot', the Grey's Anatomy ...thing... and the uselessness of being offended by words like it's something worth wasting the energy on. Then again, I could be completely wrong. Surely people have died as a result of being called a 'nasty name'. Certainly no one has survived being labelled or dismissed by epithets. Do we have fucking free speech in this country or not? Sure - a lot of words offend me, but it's just not worth getting insane in the membrane over for fuck's sake! So many other things to get fired up about that actually matter. GET OVER YOURSELVES, FAGGOTS!
'Grey's' star in counseling after anti-gay slur

CNN defends Glenn Beck after he said on-air that the anti-gay slur “faggot” is just a “naughty name.”

Videopost #25
25th-Jan-2007 07:24 pm (UTC)
Amen!!!! Cocksucker.
25th-Jan-2007 08:25 pm (UTC)
Thanks, Poof!
25th-Jan-2007 08:30 pm (UTC)
Anytime, helium heels.

BTW, I could listen to your voice all night.
25th-Jan-2007 07:37 pm (UTC)
Great acoustics!


25th-Jan-2007 08:26 pm (UTC)
25' ceilings in this loft.


25th-Jan-2007 07:40 pm (UTC)
I think words have vastly greater powers than you're giving them credit for.

25th-Jan-2007 08:26 pm (UTC)
25th-Jan-2007 08:32 pm (UTC)
25th-Jan-2007 08:42 pm (UTC)
Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about, man? Where is there a law against 'faggot' or any other word in this country?
25th-Jan-2007 08:55 pm (UTC)
Your argument is that words don't matter.

Laws only exist because of words. We only communicate because of words. Without words, there is no society, no humanity, no language.

It may seem esoteric, but words have huge import and can exact huge tolls when misused. Your bravado in the face of political correctness is compelling, but abusive language is just that: abusive. And I don't understand why you feel the need to justify someone using language that upsets and marginalizes people.

It may be entirely in his right to stand on an international stage (literally and figuratively) and use the word "faggot", but if T.R. Knight had done the same thing and used the word "nigger", I daresay your resonse might be different, from your own admission.
25th-Jan-2007 09:30 pm (UTC)
Abusive language is only that in the eyes of those who deem it abusive. Interpretation is everything.

We don't call a rock a rock because its qualities inherently gave it that name; language doesn't work that way. Humans have given things words and words hold definitions created by society, not by natural state.

So it's up to people to decide the definitions and parameters of usage.
25th-Jan-2007 09:31 pm (UTC)
No, my argument is that epithets only have power if one allows it.

I disagree - laws exist because of a need for order and accountability, words are only a means of explaining them - they are living things. The notion that the only way we communicate is by words is simply not true. Many things communicate - music without lyrics, art, smiles, tears, etc. I would also posit that there were societies, humanity, and forms of languages loosely based on rudimentary gestures before there were actual words to convey these things - but I agree that words definitely make things a lot easier for the sake of continuity.

I do not suggest that certain words don't have an abusive connotation, but the fact remains that whether you or I like it, the right for a person to express themselves uncensored supercedes anyone's preference to live in a safe, sanitized bubble - and do so at the expense of anyone else's comfort.

I don't understand why you or anyone else would prefer to not know where you stood with someone, being marginalized by people is a direct result of their actions - not their speech - and it is in knowing where you stand with them (by hearing them speak their minds) that determines whether they are able to marginalize you or not. Being accountable for oneself and not allowing yourself to be victimized is far more proactive and sensible than just pretending everything's just peachy as long as no one uses any strong words.

You're wrong again - no, I don't like the word 'nigger'. I find it offensive, personally. Fact is though I find nothing criminal about the usage of it. Scroll down for a comment reply I made earlier citing the recent Michael Richards gaffe. I don't measure words by degrees, I measure them by other people's reactions to them. What is considered offensive by the status quo I often find nothing quite as objectionable about that my head is going to spin and vomit pea soup over.

I'd rather any and every racist the world over wear their racism like a badge of honor and let us all know who they are - it's keeping that shit in the closet that does more harm.

I don't need you to agree with me, I'm just making my point - and I am grateful for you making yours known as well. Matter of fact, I sincerely appreciate it!
25th-Jan-2007 10:00 pm (UTC)
We shall agree to disagree.

And live to fight another day.

As two silly faggots.

