| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
 Posted - 01/23/2007 : 23:40:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Put it this way... What if someone did not mind being kicked in the shin? Could he therefore go around kicking other people in the shin (even in a pre-law society) because he felt like it?
Obviously not, as this is assault. It causes physical pain which is beyond one's control. His behaviour would soon cease as he'd be punched in the face regularly. I'd guess this is one good reason for S&M proponents to not randomly assault others, as very few would actually want to be assaulted.  |
 |
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 00:12:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
So IMO there's nothing to worry about, we aren't all gonna become racist bigots if those "coon" movies are added. I doubt I'll be reviewing any of them though (call it self-censorship).
But why would you exercise self-censorship in those cases but not in all the perfectly serious gay-themed films whose pages you have filled with homophobic terms? What is the difference? Please tell me, because the only one I can think of is that it's only racism that you think is wrong.
I think racism, sexism, sexual-orientation-ism (I use that term as the word "homophobia" implies a 'fear' which isn't entirely appropriate) are just as bad as each other, as they involve discrimination against someone for matters that are entirely beyond their control.
OK, on language. The only reason I don't use the term "nigger" is because if I did I'd probably be punched in the face by someone who incorrectly assumes that my use of the word illustrates my racism. In my view the quickest way to 'de-offensivise' a word is to use it as often as possible. If everyone used it 20 times a day it would very quickly become irrelevant and lose it's power. Actually I see the common use of it among Afro-Americans as the beginning of the end of it's offensiveness; it's only a small leap from blacks calling each other "nigger" to the point where they 'allow' a white friend of theirs who they know is not a racist to call them "nigger". I'm guessing that this day will come and I look forward to it. I look forward to calling a black guy "nigger" and him seeing it as a term of endearment synonymous with "dude" or "mate".
So, I approach "homophobic" terms in the same way (IMO there's no such thing as homophobic language, only in as far as it reflects homophobia in the user). I'm not a homophobe, and have probably used terms like "gay", "fairy", "queen" etc in my reviews as I've heard homosexuals use them so they've got the green light. I haven't used the word "faggot" in any review (not to my knowledge anyway, if I have let me know and I'll delete it) as this has only been used (to my knowledge) in a derogotary way by heteros and gays. But again, hopefully the day will come when this becomes commonly used and loses it's nastiness.
So, tell me, which are the reviews of mine you find "homophobic"? Feel free to list them, I'm not ashamed of any of my reviews.  I'm guessing you have a sensitivity threshold to "homophobic language" that is much higher than many other gays. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 00:39:40
|
I can pretty much guess how our Black users would feel about adding film titles including the word "coon", and my guess is that they would not appreciate it.
And neither would I.
|
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 00:53:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
OK, on language. The only reason I don't use the term "nigger" is because if I did I'd probably be punched in the face by someone who incorrectly assumes that my use of the word illustrates my racism. In my view the quickest way to 'de-offensivise' a word is to use it as often as possible. If everyone used it 20 times a day it would very quickly become irrelevant and lose it's power. Actually I see the common use of it among Afro-Americans as the beginning of the end of it's offensiveness; it's only a small leap from blacks calling each other "nigger" to the point where they 'allow' a white friend of theirs who they know is not a racist to call them "nigger". I'm guessing that this day will come and I look forward to it. I look forward to calling a black guy "nigger" and him seeing it as a term of endearment synonymous with "dude" or "mate".
I don't foresee this as something that will be achieved in any near future. The more probable reason that I see for blacks to use it to each other is to rob it of its power within that particular group, not within society as a whole. It's not going to achieve acceptability in the population as a whole. The trend is toward more political correctness. The problem I see with political correctness is that it creates more divisiveness than it dispells, because it has a snowball effect. Now maybe I'm naive, but the further we go as a society in delineating what's acceptable and what isn't, the more doors we open for disagreement, dissension and polarization. Someone spoke of the use of the word Hispanic, which is becoming more and more unpopular. I recall having a client who was Native American and Hispanic/Latin. The accepted term used in 20 odd years of description in his paperwork was Mestizo. No one ever questioned it until one day when his mother called up to tell us that was a slur. At the same time, we had another gentleman of the same ethnic backgrounds whose family saw no issue in it. The point being, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder and as time goes by, it becomes harder to determine what is going to be offensive. I have a lot of gay friends and I'm offended by being called a fag hag. Some people embrace it. |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 03:27:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
But because of many negative connotations attached to that label, when someone else calls me one, I will wince considerably, since I know they're calling me a racist, among other unsavoury things.
Hearing my own birth name makes me wince (so I use a nickname). It is an unusual name, given to me by my poor-white-trash-from-the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks mother as an attempt at creativity. Other kids in school made fun of my name, so hearing it is painful for me. I was the kid that was selected as the one to be peer-persecuted through 12 grades.
