Nellies are people too! Please check your homophobia at the door!

[cumrag27]

After our previous discussion of the term "Fag", I am profoundly disappointed with the little apparant gain resulting from discussions on such insensitive, mean spirited, and labelling terms occasionally used by forum members. More than once, I have cringed at the dehumanization freely offered by the use of such demeaning terms.

Just as all guys are on a compendium somewhere betweeh the two extremes of sexual orientation, so too are we on another compendium of how "Masculine" or "Effeminent" we may present ourself(whether consciously or unconsciously). When you see a very animated Nathan Lane in some silly comedy, realize that this is just entertainment and criticisms aren't likely to offend one's personhood.

On the other hand, the reference to being a "nellie" cannot be intended to boost anybody's self-worth or be productive in any genuine and nurturing way. Just like queer, fag, homo, and on- and on-, all these prickly references are fully intended to effectively put someone in their place just like the use of the "N" word for blacks. I realize this referrs to very sissyfied personality traits can be most annoying at times, especially if you don't perceive yourself as such or don't want to be lumped into the same category.

Perception is a very tricky concept and is not universally recognized or applied equally in each and every one of us. Perception is very unstable and interpretations vary widely among seemingly similar people with almost identical values. Annoying especially if you don't want to attract "guilt by association" fears from others gay or straight. No one wants to be lumped into the same undesireable category or "stereotype".

Just remember with the slightest hand jesture or intonation of your voice, unintended words and unintended meanings can be readily attached to almost anything you say or do. Once branded in some social grouping with this monikor, its like super-glue and is entirely too difficult dislodging yourself from its many negative implications.

All I ask having been unfairly accused many times of things I had no awareness of or negative intentions planned, please be the loving and truly kind person we are all challenged daily to exemplify. Not knowing what is going on with the life experience of others is not an excuse. Sometimes, a little human understanding can make the difference needed if they are to continue on to a better life.

 

[tampa24]

All I ask having been unfairly accused many times of things I had no awareness of or negative intentions planned, please be the loving and truly kind person we are all challenged daily to exemplify. Not knowing what is going on with the life experience of others is not an excuse. Sometimes, a little human understanding can make the difference needed if they are to continue on to a better life.

Very well said CR. Thank you!

 

[carking1]

After our previous discussion of the term "Fag", I am profoundly disappointed with the little apparant gain resulting from discussions on such insensitive, mean spirited, and labelling terms occasionally used by forum members. More than once, I have cringed at the dehumanization freely offered by the use of such demeaning terms.

Just as all guys are on a compendium somewhere betweeh the two extremes of sexual orientation, so too are we on another compendium of how "Masculine" or "Effeminent" we may present ourself(whether consciously or unconsciously). When you see a very animated Nathan Lane in some silly comedy, realize that this is just entertainment and criticisms aren't likely to offend one's personhood.

On the other hand, the reference to being a "nellie" cannot be intended to boost anybody's self-worth or be productive in any genuine and nurturing way. Just like queer, fag, homo, and on- and on-, all these prickly references are fully intended to effectively put someone in their place just like the use of the "N" word for blacks. I realize this referrs to very sissyfied personality traits can be most annoying at times, especially if you don't perceive yourself as such or don't want to be lumped into the same category.

Perception is a very tricky concept and is not universally recognized or applied equally in each and every one of us. Perception is very unstable and interpretations vary widely among seemingly similar people with almost identical values. Annoying especially if you don't want to attract "guilt by association" fears from others gay or straight. No one wants to be lumped into the same undesireable category or "stereotype".

Just remember with the slightest hand jesture or intonation of your voice, unintended words and unintended meanings can be readily attached to almost anything you say or do. Once branded in some social grouping with this monikor, its like super-glue and is entirely too difficult dislodging yourself from its many negative implications.

All I ask having been unfairly accused many times of things I had no awareness of or negative intentions planned, please be the loving and truly kind person we are all challenged daily to exemplify. Not knowing what is going on with the life experience of others is not an excuse. Sometimes, a little human understanding can make the difference needed if they are to continue on to a better life.

I agree with all of the above, but would like to add that, while we should always treat another person as we would like to be treated, no one has the right or ability to degrade me unless I allow them. I know who I am and I am comfortable in my skin. When someone calls me a derrogatory name, it lowers them, not me. Someone else's opinion does not make me who I am.