26th-Jan-2007 01:13 pm (UTC)
This is why I love you, man. ;-)
(Deleted comment)
25th-Jan-2007 08:28 pm (UTC)
*mocks dofy niece singing Gwen Stefani*

'Cause I ain't no Harlem FAT girrrrlll, I ain't no Harlem FAT girrrrlll....
26th-Jan-2007 05:09 pm (UTC)
What the fuck is a hollaback girl, anyway?
25th-Jan-2007 08:03 pm (UTC)
I take the middle ground on this one. I think apology after apology (at least, to and involving the public) is totally unnecessary. I've always thought these ridiculous public statements of apology are ridiculous; just another sign of how large the egos are getting in Hollywood, not just of the actors but of the movie producers and CEOs who think they're that important that their employees ought apologize to everyone and their mothers before work proceeds. Then again, I'm one of those people who does not apologize for my actions unless I am truly sorry for them, because apologies are just a bunch of smoke up someone's ass if they don't mean anything.

I agree with you but at a lesser degree because you have often made the argument that people who are offended by particular words are lending others the opportunity to stigmatize those words. However, in the early stages of this little controversy - of people saying "hey, that wasn't appropriate" - I think it was a good thing at that point. It seemed to show that people besides gay rights activists - or in other words, allies - are sensitive to the word, whether they take it as seriously as some (e.g., the ones screaming in this "scandal") or just find it less than appropriate.

If he needs to go into counseling for anything at all it would be for stupidity. Why did he have to go up to that mic and say that? It sounded like he thought it would be a way to comically bash himself. Instead it came off as egotistical (to think that the question had to do with him when he's standing up there with dozens of other cast and crew!), insensitive, and above all, inappropriate. And that really ought be the way everyone should be treating it; the guy's an idiot, and going overboard in this crucifixion of character is giving him far more credit than he deserves.
25th-Jan-2007 08:41 pm (UTC)
I hear you, I just really don't get this firestorm wherein a guy calls another guy a name and it gets blown up into this maelstrom of political correctness. People in the US have the freedom to make assholes of themselves, and people conversely have a right to react against that. My point is that it's just not that big a deal in light of so many other things and is getting WAY too much attention.

Case in point, Michael Richards. IMHO, what he did was way worse, but still - if he wants to espouse racist views and epithets, that's his prerogative. All speech should be protected under the 1st amendment - even unpopular speech. I'm not defending what is actually said, but the right to say whatever it is, and let the chips fall where they may. The amount of attention this is getting is insane - and that the guy is in counseling after calling another guy a faggot? Oh give me a huge fucking break.
25th-Jan-2007 09:13 pm (UTC)
Oh yes, well, when thinking about the First Amendment, am agreed.

That Michael Richards thing was something else. There are definitely much bigger issues within the black/African-American community that need to be addressed. And considering that what Michael Richards did was worse (and I agree with you on that), wouldn't that put gay rights issues a lot further up on the scale, too? Perhaps what we're seeing is how it's a convenient way for people to brush aside the real issues all the while benefiting from the entertainment value of such a "scandal" and avoiding what really needs to be talked about. Musgrave who? Oh, ick, I really can't get started on anything Musgrave when I'd like to get to sleep tonight. Ack.

If that little name-calling episode is not worth overshadowing the show, that's got to say a lot about what else it should not overshadow. Yeah, I watch it, but it'll never compete with what has already gone down as good television. We've been having some considerable complaints about news priorities in Sweden lately; there's a show that was on for a while called Bonde söker fru (The Farmer Wants a Wife), and it was all over the newspapers constantly. Like my corridor mate put it, "Global warming and all they can talk about it Bonde söker fru!"

Good for you though, to be part of the community-in-question and calling it out as less important. I don't recall any opinions like that being aired during the Michael Richards debacle, and have yet to see people really get in line with an opinion similar to yours.

P.S. Can you find me a straight boy with your charming accent? The Swedish accent is grating on my nerves lately.. ;)
25th-Jan-2007 09:47 pm (UTC)
Totally unrelated, but a post from calamityjake linking to an article about (further) bullshit from a bunch of fundies.
25th-Jan-2007 08:16 pm (UTC)
Words on a blog / in a bar / alone with two conversants... are not the same thing as words in the workplace. Full story: Isaiah Washington, in a fight with Patrick Dempsey on the set of the show, referred to the not-officially-out TR Knight as a faggot.

I guess TR was pissed and offended. Along with his friends and professional colleagues, the gay key grip, the gay catering manager, and any other gay or gay-lovin' person in earshot who thinks that 'faggot' is equal to the n-bomb. Plus people who don't care much, but would like a civil workplace anyway.

It's what they used to light us on fire with, ya know, back when they still could. And now when they can get away with it.

Washington denied ever saying it, twice, using the word AGAIN during the Golden Globes acceptance speeches. He ultimately fessed up and apologized.

Perhaps the therapy will give him the balls to be a free-ballin' faggot fighter who won't feel the need to lie about his next repetition of the word. I hope for another goal.

