conservatives, ok. bigots, bad. March 4, 2002 11:57 AM Subscribe
getting weary of the bigotry flying around over the past few days. while conservative viewpoints are entirely necessary to keep conversation here balanced, this repeated stereotyping is beyond juvenile.
gyc: I was wondering that myself. The inclusion of real9's comment needs no explanation, but St0ne's comment looks like just an honest (if non-PC) opinion, it certainly doesn't seem bigoted to me.
posted by biscotti at 12:24 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by biscotti at 12:24 PM on March 4, 2002
matt: i know you addresssed stOne's comment, and i appreciate it. i almost made this post (specifically regarding real9 after checking his posting history) upon his last post, but decided against.
i really appreciate your banning of real9; wish i'd known that before i bitched. apologies.
gyc: in the first post i pointed out, StOne's version of the gay community seems to think of nothing but parties and sex, and then he goes on to say just how gross he thinks we are. it's the same as saying all asians make good violinists or all black people like fried chicken. the statement's made from a viewpoint of "not me = weird." he's not making any sort of effort to understand some of the community-based language used in the fliers discussed.
posted by patricking at 12:41 PM on March 4, 2002
i really appreciate your banning of real9; wish i'd known that before i bitched. apologies.
gyc: in the first post i pointed out, StOne's version of the gay community seems to think of nothing but parties and sex, and then he goes on to say just how gross he thinks we are. it's the same as saying all asians make good violinists or all black people like fried chicken. the statement's made from a viewpoint of "not me = weird." he's not making any sort of effort to understand some of the community-based language used in the fliers discussed.
posted by patricking at 12:41 PM on March 4, 2002
I really hate the way you associate these idiotic and bigoted comments with "conservative viewpoints". Seems like a cheap shot, kind of weakens your stand on juvenile stereotyping.
I didn't think St0ne was being refreshingly non-PC, just ignorant and ill-mannered.
posted by Catch at 12:49 PM on March 4, 2002
I didn't think St0ne was being refreshingly non-PC, just ignorant and ill-mannered.
posted by Catch at 12:49 PM on March 4, 2002
(Off-topic. patricking: Your addition of the target="_blank" attribute in your links prevents me from choosing whether I want them to open in a new window [generally, I don't], whereas without it, I can open it in a new window by command-clicking or right-clicking the link, if I really want to.)
posted by mcwetboy at 1:16 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by mcwetboy at 1:16 PM on March 4, 2002
pcfilter.
so? "political correctness," as tired a term as it is, is not about distorting facts as not to offend minorities, but rather a way to insure the credibility of statements given, that they aren't intellectually useless blanket statements, thickly disguised prejudice, or otherwise straight up unbased in fact.
I really don't understand this strong aversion people have for "political correctness." if you are really that desperate to offend people, then express your enmity directly to the group you have issues with and prepare to have your preconceptions shattered.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2002
so? "political correctness," as tired a term as it is, is not about distorting facts as not to offend minorities, but rather a way to insure the credibility of statements given, that they aren't intellectually useless blanket statements, thickly disguised prejudice, or otherwise straight up unbased in fact.
I really don't understand this strong aversion people have for "political correctness." if you are really that desperate to offend people, then express your enmity directly to the group you have issues with and prepare to have your preconceptions shattered.
posted by mcsweetie at 1:24 PM on March 4, 2002
Matt, can I ask what prompted you to ban Real9 after this comment, as opposed to his previous, inflammatory remarks? Was it that he had been warned, and then repeated the transgression? Or did the bigoted HIV stuff cross a particular line? I agree completely with the action, but I'm simply curious about the modus operandi, given your reluctance to ban Real9 in the past. (When he lost posting privileges at the end of January, your post was ambiguous about whether or not it was due to his simply having a "bogus" email address.)
posted by Marquis at 1:28 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by Marquis at 1:28 PM on March 4, 2002
I had a lot of problems with what st0ne said. He treats all gays as some sort of monolithic community that's out to make him uncomfortable. We're not all the same, and it's the essence of stereotyping to attribute the actions of the few to an entire group. And then he goes on to tell us just why he finds us so disgusting, why we creep him out. And he uses Sam Kinnison as a logical/moral/emotional touchstone. Now there's a role model for you.