I do, however, have to chuckle when I think back on my dear departed grandmother, and her description of the only gay man in our small town. She always said he was "sensitive." LOL

 

[cumrag27]

Piano practice, anybody?

I agree with all of the above, but would like to add that, while we should always treat another person as we would like to be treated, no one has the right or ability to degrade me unless I allow them. I know who I am and I am comfortable in my skin. When someone calls me a derrogatory name, it lowers them, not me. Someone else's opinion does not make me who I am.

I do, however, have to chuckle when I think back on my dear departed grandmother, and her description of the only gay man in our small town. She always said he was "sensitive." LOL

Dear Carking1,

Very well said. You have the intestinal fortitude and internalized self-worth needed for good mental health. Think, however, of the abused, disregarded, and unloved among us that just simply cannot hope to operate at your level. That is why I feel so strongly that "kindness exhibited toward others is actually an expression of inner STRENGTH", and not weakness as some would have you believe. Stereotyping is great when cataloging books or other objects. It just doesn't work with humans giving them their due.

Your closing comment kind-a reminds me of my childhood piano teacher fussing at me for not practicing enough. Being a nun, any child has a sense that nuns are above the fray. But hearing her chiding words made me cry out of shame. My emotional outburst caught her off-guard. Then, in an attempt to smooth things over,she said "I guess you are a bit "sensitive" and we had a new understanding and parted on speaking terms.

 

[joninliverton]

Now shall we go through individual threads and name and shame those who have called models, and in some case members, nellies. Maybe you have already done that Cumrag.

 

[cumrag27]

Revisitiing McCarthy era tactics?

Now shall we go through individual threads and name and shame those who have called models, and in some case members, nellies. Maybe you have already done that Cumrag.

Dear Jon,

Well my reference to the Thread Title using the "N" word is not directly pointed at someone nor is it mean-spirited in its intent. I will say absolute perfection is rarely achieved in any one thing by mere mortals. Yet rare slip ups does not a bigot make.

My personal experiences with hate speech tell me that I have personally suffered greatly from casual references passed on in front of and/or behind my back. Such types of references go distinctly against my core values to use such injurious language. Just like the other "N" word, I take great care avoiding it's use because I find it personally offensive regardless of the fact I am Caucasian. When growing up and being confronted with such words as "Fag" or "Queer" or references to being ..."Light in the loafers", I realized long ago this simply translates to the speaker seeing you as the "lowest form of life". The Nazis and KKK members did the same type of thing. I cannot abide by such hate filled and unnecessary behaviors.

I grew up in a time where "paranoia" was so very rampant in the US and the so-called "Communist Conspiracy" was virtually wall-to-wall in every closet and under every bed. The one thing I learned from the hysteria created by the Salem Witch Trials of 1692 is that unnecessary and unforgivable carnage was committed in the name of Christianity and you could too easily become one of its victims no sooner than it took taking down the proverbial broomstick off the nail on the wall. Facts were routinely distorted or fabricated just to prove the existence of witches and to raise up unscrupulous Christian elders as the true leaders they really weren't.

Basically, all this posting simply asks is for each member to be reasonable and check himself at the door, just as if you had fresh dog shit under your shoe and you were about the enter a friend's house. No I am not the self-appointed forum police or any such thing. I recognize that from time to time we all need to be reminded it is all to easy to simply become lazy in selecting our adjectives, just as people are likely to take friends for granted. At best using a slur directed toward another person can best be capsulized by the term intellectual laziness.

Purges, whether they be witches, communists, Christians, liberals, or whatever the whipping boy happens to be at the time, are full of untruths manufactured by the prevailing powers to dominate the masses at all costs -- and especially at the absence of truth. I really am not a dominatrix and I don't plan on getting my license anytime soon. Black leather and neoprene attire only clash with my fluffy pink bunny-rabbit slippers, anyway.

What is wrong in describing some "would be scapegoat" accurately as a "somewhat feminized male" should that be the case. At any rate this characterization is only a statement of your opinion and not scientific fact. Using the "n word" for effeminate males purports to offer a greater and more scientific sounding implication to the stated slur against someone's good character. Straights in earshot hear the use of these unkind characterizations and conclude..."Hey, I heard some fags use this "n" word"...and it just gives them the green light to use the same slur when they really wish to put down someone else they basically hate. I recently read how being from England,(I think) they just couldn't get over Americans overuse of the word "hate". Maybe he has a point.