I'm all for free speech, and faggot isn't the worst word ever. But to those who want to include it in their speech *at work*, I say: "Foul your own nest, and keep your filth out of mine."
25th-Jan-2007 09:45 pm (UTC)
No argument here!
25th-Jan-2007 10:50 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I wondered the same thing: therapy?
26th-Jan-2007 01:14 pm (UTC)
For being a moron, sure - but for namecalling? Gimme a break!
25th-Jan-2007 11:23 pm (UTC)
Hi, I'm a great big faggot... that can and will LICK your ass, cause I really want to!
26th-Jan-2007 01:15 pm (UTC)
Wow - nothing quite like hearing such a thing from a man you're totally hot for!

By the way, did you ever get my response to your email from a week or two ago?
26th-Jan-2007 03:17 am (UTC)
i can understand your point. i'm straight but i dont like it when people use that word. my ex liked to use that word in referring to someone that's gay and i use to say something all the time when he did that. it's like, why can't you just use "gay"?

but i think it's okay for gay men to use that word because well, they're gay. like how black people use the "n" word. or how puerto ricans calling themselves (or another puerto rican) a spic.
26th-Jan-2007 01:18 pm (UTC)
My argument is that the word is never going to be censored or made illegal. It exists and anyone who chooses to can use it in whatever context they feel appropriate, as there is no set rule on appropriating opinions. All that matters is how you think about yourself and whether or not you'll allow a word to have that much power over you as an individual. If I'm called a faggot, I simply reply "Yup - damned right I am, biggest one in three counties." I expect no apology, and I offer none.
26th-Jan-2007 02:42 pm (UTC)
well you're right. that word among a whole list of other words are never going to be censored or made illegal. you're basically accepting it for what it is and there's nothing wrong with that. and i agree that it's better for people to not let things like that bother them because it really isn't worth it. i learned thta life gets easier once you stop caring.
26th-Jan-2007 02:45 pm (UTC)
Depends on what you stop caring about, but yes - apathy does have its usefulness.
26th-Jan-2007 02:50 pm (UTC)
26th-Jan-2007 03:19 am (UTC)
oh, and yes i agree the whole grey's anatomy thing was blown out of proportion.
26th-Jan-2007 09:36 am (UTC)
Its not only that Isaiah Washington said that he didnt call T.R. Knight a faggot... at the Golden Globes Its that Knight wasnt even involved in the arguement that was taking place...THAT was between Patrick Dempsey and Washington...and Washington said: "I'm not your little faggot like T.R. Knight!"...ok a nasty disrespectufl thing to do to begin with just pulling someone else into an arguement and using them as an insult...but it wasnt just that it was in the workplace...and a very public workplace at that...thats the real problem...it seems like people think that GLBT people are the one group that its still ok to show bigotry toward....we're still a punchline...we're still where people go when they want to insult someone: "You're a faggot" "You're gay"..."You're queer"...sinner pervert...etc etc...it starts small if its not ok to discriminate on the basis of race religion gender....why is ok to do so on the basis of GLBT issues...
Yes you are right words are just words...but when the words are coming from someone that you know and work with or are related to or are blatant bigotry then they have alot of power...
If some stranger on the street Yells "FAGGOT!" at me for whatever reason be it that i am walking with another man and we are holding hands or i'm coming out of a gay establishment or for no reason whats so ever then i'll yell 'FUCK YOPU!" and not think about it but being called or reffered to as anything disrespectful or demeaning by a collegue or someone that I thought I could trust then its different...
I use the word fag and queer and fairy pretty freely as slang but not in a hateful way and usually referring to myself...gay friends and I will trade barbs in fun even friends who arent gay will...but someone who is supposed to be trusted to treat you with respect who says these things in anger or hate or casually when they only know you in a situation such as work ...anyone who isnt an intimate who can tease you and you them and its not meant to be nor is it taken as hate...It cannot and should not be tolerated especially since we have faught so far and still have a long way to go for equality
26th-Jan-2007 01:06 pm (UTC)
No argument on the workplace issue, none at all.

My point is this. In the eyes of religious heterosexuals who use their standpoint in scripture and in the context of religion to discriminate, they believe with certainty that we are sinners and that our sins are unredeemable. That is the first thing, and that in and of itself is just fine - they're going to think that anyway because it is dictated to them and they will use the bible as a tool to beat anyone with when they cross the line into fundamentalism.

In the eyes of a large part of society, certain views exist and always will. Some people believe that all dark-skinned people are 'niggers'. Some people believe that all people of Arabic descent and/or all Muslims are terrorists. I could go on and on and on. It is only really harmful when a racist or homophobic epithet turns into some kind of action that actively inhibits a person's rights to person, property, employment, etc - but not in simply expressing an opinion about how they view individuals. Much of it (to me, anyway) is rooted in the context.