Also, what mcsweetie said about political correctness. Xammerboy didn't even attempt to make a point: he figures that it's enough to toss out "pc" to discredit an attempt to encourage politeness.
posted by anapestic at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2002
Also, what mcsweetie said about political correctness. Xammerboy didn't even attempt to make a point: he figures that it's enough to toss out "pc" to discredit an attempt to encourage politeness.
posted by anapestic at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2002
mcsweetie, I don't understand how political correctness can insure (um, ensure?) the credibility, etc, of any statement. Maybe you could give a clearer definition?
posted by Catch at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by Catch at 1:33 PM on March 4, 2002
patricking, I'm curious what you would like to see done. The way your post is phrased, it's just a general "complaint." Are you advocating that people be removed, or are you just trying to raise awareness of the problem? Hopefully it's the latter. I agree with Matt -- "I think there is a large enough group of people that take on the responsibility to rat out the trolls and bigots." I don't like the idea of banning perceived "bigots" -- especially when people are expressing their sincerely held beliefs (even if wrongheaded), and not just trolling for a fight. If you think a person is misinformed, try informing them. If the "bigot" still doesn't respond to your argument, I say throw up your hands, say "I tried" and move on to the next post.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:34 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by pardonyou? at 1:34 PM on March 4, 2002
PC can get silly quickly. Short becomes 'height disadvantaged' and other useless re-naming of words people want to mitigate from being 'offensive'. (than again, why aren't tall people the disadvantaged ones?)
In many cases, it strips other defining characteristics away, not just the 'offensive' connotations someone is trying to get rid of.
I can go along with some politcal correctness, but occassionally, it gets out of hand. Maybe I'm too much of a George Carlin fan.
posted by rich at 1:35 PM on March 4, 2002
In many cases, it strips other defining characteristics away, not just the 'offensive' connotations someone is trying to get rid of.
I can go along with some politcal correctness, but occassionally, it gets out of hand. Maybe I'm too much of a George Carlin fan.
posted by rich at 1:35 PM on March 4, 2002
so? "political correctness," as tired a term as it is, is not about distorting facts...
Maybe originally, mcsweetie, but it went overboard really quickly. Sometimes, it allows folks to pick apart a statement based on minor semantic slip-ups or unintentional us of the "wrong" term rather than by viewing the substance of the speakers actual point. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, we're all guilty of it to some extent, just offering my two cents on where the anti-PC hostility comes from.
In this instance, I wouldn't call st0ne's comment bigoted, merely one I disagree with.
posted by jonmc at 1:38 PM on March 4, 2002
Maybe originally, mcsweetie, but it went overboard really quickly. Sometimes, it allows folks to pick apart a statement based on minor semantic slip-ups or unintentional us of the "wrong" term rather than by viewing the substance of the speakers actual point. I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, we're all guilty of it to some extent, just offering my two cents on where the anti-PC hostility comes from.
In this instance, I wouldn't call st0ne's comment bigoted, merely one I disagree with.
posted by jonmc at 1:38 PM on March 4, 2002
PC can get silly quickly. Short becomes 'height disadvantaged' and other useless re-naming of words people want to mitigate from being 'offensive'.
Can you give some examples of that happening around here? The examples patricking gave were offensive. It's a long way from complaining about them to insisting on things like "height challenged."
posted by anapestic at 1:43 PM on March 4, 2002
Can you give some examples of that happening around here? The examples patricking gave were offensive. It's a long way from complaining about them to insisting on things like "height challenged."
posted by anapestic at 1:43 PM on March 4, 2002
Anapestic - I was responding to mcsweetie's question on why people have an aversion to 'political correctness' in general.
Personally, I hate having to choose my words so that I won't offend someone who will take a word I use and read something into its use that they take personally when the word, in all respects, is rather innocuous and I wasn't using it in a loaded way.
posted by rich at 1:59 PM on March 4, 2002
Personally, I hate having to choose my words so that I won't offend someone who will take a word I use and read something into its use that they take personally when the word, in all respects, is rather innocuous and I wasn't using it in a loaded way.
posted by rich at 1:59 PM on March 4, 2002
What Catch said. Being an anti-gay bigot is not some cornerstone of conservatism. Those that are so virulently homophobic tend to be so either because they're ultrafundamentalist Christians or because they hold political views that are so far off the scale as to be nearly unmeasurable. They are not anywhere near mainstream conservatives, and to label them as such is not particularly less offensive than what they said in the first place.
(Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... compare ... results ... here ... to ... reaction ... to ... bigots ... in ... weight ... threads ....!)
posted by aaron at 2:09 PM on March 4, 2002
(Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... compare ... results ... here ... to ... reaction ... to ... bigots ... in ... weight ... threads ....!)
posted by aaron at 2:09 PM on March 4, 2002
I don't think that many people actually have an aversion to political correctness.
I do think that lots of people are willing to take the "free pass" they feel they get by claiming to be "not PC" to allow them to indulge in bigotry and just plain bad manners.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:28 PM on March 4, 2002
I do think that lots of people are willing to take the "free pass" they feel they get by claiming to be "not PC" to allow them to indulge in bigotry and just plain bad manners.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:28 PM on March 4, 2002
Those that are so virulently homophobic tend to be so either because they're ultrafundamentalist Christians or because they hold political views that are so far off the scale as to be nearly unmeasurable. They are not anywhere near mainstream conservatives, and to label them as such is not particularly less offensive than what they said in the first place.
Aaron, I think you went farther than intended. I think the truth is closer to this: Homophobia can not fairly or easily be related to a political demographic. Making assumptions about homophobes is morally the same as making assumptions 'bout all you damned conservatives ;-).
rebeccablood, it is precisely for the reasons you state that I have an aversion to political correctness. If I admit the effecacy of PC as a stance, then I am obligated to point out its opposition, whether done in honest disagreement or indulgence. I am removed from the responsibility of arguing an issue in favor of the claim that it isn't "right-thinking", regardless of the reasoning behind the opposing view. My preference would be to get rid of the term and do away with the shield that bigots have found to hide behind.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:41 PM on March 4, 2002
Aaron, I think you went farther than intended. I think the truth is closer to this: Homophobia can not fairly or easily be related to a political demographic. Making assumptions about homophobes is morally the same as making assumptions 'bout all you damned conservatives ;-).
rebeccablood, it is precisely for the reasons you state that I have an aversion to political correctness. If I admit the effecacy of PC as a stance, then I am obligated to point out its opposition, whether done in honest disagreement or indulgence. I am removed from the responsibility of arguing an issue in favor of the claim that it isn't "right-thinking", regardless of the reasoning behind the opposing view. My preference would be to get rid of the term and do away with the shield that bigots have found to hide behind.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:41 PM on March 4, 2002
Yes, a small part of stOne's post was patently objectionable, but the whole of his comments in the thread are not worth getting worked up over.
Really folks, having that discussion, including stOne's contributions, were an an opportunity for exploration that he may have taken fuller advantage of than many of us in this discussion.
posted by NortonDC at 2:41 PM on March 4, 2002
Really folks, having that discussion, including stOne's contributions, were an an opportunity for exploration that he may have taken fuller advantage of than many of us in this discussion.
posted by NortonDC at 2:41 PM on March 4, 2002
"I don't think that many people actually have an aversion to political correctness."
fwiw, I actually have an aversion to political correctness. There are many things that people say that I don't like from an ideological standpoint, but the greater evil by far is suggesting that they don't have a right to say what they feel because it's not "proper."
posted by pardonyou? at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2002
fwiw, I actually have an aversion to political correctness. There are many things that people say that I don't like from an ideological standpoint, but the greater evil by far is suggesting that they don't have a right to say what they feel because it's not "proper."
posted by pardonyou? at 2:42 PM on March 4, 2002
waitaminnit. i never said anything about PCism, nor did i ask for anyone's removal. and yes, pardonyou, i was just bitching (which i anticipated would lead to discussion, which it has...neat, right?).
as for "something to be done," i'm not asking anyone to do anything except not use such broad-painted cartoonish strokes in a public forum. if someone wants to call me a prancing faggot, that's fine (because it's true). but that's not something that applies to everyone who happens to be gay.