In conclusion, this world can be callous and heartless at times. I do not want to be part of this character assassination process. Hopefully, you feel the same way! Thank you to the Forum for letting me express my opinion.

 

[Jayman01]

Cumrag and Carking:

You two are very inspirational in the way you presented this topic. I whole heartedly agree with both of you although my reasons are somewhat spiritual in nature. I believe in the Universal law of One in that we all come from the same source. Just as the sun has many rays each one being unique unto itself. Yet they all originate from the same source. The universal law of energy dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be reshaped or reformed by our: thought, attitudes, beliefs, speech, and our actions. The law perpetual motion also dictates that energy is always in motion. The law of attraction dictates that like energies attract like energies. The law of correspondence essentially dictates that what we send out, whether or not positive or negative will eventually come back. Essentially when we make fun of someone else we are actually making fun of ourselves. It doesn't serve our highest good. By treating all people and all life with great reverence and respect we respect ourselves. We also attract those people and things with similar energy to us. So, it is a win win situation all the way around.

Thank you both for sharing and letting me share my thoughts and feelings on this topic too.

 

[clock12]

[...] Just like queer, fag, homo, and on- and on-, all these prickly references are fully intended to effectively put someone in their place just like the use of the "N" word for blacks. [...]

I agree with your point, CR. Actually, I agree with almost everything you've written in this thread.

One point that came to me as I read, admittedly tangential to your overall theme, is that many people no longer find the word "queer" to be as onerous as the other labels anymore. It depends, of course, on the usage. If it is used as an epithet, then sure, that's no different than "fag." But unlike most of the other demeaning terms you are speaking of, "queer" has come to be used as an umbrella term for non-heteronormative sexual orientation, sexual behavior, gender identity and gender roles. Universities offer "queer studies" courses. Post-structuralist linguistic and literary criticism regarding non-heteronormativity is known as "queer theory." For years, politically active members of many LGBT communities have used the catch-phrase "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Additionally, it can serve a useful purpose whenever gray areas arise in matters of sexuality (or sexual politics) that have historically been understood as strictly binary conditions. As an example, when asked if I am gay, I have generally taken the simple route and just responded, "yes." But "gay" usually denotes an exclusive sexual orientation toward the same gender. The fact that I am attracted to females as well leaves me feeling that I've given an inaccurate response.

This rarely poses a problem, though, as the point of the question is often really "are you normal?" And with measurable exactitude I can confidently say "not at all." Or, in a political context, the point of the question is often "which side are you on?" Either way, I feel that for most intents and purposes, identifying myself as gay is acceptable.

The word "bisexual" brings its own set of problems to the discourse, as it is applied inconsistently and furnishes a kaleidoscope of meanings to different people. This is not surprising seeing as how the word was coined in the framework of a simplistic view of human sexuality as a clear dichotomy. "Bisexual" intends to divide a person into two sexualities, one for the normative side (male/female) and one for the non-normative (male/male or female/female). Or as a mixture of the two "real" states never fusing into a compound of its own. A non-binary term within a binary system acts as a process between discrete conditions rather than a condition itself. This leads to confusion and misunderstanding, since it turns out that human sexuality is not binary after all.

Many use "bisexual" in identifying themselves as a "third orientation" with it's own unique attributes from "straight" or "gay." To some, it means "either gender will do," while to others it means "both genders are required." Some people understand "bisexual" to mean a person with such an insatiable sexual appetite that one gender cannot satisfy it. Some just think it's a pusillanimous conceit given by a still-closeted homosexual. Some use the term "bisexual" to describe a married person who is on the "down low," or a straight person doing "gay-for-pay," (e.g., an uneasy mixture of two incompatible orientations.)

Some have tried to infuse the word with newly understood meaning. As you alluded to, Kinsey postulates that "bisexual" is not a point on a line, but the continuum between poles. I read that as a child and grew up disappointed that so many people remain ignorant of this meaning. A large proportion of the population is uncomfortable with nuance and prefers black-or-white distinctions, often sincerely believing that anything else represents an abandonment of principles and an invitation to moral relativism or to "fuzzy logic."