Sure words have power - if you allow them to. Perhaps hearing these sorts of things from a coworker is actually a good thing, it lets you know where you stand with them and affords you the opportunity to make your peace with that in real time as opposed to not knowing if they have these sorts of views or not. Would you rather NOT know if someone you work with who is pretending to be your friend is in fact a closet homophobe?

If you're walking out of a gay bar and/or holding hands with another man in public, then you make yourself open to scrutiny for anyone else that sees you - and they're entitled to their opinions no matter how distasteful they are. If they view you as a faggot, big fucking deal - them yelling it out at you is hardly the same as getting beaten up physically. It's how you view yourself in that same context that truly matters. You'd still be a faggot to them and a gay man to yourself even if you were walking out of a straight bar with a female friend - the scenario matters not.

If the word exists, you don't get to dictate who could or should use it with any sort of expectation. It exists, people are free to use it in whatever context they choose and that will NEVER change - all that can change is your perception and your attitude about it. Am I making any sense to you?

As to us fighting, the history of gay rights in this country began with some really pissed off drag queens in NYC who picked up bricks at the and chucked them at their oppressors, beginning several days of out-and-out rioting. The mindset then was "no, FUCK YOU - I'm not taking this shit anymore" and actually fighting back instead of being idly victimized any further. It is the reason we celebrate Gay Pride when we do (near the end of June). Ten years later it was the .

The whole thing with equality is a pipe dream. We're not the same, we never will be. That's not a bad thing, either. To be equal, we would have to be heterosexuals - and we aren't. We need tolerance and acceptance of self first - tolerating something doesn't mean you have to like it, just that you acknowledge that it exists and that it is okay.
27th-Jan-2007 12:04 am (UTC)
I agree with on alot of what you are saying...
There will always be intolerant people ignorance and bigotry...
You said: "It is only really harmful when a racist or homophobic epithet turns into some kind of action that actively inhibits a person's rights to person, property, employment, etc - but not in simply expressing an opinion about how they view individuals. Much of it (to me, anyway) is rooted in the context"
And this is my point where is the line?
There is a this weird grey area where people will say that what they are doing is free speech but its not and it is harmful...I live in cincinnati and the KKK have insisted on putting up a cross during the christmas season where our main nativity manurah display is...people are always getting arrested for knocking it down...and all of this gets plenty of press coverage...
ANd of course i am split as alot of people are between the fact that if no one payed attention to it they would eventually pack up and go home...but then at the same time i think 'No this is not fucking free speech its hate and ignorance' which of course it is...i dont have the answers...I only propose that it is importnat to know that when there is ongoing intimidation or violence etc then it is not free speech...but the line between the two can be so subjective...which is both the root of free speech and can be problematic...Yes the perception and attitudes are the issue not the words themselves...and of course tolerance and acceptance of self is of core importance...I dont mean equality in terms of straight versus gay I mean equality in terms of the human race...that we all have more in common than we do that seperates...yeah sure there will always be hate....humans are imperfect and we are here to learn and love and experience life...but tolerance and acceptance of eachother even if it is not universal still must be strived for
you mentioned stonewall and white knight....i think uprisings like this are important events that unfortunatley many young gays and lesbians have never heard of...i have had to explain to friends of mine just what stonewall is and who harvey milk is...I actually just learned about harvey milk this past year when I recieved a copy of the times and life of harvey milk...I was appaulled that I didnt know about him before...but I digress...
Whether its the war in iraq or gay rights...the lack of uprisings by the people dismays me very much...people want to be safe and not deal with more than what is in there immediate enviroments...no one is aware...but again I guess thats a different subject
(Deleted comment)
26th-Jan-2007 02:34 pm (UTC)
That is precisely why I have no problem using the word or wearing the label, it removes the power and negative connotation for me and renders the word neutral. Where there is neutrality, there is no reaction to anything intolerant for me.

I'm not drinking the 'Equality Kool-Aid' for a while on this sort of thing, personally. I'm not knocking anyone that wants to keep fighting this fight, but for now at least I want to embrace what makes me different and not focus on being equal to (straight/conservative/religious) people I seem to have less and less in common with every time I turn around. I'm trying to figure out what I really believe, because I'm not so sure anymore. Call it a journey I'm on. The first step for me is in leting go of these chains that make us bound to things that really don't have to matter unless you allow for it.

I hope this makes some kind of sense!
This page was loaded Jul 26th 2017, 6:32 am GMT.