posted by patricking at 2:46 PM on March 4, 2002
as for "something to be done," i'm not asking anyone to do anything except not use such broad-painted cartoonish strokes in a public forum. if someone wants to call me a prancing faggot, that's fine (because it's true). but that's not something that applies to everyone who happens to be gay.
posted by patricking at 2:46 PM on March 4, 2002
This is too tempting . . .
prancing faggot, prancing faggot, prancing faggot!
patricking, I like your point of view and your refreshing sense of self. ;)
posted by ashbury at 2:59 PM on March 4, 2002
prancing faggot, prancing faggot, prancing faggot!
patricking, I like your point of view and your refreshing sense of self. ;)
posted by ashbury at 2:59 PM on March 4, 2002
if someone wants to call me a prancing faggot, that's fine (because it's true).
*files this little nugget away for later*
posted by rodii at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2002
*files this little nugget away for later*
posted by rodii at 3:22 PM on March 4, 2002
yeah, I banned Real9 for not heeding warnings in the past. He's not here to contribute to the site, he's here to fuck with people and get them riled up, so he's gone.
I think "bigot" is a poor word to describe the other post, but I can't quite think of anything to replace it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:02 PM on March 4, 2002
I think "bigot" is a poor word to describe the other post, but I can't quite think of anything to replace it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:02 PM on March 4, 2002
you don't want to sound dumb
don't want to offend
so don't call me a faggot
not unless you are a friend
then if you're tall
and handsome and strong
you can wear the uniform and i could play along
--Joe Jackson, 1982
posted by aaron at 4:18 PM on March 4, 2002
don't want to offend
so don't call me a faggot
not unless you are a friend
then if you're tall
and handsome and strong
you can wear the uniform and i could play along
--Joe Jackson, 1982
posted by aaron at 4:18 PM on March 4, 2002
Not trying to make a statement; this thread just reminded me of that song, which I really like.
posted by aaron at 4:19 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by aaron at 4:19 PM on March 4, 2002
No outrage here, just disgust. Wrongheaded and politically incorrect as I may be, this sort of thing creeps me out. That's just the way I'm hardwired I guess
bigot:a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (www.m-w.com)
sounds accurate
posted by rhyax at 4:47 PM on March 4, 2002
bigot:a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (www.m-w.com)
sounds accurate
posted by rhyax at 4:47 PM on March 4, 2002
It doesn't sound accurate to me. He is tolerant. And since he has shown much more willingness to question his own beliefs than I can remember seeing in a while, I don't think obstinate applies either.
posted by NortonDC at 5:20 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by NortonDC at 5:20 PM on March 4, 2002
StOne has made a couple more posts on the thread that really take the edge off what he said before. Of course, he may be making them in response to this very MeTa thread, but still I think it matters. And while his initial post was not worded very carefully, he did make a point of saying that he doesn't have a problem with homosexuality itself.
posted by bingo at 5:37 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by bingo at 5:37 PM on March 4, 2002
And, even if he did, would that be a reason for him not to post, come to think of it? I think he was just trying to offer the point of view of how someone who has little exposure to gay culture might respond to the events described in the link. Through the thread itself, he got some more insight, and isn't that how a good discussion is supposed to work?
posted by bingo at 5:40 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by bingo at 5:40 PM on March 4, 2002
[bigot:a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices (www.m-w.com)]
I think this might be a better definition "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" (dictionary.com) further defined as follows :
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
StOne said "Consenting adults should be free to do as they choose."
- That intolerant BASTARD! The streets will flow with the blood of the unbelievers...
posted by revbrian at 7:16 PM on March 4, 2002
I think this might be a better definition "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" (dictionary.com) further defined as follows :
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.
StOne said "Consenting adults should be free to do as they choose."