A word that describes a person as "not-straight" while avoiding any further assumptions is nice to have around at times. This is how I would try to accurately describe myself. The fact that "queer" is an epithet that was "reclaimed" by those to whom it was directed and given useful meaning is laudable indeed. There are few examples of successfully "reclaiming" a derogatory term in any useful sense. The "N-word" has been the subject of a reclamation attempt among African-American communities, but has not been imbued with any useful meaning beyond the original abhorrent one. Which is why it is anathema for non-Blacks to use it (and for many people of African ancestry it will always be anathema no matter who uses it). If the point was to "take the word back" from those who used it as a linguistic bludgeon, the effort has been a failure. If the extent of the metamorphosis is simply to censor its use along racial lines, then it is just as racist as it ever has been.

Your other N-word, "nelly," I have actually only heard out of the mouths of self-identified gays, and often used to describe themselves personally. I have never heard the term used by straights to denigrate gays. (Perhaps they have enough to choose from as it is.) Though I agree that it is often used derogatorily among gays to divide people along what is understood as masculine traits from feminine. And like almost all terms used to demean, much ignorance is involved in the method. In this case, it's another simplistic and incorrect idea of human sexuality as a dichotomy (masculine vs. feminine). There is also bear vs. twink, top vs. bottom, butch vs. lipstick, "out and proud" vs. "straight-acting;" people love binary formulations I think because they require so little effort.

I have mixed feelings about the pink triangle as a reclaimed symbol of gay identity. I am not at all certain that its use is changed much in the minds of the majority from its horrific origins. I appreciate that people wanted to take an ugly symbol of hate and turn it into something positive. But I have doubts. It was designed for malicious purpose from its inception. The word "queer," on the other hand, used to mean "odd or different" in a very generic sense. I'm not sure if successful reclamation can be achieved with labels or symbols that were born out of fear and loathing and designed specifically to facilitate hate-mongering.

Oh boy, I've really gone off the deep end this time. Sometimes I get to typing and ...

 

[clock12]

Sorry, Jayman! I was typing and didn't see your post. I have thoroughly hijacked this thread.

 

[Jayman01]

Sorry, Jayman! I was typing and didn't see your post. I have thoroughly hijacked this thread.

It is OK. You made some great points there... No, harm dude.

 

[cumrag27]

I feel so privileged to hear such discourse on this topic

I agree with your point, CR. Actually, I agree with almost everything you've written in this thread.

One point that came to me as I read, admittedly tangential to your overall theme, is that many people no longer find the word "queer" to be as onerous as the other labels anymore. It depends, of course, on the usage. If it is used as an epithet, then sure, that's no different than "fag." But unlike most of the other demeaning terms you are speaking of, "queer" has come to be used as an umbrella term for non-heteronormative sexual orientation, sexual behavior, gender identity and gender roles. Universities offer "queer studies" courses. Post-structuralist linguistic and literary criticism regarding non-heteronormativity is known as "queer theory." For years, politically active members of many LGBT communities have used the catch-phrase "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Additionally, it can serve a useful purpose whenever gray areas arise in matters of sexuality (or sexual politics) that have historically been understood as strictly binary conditions. As an example, when asked if I am gay, I have generally taken the simple route and just responded, "yes." But "gay" usually denotes an exclusive sexual orientation toward the same gender. The fact that I am attracted to females as well leaves me feeling that I've given an inaccurate response.

This rarely poses a problem, though, as the point of the question is often really "are you normal?" And with measurable exactitude I can confidently say "not at all." Or, in a political context, the point of the question is often "which side are you on?" Either way, I feel that for most intents and purposes, identifying myself as gay is acceptable.

The word "bisexual" brings its own set of problems to the discourse, as it is applied inconsistently and furnishes a kaleidoscope of meanings to different people. This is not surprising seeing as how the word was coined in the framework of a simplistic view of human sexuality as a clear dichotomy. "Bisexual" intends to divide a person into two sexualities, one for the normative side (male/female) and one for the non-normative (male/male or female/female). Or as a mixture of the two "real" states never fusing into a compound of its own. A non-binary term within a binary system acts as a process between discrete conditions rather than a condition itself. This leads to confusion and misunderstanding, since it turns out that human sexuality is not binary after all.

Many use "bisexual" in identifying themselves as a "third orientation" with it's own unique attributes from "straight" or "gay." To some, it means "either gender will do," while to others it means "both genders are required." Some people understand "bisexual" to mean a person with such an insatiable sexual appetite that one gender cannot satisfy it. Some just think it's a pusillanimous conceit given by a still-closeted homosexual. Some use the term "bisexual" to describe a married person who is on the "down low," or a straight person doing "gay-for-pay," (e.g., an uneasy mixture of two incompatible orientations.)

Some have tried to infuse the word with newly understood meaning. As you alluded to, Kinsey postulates that "bisexual" is not a point on a line, but the continuum between poles. I read that as a child and grew up disappointed that so many people remain ignorant of this meaning. A large proportion of the population is uncomfortable with nuance and prefers black-or-white distinctions, often sincerely believing that anything else represents an abandonment of principles and an invitation to moral relativism or to "fuzzy logic."

A word that describes a person as "not-straight" while avoiding any further assumptions is nice to have around at times. This is how I would try to accurately describe myself. The fact that "queer" is an epithet that was "reclaimed" by those to whom it was directed and given useful meaning is laudable indeed. There are few examples of successfully "reclaiming" a derogatory term in any useful sense. The "N-word" has been the subject of a reclamation attempt among African-American communities, but has not been imbued with any useful meaning beyond the original abhorrent one. Which is why it is anathema for non-Blacks to use it (and for many people of African ancestry it will always be anathema no matter who uses it). If the point was to "take the word back" from those who used it as a linguistic bludgeon, the effort has been a failure. If the extent of the metamorphosis is simply to censor its use along racial lines, then it is just as racist as it ever has been.

Your other N-word, "nelly," I have actually only heard out of the mouths of self-identified gays, and often used to describe themselves personally. I have never heard the term used by straights to denigrate gays. (Perhaps they have enough to choose from as it is.) Though I agree that it is often used derogatorily among gays to divide people along what is understood as masculine traits from feminine. And like almost all terms used to demean, much ignorance is involved in the method. In this case, it's another simplistic and incorrect idea of human sexuality as a dichotomy (masculine vs. feminine). There is also bear vs. twink, top vs. bottom, butch vs. lipstick, "out and proud" vs. "straight-acting;" people love binary formulations I think because they require so little effort.

I have mixed feelings about the pink triangle as a reclaimed symbol of gay identity. I am not at all certain that its use is changed much in the minds of the majority from its horrific origins. I appreciate that people wanted to take an ugly symbol of hate and turn it into something positive. But I have doubts. It was designed for malicious purpose from its inception. The word "queer," on the other hand, used to mean "odd or different" in a very generic sense. I'm not sure if successful reclamation can be achieved with labels or symbols that were born out of fear and loathing and designed specifically to facilitate hate-mongering.

Oh boy, I've really gone off the deep end this time. Sometimes I get to typing and ...

Dear Clock12,

I am soooooooo blown away with this highly complex and totally inspirational statement rich in nuiance and a real opportunity for me to learn more about this topic and its complexities.

DON'T FOR ONE MINUTE THINK YOU HAVE GONE OFF THE DEEP END. I PERSONALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN COMPOSING THIS HIGHLY COMPLEX AND ENLIGHTENED REACTION TO MY EARLIER POSTS. FOOD FOR THOUGHT, NO LESS AND MY MIND IS REALLY STARVING! iT IS ALMOST 3 AM HERE AND I WILL HAVE TO C0ME BACK TO THIS TOMORROW.

THAT YOU CAN COUNT ON! THANKS AGAIN!!! I AM TOTALLY IN AWE OF YOUR THOUGHTFILLED RESPONSE!

 

[cumrag27]

Much to be learned through utilizing different perspectives

Cumrag and Carking:

You two are very inspirational in the way you presented this topic. I whole heartedly agree with both of you although my reasons are somewhat spiritual in nature. I believe in the Universal law of One in that we all come from the same source. Just as the sun has many rays each one being unique unto itself. Yet they all originate from the same source. The universal law of energy dictates that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be reshaped or reformed by our: thought, attitudes, beliefs, speech, and our actions. The law perpetual motion also dictates that energy is always in motion. The law of attraction dictates that like energies attract like energies. The law of correspondence essentially dictates that what we send out, whether or not positive or negative will eventually come back. Essentially when we make fun of someone else we are actually making fun of ourselves. It doesn't serve our highest good. By treating all people and all life with great reverence and respect we respect ourselves. We also attract those people and things with similar energy to us. So, it is a win win situation all the way around.