- That intolerant BASTARD! The streets will flow with the blood of the unbelievers...
posted by revbrian at 7:16 PM on March 4, 2002
mcsweetie, I don't understand how political correctness can insure (um, ensure?) the credibility, etc, of any statement. Maybe you could give a clearer definition?
well, how about an example. lets say someone said "Well, the gay community seems to delight in being 'outrageous.'" this just isn't true. there may be some gay people that delight in being outrageous (just as there are some people in the heterosexual community that delight in being outrageous), but it's a politically incorrect thing to say because it defames an entire group of people for the potential offenses of those whom I bet this person couldn't even name.
it would have been a tiny bit better if he had said, "Well, there are some in the gay community that..." but that would hardly be justification for his prejudices. the best case scenario, of course, would be if he had never said anything in the first place.
in other words, you can't say the gay community delights in being outrageous anymore than you can say conservatives are homophobic bible thumpers. thats political correctness.
furthermore, if anyone here is someone that has to constantly stop themself and think about whether the statement they're about to make is of this nature and/or whether or not it's PC, then perhaps you should put some deeper thought into where it's coming from.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:57 PM on March 4, 2002
well, how about an example. lets say someone said "Well, the gay community seems to delight in being 'outrageous.'" this just isn't true. there may be some gay people that delight in being outrageous (just as there are some people in the heterosexual community that delight in being outrageous), but it's a politically incorrect thing to say because it defames an entire group of people for the potential offenses of those whom I bet this person couldn't even name.
it would have been a tiny bit better if he had said, "Well, there are some in the gay community that..." but that would hardly be justification for his prejudices. the best case scenario, of course, would be if he had never said anything in the first place.
in other words, you can't say the gay community delights in being outrageous anymore than you can say conservatives are homophobic bible thumpers. thats political correctness.
furthermore, if anyone here is someone that has to constantly stop themself and think about whether the statement they're about to make is of this nature and/or whether or not it's PC, then perhaps you should put some deeper thought into where it's coming from.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:57 PM on March 4, 2002
bingo, i'm not saying he shouldn't post, i just like definitions and accuracy :)
i'm more a fan of the community should take care of it somehow, if people don't like it. i also think the term bigot is underused. also technically i don't see how someone can be intolerant on mefi really, i mean you can leave, or not read what someone has to say, but other than matt everyone pretty much has to tolerate what other people say.
posted by rhyax at 8:22 PM on March 4, 2002
i'm more a fan of the community should take care of it somehow, if people don't like it. i also think the term bigot is underused. also technically i don't see how someone can be intolerant on mefi really, i mean you can leave, or not read what someone has to say, but other than matt everyone pretty much has to tolerate what other people say.
posted by rhyax at 8:22 PM on March 4, 2002
Wow, aren't WE becoming ultra-sensitive. Personally, I don't see anything any more offensive in either of the posts selected for attention than I see in other threads every day. Isn't it better to allow people to express (and, perhaps, condemn) themselves in their own honest voice than to enforce a saccharine standard upon us all? How ironic if the desire among some for greater tolerance is expressed through immediate, vocal, and dismissive INtolerance.
posted by rushmc at 8:52 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by rushmc at 8:52 PM on March 4, 2002
what do you suggest then? condoning bigots until that magic day when they wake up and see the err in their ways?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:49 PM on March 4, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 9:49 PM on March 4, 2002
Here's the problem with political correctness (although I don't know whether that applies to this specific situation): It inhibits discussion based on the pretext of not offending anyone.
For instance, this comment by y2karl to me (which I found funny), followed by jpoulos' insinuation that it was "inappropriate". Never mind that he cited facts.
I'm not saying people should go "I hate X group, X group is smelly and does X bad things!" but walking on eggshells is silly and infantile. We're all (mostly) grown ups here, we don't need to be talked to like children who don't want to hear that Santa's not real.
posted by owillis at 11:00 PM on March 4, 2002
For instance, this comment by y2karl to me (which I found funny), followed by jpoulos' insinuation that it was "inappropriate". Never mind that he cited facts.
I'm not saying people should go "I hate X group, X group is smelly and does X bad things!" but walking on eggshells is silly and infantile. We're all (mostly) grown ups here, we don't need to be talked to like children who don't want to hear that Santa's not real.
posted by owillis at 11:00 PM on March 4, 2002
what do you suggest then? condoning bigots until that magic day when they wake up and see the err in their ways?
Yes, until they become actively and aggressively offensive and over-the-line. Which is not the same as quietly expressing an opinion or offering a different slant in a debate. I think we all should enjoy equal freedom to damn or redeem ourselves.
What is the alternative to tolerating those with unpopular or misguided views and trying to influence them by reasoning with them? Taking them out and shooting them?