Thank you both for sharing and letting me share my thoughts and feelings on this topic too.

Dear Jayman01,

I really appreciated your spiritual approach to analyzing the subject of this post. There is one sentence I especially love to emphasize, namely:

By treating all people and all life with great reverence and respect we respect ourselves.

Doesn't this statement capture in a very precise and simple way what we should all be about if we want the best for the world we find ourselves in.

Something to live by.

Thanks for your thoughtful statement.

 

[mikeyank]

A dissenting view

I believe that human nature is something that is inbred in all of us, and there are certain traits in human beings that cannot be denied. I'm always amused when folks say that they hope that some day there will be world peace, for as we look back at the history of man, there have always been wars for territory and power, and these same traits can also be found in many animals.

I have similar feelings about words that can and have been used to mock or "goof on" other ethnic groups, or religions, or sexual orientation. And very often these same words are used by the very group that the words were designed to mock. This is often known as self-deprecating humor. I have noticed this phenomenon since I was a kid growing up. My group of friends always used these terms, mainly for humor. I grew up listening to comedians who have gotten big laughs by mocking ethnic groups, etc. whether they be Polish or Jewish or Catholic or Black or Hispanic or gay jokes. As a teen, I used to love to watch the Johnny Carson show when Don Rickles was the guest. He was hilarious. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to use these words, but I'm just saying that it is part of human nature to laugh at these things.

Now of course presentation is the key to if these jokes and generalizations are funny or hurtful. Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock to name two have used generalizations of blacks as a base of their humor, and I recall seeing a number of gay comedians over the years who call themselves fags, etc. and I laugh too. I think it is naive to believe that the use of these words will ever stop. I learned a lot of expressions such as "queen" or "nelly" from other gay people. I call myself, and other gay friends a fag at times, in humor.

I see a big difference between making jokes using these words, and a bully threatening physical harm, or harassing someone with hateful words. To me it is all context. I understand that there are those who are very sensitive to any perceived slur or mocking term, but I have a different attitude about "words". I am certainly not trying to convince anyone to feel the way I do, but I am just stating that I as an individual do not mind and am not offended by any "words". It is the context and presentation that these words are used in, that can offend me.

I think of myself as a "realist", and try to look at the world as it really is, and not as a ideal that I don't believe will ever be achieved. I hope that I have not offended anyone with my honest feelings on this potentially controversial subject.

 

[cumrag27]

Aspiring to a higher level of communication

I believe that human nature is something that is inbred in all of us, and there are certain traits in human beings that cannot be denied. I'm always amused when folks say that they hope that some day there will be world peace, for as we look back at the history of man, there have always been wars for territory and power, and these same traits can also be found in many animals.

I have similar feelings about words that can and have been used to mock or "goof on" other ethnic groups, or religions, or sexual orientation. And very often these same words are used by the very group that the words were designed to mock. This is often known as self-deprecating humor. I have noticed this phenomenon since I was a kid growing up. My group of friends always used these terms, mainly for humor. I grew up listening to comedians who have gotten big laughs by mocking ethnic groups, etc. whether they be Polish or Jewish or Catholic or Black or Hispanic or gay jokes. As a teen, I used to love to watch the Johnny Carson show when Don Rickles was the guest. He was hilarious. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to use these words, but I'm just saying that it is part of human nature to laugh at these things.

Now of course presentation is the key to if these jokes and generalizations are funny or hurtful. Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock to name two have used generalizations of blacks as a base of their humor, and I recall seeing a number of gay comedians over the years who call themselves fags, etc. and I laugh too. I think it is naive to believe that the use of these words will ever stop. I learned a lot of expressions such as "queen" or "nelly" from other gay people. I call myself, and other gay friends a fag at times, in humor.