As in RL, so on MeFi....
posted by rushmc at 8:22 AM on March 5, 2002
Yes, until they become actively and aggressively offensive and over-the-line. Which is not the same as quietly expressing an opinion or offering a different slant in a debate. I think we all should enjoy equal freedom to damn or redeem ourselves.
What is the alternative to tolerating those with unpopular or misguided views and trying to influence them by reasoning with them? Taking them out and shooting them?
As in RL, so on MeFi....
posted by rushmc at 8:22 AM on March 5, 2002
Off-topic; please tolerate:: RL is cool, rushmc. The more important things are, the smaller their acronyms, right?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on March 5, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on March 5, 2002
I seldom even look into MetaTalk, and this is the first time I've logged in here. After I finished with my comments on the thread which triggered this discussion, I thought I'd look in MetaTalk to see if my ears really were burning (so my "OK-I-was-being-a-shithead" comment was not due to anything said here.)
I thought it would be best to let the whole thing drop, but I know I've caused resentment among some. So let me say that mcsweetie is probably right that I never should have said anything at all. I understand that my comments were gratuitous, and when I posted I knew some might take offense. But what I said seemed no worse than all the "dirty faggots, fisting, ass-rimming" yadda-yadda. My own visceral reaction, in hindsight, does appear to be off-topic, but I think my point was that even some of us more tolerant "bigots" (if the loafer fits, I'll wear it) can't really accept some things.
I usually don't go off on rants like that. A few days previously, I'd said "If I were one of those firefighters [forced to march in a gay parade] I'd tell 'em to shove it." That thread was more about forced parading than the nature of the parade, but something about that issue also brought forth my bigotry, I will admit. I did say there "I'm not anti-gay; I just can't identify with them." My "disgust" rant was an ill-considered elaboration on the roots of my prejudice despite my libertarian views.
I don't know whether anyone whom I'm offended will feel any better as a result of this post to MetaTalk, but I do regret unnecessarily causing any distress to anyone. I don't know what Real9 said (I just remember seeing his username on Metafilter in the past) but I wouldn't want to be lumped-in with someone just trying to "fuck with people." But it wasn't all bad, because at least my mind got broadened a little more as a result of the discussion.
I let the shock value at all the graphic anal talk blind me to the real issue, which appeared to be the intended effect of the FPP, so I guess maybe I got "trolled"--
btw, I always thought trolling meant fishing, so maybe that is a fitting term. I took the bait and thrashed around before I could get unhooked. Or something. I can't promise I'll never offend anyone ever again (PC? shove it up your...), but I'll try not to be "so outrageous!" in the future. Best I can do.
posted by StOne at 9:27 AM on March 6, 2002
I thought it would be best to let the whole thing drop, but I know I've caused resentment among some. So let me say that mcsweetie is probably right that I never should have said anything at all. I understand that my comments were gratuitous, and when I posted I knew some might take offense. But what I said seemed no worse than all the "dirty faggots, fisting, ass-rimming" yadda-yadda. My own visceral reaction, in hindsight, does appear to be off-topic, but I think my point was that even some of us more tolerant "bigots" (if the loafer fits, I'll wear it) can't really accept some things.
I usually don't go off on rants like that. A few days previously, I'd said "If I were one of those firefighters [forced to march in a gay parade] I'd tell 'em to shove it." That thread was more about forced parading than the nature of the parade, but something about that issue also brought forth my bigotry, I will admit. I did say there "I'm not anti-gay; I just can't identify with them." My "disgust" rant was an ill-considered elaboration on the roots of my prejudice despite my libertarian views.
I don't know whether anyone whom I'm offended will feel any better as a result of this post to MetaTalk, but I do regret unnecessarily causing any distress to anyone. I don't know what Real9 said (I just remember seeing his username on Metafilter in the past) but I wouldn't want to be lumped-in with someone just trying to "fuck with people." But it wasn't all bad, because at least my mind got broadened a little more as a result of the discussion.
I let the shock value at all the graphic anal talk blind me to the real issue, which appeared to be the intended effect of the FPP, so I guess maybe I got "trolled"--
btw, I always thought trolling meant fishing, so maybe that is a fitting term. I took the bait and thrashed around before I could get unhooked. Or something. I can't promise I'll never offend anyone ever again (PC? shove it up your...), but I'll try not to be "so outrageous!" in the future. Best I can do.
posted by StOne at 9:27 AM on March 6, 2002
Thank you for trying, StOne darling. But this queer doesn't need your politeness or your approval. I prefer that people are honest about their feelings rather than trying not to offend me. The problem with people who get offended by bigotry is the assumption that the acceptance and approval of the bigot is necessary. I will continue to be attracted to guys asses whether you comprehend it or approve of it or not. As long as you don't try to hurt me or incite others to hurt me, and as long as you don't use the force of law to restrict and persecute me, then believe/think/say what you want. I'm not saying it's healthy (for you or anyone else) to go around feeling visceral disgust about me. But it's not my responsibility to decide what's best for you.
I loathe PC from the bottom of my gay heart; I'm not a child, and I don't need to be shielded from your opinions by falsehood. You seem much more reasonable and sensitive than most 'bigots' I've encountered. Please stay that way. It won't make you immune from my criticism, but it will make you someone worth having an honest discussion with.
posted by evanizer at 2:06 PM on March 6, 2002
I loathe PC from the bottom of my gay heart; I'm not a child, and I don't need to be shielded from your opinions by falsehood. You seem much more reasonable and sensitive than most 'bigots' I've encountered. Please stay that way. It won't make you immune from my criticism, but it will make you someone worth having an honest discussion with.
posted by evanizer at 2:06 PM on March 6, 2002
It seems to me that any offended person (you don't need to belong to a target group to be offended) could only be appreciative of the growth and humility shown in a public forum bt StOne, as follows: [from the original thread] - "this discussion has caused me to re-evaluate my initial knee-jerk reaction ... My "problem with homosexuality", on further reflection, is my own problem--prejudice stemming from cultural conditioning ... [from this thread] ... I know I've caused resentment ... I understand that my comments were gratuitous ... My "disgust" rant was an ill-considered elaboration ... I do regret unnecessarily causing any distress to anyone ... I wouldn't want to be lumped-in with someone just trying to "fuck with people." ... I let the shock value at all the graphic anal talk blind me to the real issue, which appeared to be the intended effect of the FPP, so I guess maybe I got "trolled"..
I agree with Evan that we don't need "...the acceptance and approval of the bigot...": I do feel the need to acknowledge that StOne's more recent comments above are sensitive, open, honest and real: they are not the beliefs of the bigot. I applaud him.
Cheers, StOne.
BTW, all gay people are not bum-bandits; not all bum-bandits are gay.
- john.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:30 PM on March 6, 2002
I agree with Evan that we don't need "...the acceptance and approval of the bigot...": I do feel the need to acknowledge that StOne's more recent comments above are sensitive, open, honest and real: they are not the beliefs of the bigot. I applaud him.
Cheers, StOne.
BTW, all gay people are not bum-bandits; not all bum-bandits are gay.
- john.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:30 PM on March 6, 2002
Evanizer, I know you don't care whether you have my blessing, just as I posted with flagrant disregard for PCness (of course, you weren't among the complainers). And I'm sure anyone who's openly gay (calling oneself a queer takes more balls than calling somebody else one btw) has heard much worse, but perhaps some people become oversensitized rather than thick-skinned.
Likewise, I don't _need_ John's "applause" or "cheers" (but I appreciate it anyway, John). But I'll be just as polite as I feel like being, and I don't need your approval, damn it! (just another of my stupid jokes...must...stop...!)
By all means let's keep it honest. Thank you, gentlemen.
--We now return to our regularly scheduled entertainment: trolling, sniping, yelling and chair-throwing!
posted by StOne at 11:35 PM on March 6, 2002
Likewise, I don't _need_ John's "applause" or "cheers" (but I appreciate it anyway, John). But I'll be just as polite as I feel like being, and I don't need your approval, damn it! (just another of my stupid jokes...must...stop...!)
By all means let's keep it honest. Thank you, gentlemen.
--We now return to our regularly scheduled entertainment: trolling, sniping, yelling and chair-throwing!
posted by StOne at 11:35 PM on March 6, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
(I banned real9 after he posted that days ago, btw)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:07 PM on March 4, 2002