I see a big difference between making jokes using these words, and a bully threatening physical harm, or harassing someone with hateful words. To me it is all context. I understand that there are those who are very sensitive to any perceived slur or mocking term, but I have a different attitude about "words". I am certainly not trying to convince anyone to feel the way I do, but I am just stating that I as an individual do not mind and am not offended by any "words". It is the context and presentation that these words are used in, that can offend me.

I think of myself as a "realist", and try to look at the world as it really is, and not as a ideal that I don't believe will ever be achieved. I hope that I have not offended anyone with my honest feelings on this potentially controversial subject.

Dear Mikeyank,

I certainly see your point and living in an imperfect world means you have to choose your battles realistically and not sweat the small stuff. However, if we are to see any improvement in the human condition, such as race relations, well even though far from perfect by today's standards, looking for instance at the murders committed by segregationist targeting outsiders whose only crime was trying to make things better for the oppressed in the South, you have only to ask yourself where would we be today without those outsider's ultimate sacrifice? Without worthy and high-minded goals to aspire to, we simply would mull over the same crap over and over again as we did when starting with the founding of our nation over slavery issues.

If we are to achieve equal rights for gay couples thus guaranteeing the right to their "pursuit of happiness" through legally sanctioned marriage rights for gays, someone must become the catalyst for change. Future thinking leaders have a price to pay, namely suffering the backlash from the likes of the Christian Right, other repressive groups (who gain by keeping targeted people essentially "pregnant and bare-footed and on their tight leash), and others straights who have no personal stake in the fight and relinquish appropriate citizen oversight of core laws guaranteeing "equal rights and equal protection under the law". Yet, without this first step, we will remain frozen in time like the extinct woolly mammoths stuck in the tar pits for centuries.

"Not sweating the small stuff", while temporarily helping ease tensions of living, doesn't give anyone a "lifetime season pass" giving up on the process leading to progress, as I see it. Whatever invention or new idea that comes down the pike, there must be like-minded individuals who's duty must be to get off their intellectual butt and bring this new idea to the light of day so it can be further developed for the benefit of all. The rewards of this time honored process may be so slight that watching the grass grow may be faster in comparison. To say human nature fraught with its many peccadilloes and unyielding orthodoxy is eternally fixed and unchangable is give up on mankind itself.

Just as mankind is brought down with its endless weaknesses, I choose to believe in the ultimate goodness of mankind rather than face life pessimistically and live without hope. Without this positive mindset, life becomes rather pointless and reduces daily living to a mind numbing repetitive torture without prospects for improvement. I feel that it is our nature to want things to be better for future generations, whether actually achieved or not. Therefore, we should find within us the desire to use the necessary consideration for others feelings thus improving communication by sheering off it's rough edges while bolstering everybody's quality of life in the long-range.

Thank you mikeyank for sharing your thoughts while hearing me out, also!

 

[Jayman01]

I believe that human nature is something that is inbred in all of us, and there are certain traits in human beings that cannot be denied. I'm always amused when folks say that they hope that some day there will be world peace, for as we look back at the history of man, there have always been wars for territory and power, and these same traits can also be found in many animals.

I have similar feelings about words that can and have been used to mock or "goof on" other ethnic groups, or religions, or sexual orientation. And very often these same words are used by the very group that the words were designed to mock. This is often known as self-deprecating humor. I have noticed this phenomenon since I was a kid growing up. My group of friends always used these terms, mainly for humor. I grew up listening to comedians who have gotten big laughs by mocking ethnic groups, etc. whether they be Polish or Jewish or Catholic or Black or Hispanic or gay jokes. As a teen, I used to love to watch the Johnny Carson show when Don Rickles was the guest. He was hilarious. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to use these words, but I'm just saying that it is part of human nature to laugh at these things.

Now of course presentation is the key to if these jokes and generalizations are funny or hurtful. Eddie Murphy and Chris Rock to name two have used generalizations of blacks as a base of their humor, and I recall seeing a number of gay comedians over the years who call themselves fags, etc. and I laugh too. I think it is naive to believe that the use of these words will ever stop. I learned a lot of expressions such as "queen" or "nelly" from other gay people. I call myself, and other gay friends a fag at times, in humor.

I see a big difference between making jokes using these words, and a bully threatening physical harm, or harassing someone with hateful words. To me it is all context. I understand that there are those who are very sensitive to any perceived slur or mocking term, but I have a different attitude about "words". I am certainly not trying to convince anyone to feel the way I do, but I am just stating that I as an individual do not mind and am not offended by any "words". It is the context and presentation that these words are used in, that can offend me.

I think of myself as a "realist", and try to look at the world as it really is, and not as a ideal that I don't believe will ever be achieved. I hope that I have not offended anyone with my honest feelings on this potentially controversial subject.

Mike you made some great points here. I think the general rule is not to use the words in public when we are not sure of who our audiences is. Of course there will be times when we may let our guard down. LOL. I did some amateur comedy once while aboard that ship. Once everyone found out I was doing the gig I got threats from every officer and NCO around warning me not to mock them. That really took the wind out of my sails. So, I kind of did a Rosie O'Donnell thing and talked about TV shows and movie spoofs to keep it off the military in general. I would up doing a bit about the "Wizard of Oz." I joked about how a witch could get hit by a flying house. Sure enough, someone came up to me afterwords to tell me that wasn't funny because their aunt was killed by a flying house in a tornado. Who would have guessed? We can please all of the people some of the time but we will never please all of the people all of the time.

 

[tampa24]

I'm really blown away by the level of conversation here guys. As usual I find Clock's posts in particular at around 1 or 2am when I'm not up to the task of responding to him with anything approaching the same level of eloquence. Even though I can't match him when I'm at my best. Understanding his writing and matching his writing are two different things. LOL

More later when I've had my Wheaties and a full night's sleep. haha I hope other people feel free to chime in on this thread. It's quite fascinating as to how people have formed their own opinions on these issues.

 

[LoganBroad]

I think this is a case of oversensitivity. Too much PC. I hear friends all the time joking with each other saying "Oh don't be so nelly," and it is taken all in good fun amongst friends. Everybody needs to lighten up a little bit. There is already too much policing of speech in these forums anyway.

 

[clock12]

I agree that, in general, it would be a good thing for people (myself included) to "lighten up a little bit" over matters we are sensitive about, and be open to the possibility that we may be oversensitive -- perhaps looking for evidence to confirm our fears wherever it is not obvious. This can too easily be reduced to habit, and effectively divert our pursuit of a life worth living.

It would also be a good thing, in general, if people (myself included) tried to be a bit more considerate, and have a presence of mind, of the sensibilities (and sensitivities) of those around us. This is no burden for a mature and rational person who feels even the smallest connection to other human beings, rather a natural reflex.

One can argue the relative merits of either approach. But I would submit that, given the option, it is better to edify one another than to tear each other down. If you believe a person is oversensitive about something in particular, you can choose to exercise your right to say something that may offend, or you can choose to exercise your strength and self-control, your judgment to communicate your thoughts or feelings in a manner more likely to be productively received. As adults, we can do whatever, though we will no doubt be treated (and remembered) accordingly by the people observing our choices.

 

[cumrag27]

Timely statement offered

I agree that, in general, it would be a good thing for people (myself included) to "lighten up a little bit" over matters we are sensitive about, and be open to the possibility that we may be oversensitive -- perhaps looking for evidence to confirm our fears wherever it is not obvious. This can too easily be reduced to habit, and effectively divert our pursuit of a life worth living.

It would also be a good thing, in general, if people (myself included) tried to be a bit more considerate, and have a presence of mind, of the sensibilities (and sensitivities) of those around us. This is no burden for a mature and rational person who feels even the smallest connection to other human beings, rather a natural reflex.

One can argue the relative merits of either approach. But I would submit that, given the option, it is better to edify one another than to tear each other down. If you believe a person is oversensitive about something in particular, you can choose to exercise your right to say something that may offend, or you can choose to exercise your strength and self-control, your judgment to communicate your thoughts or feelings in a manner more likely to be productively received. As adults, we can do whatever, though we will no doubt be treated (and remembered) accordingly by the people observing our choices.

My Dear Clock12,

Eloquent and thoughtfully stated as usual. I so appreciate your posts. It restores my faith in mankind! And, I truly believe "we will no doubt be treated (and remembered) accordingly by the people observing our choices". I fully believe all learning by "example" may be the slowest type of learning strategy to impart but, in the long run it also is the very best!

Thanks Again!!