I still bear the emotional scars even now of having been tormented by my classmates.
My point is, you don't have to be gay or a person of color to have suffered from discrimination. Most of the gay kids and Black kids were much more liked and treated better than I was.
So, get over yourselves. What the hell is wrong with a movie about coon hunting, anyhow? My dad was an avid coon hunter and I loved having the coon dogs around.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 07:07:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by duh
I still bear the emotional scars even now of having been tormented by my classmates.
I have that too, but not because of my name or being Jewish, but hey...
quote:
My point is, you don't have to be gay or a person of color to have suffered from discrimination. Most of the gay kids and Black kids were much more liked and treated better than I was.
Well, as Livie said
quote:
The point being, offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder and as time goes by, it becomes harder to determine what is going to be offensive. I have a lot of gay friends and I'm offended by being called a fag hag. Some people embrace it.
See, I don't mind being called a "fag hag" at all.
quote:
So, get over yourselves. What the hell is wrong with a movie about coon hunting, anyhow? My dad was an avid coon hunter and I loved having the coon dogs around.
Um... I don't think the movie is about hunting RAcoons.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:09:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
I think Downtown and I pretty much agree on how we should deal with offensive reviews. Don't vote for them and, if the review is particularly offensive, feel free to PM benj or the reviewer telling them how you feel. I did it once for a review for Jewish Football that is still there, though it has since been disowned to Alan Smithee (not good enough IMO, but so be it).
This is a nice idea, but (i) they still get loads of votes anyway, (ii) an offensive review with no votes is still offensive, (iii) an offensive review under Smithee is the worst of all because the writer is unwilling to stand by it and it adds to Smithee overtaking proper reviewers, and (iv) I think it is better to air such reviews here so that everyone can state their opinions about them.
quote:
But this is a different, albiet related, topic to the one I brought up. I'd like to hear benj's comments on this, but I would also like to hear what people think about the addition of movies with racist vocabulary in the titles and in their content and not just racism in general or even racism on FWFR in general.
As I've said, I don't care either way. Mentioning demeaning terms' use in the past is not in itself offensive. The advantage would be that right-minded people could submit clever anti-racist reviews. The disadvantage would be that it would work against these terms becoming obsolete. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:15:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Hmmm. Consider all the shit John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, caught when she calmly told people she was an African-American. She is! She was born in Mozambique! So, has that term become racist in and of itself? Evidently so...
I hadn't heard about this. (Hadn't heard of her either - just checked and seen that she is white.) This is good evidence why it is foolish to try to pinpoint one's ancestry to a specific place (or to describe race in this way), since with the exception of some Africans, all of us have ancestors from multiple places. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:17:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by GHcool
"gay" (meaning "homosexual") is a neutral, albiet colloquial, term
Um, no.
Um, yes.
No, it's really not. It's a non-technical term (as almost all words are), but that's not the same as it being colloquial. I checked in the O.E.D. before posting and it's rightly not listed as a colloquialism. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/24/2007 11:08:49 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:25:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
The reason why I don't think that crosses the line is because it's basically just a variation on Woods's own nickname which he himself markets himself under.
I'm not sure that follows. I am guessing at where you may mean 'Tiger' comes from (though Wikipedia doesn't agree), but even if this is true it doesn't mean that terms that seem equivalent to others can justifiably be used. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 10:27:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Second, the word "coon" is a hateful pejorative that, unlike the other word you're alluding to, has never found even a teasing place within the black community.
Quite.
quote:
It produces a similar reaction to the one Brits get in the States when they bandy around the word "c--t."
Would this absolutely offend anyone there then? (Most people here would still not like it, but plenty including me couldn't care less.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/24/2007 10:29:04 |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 11:01:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Second, the word "coon" is a hateful pejorative that, unlike the other word you're alluding to, has never found even a teasing place within the black community.
Quite.
quote:
It produces a similar reaction to the one Brits get in the States when they bandy around the word "c--t."
Would this absolutely offend anyone there then? (Most people here would still not like it, but plenty including me couldn't care less.)
Yes, this word is far more offensive in the States, unlike the word "fanny," which is thought here to be a mild term for what you would call the "bum." It would not be unusual to hear a child use the word. As we know, "fanny" means something quite different in the UK. |
Edited by - randall on 01/24/2007 11:04:01 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 11:08:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
Yes, this word is far more offensive in the States, unlike the word "fanny," which is thought here to be a mild term for what you would call the "bum." It would not be unusual to hear a child use the word. As we know, "fanny" means something quite different in the UK.
It would be surprising (and maybe mildly shocking) to hear a child use it here, but in general it just sounds a bit out of date/ridiculous nowadays. It would always raise a laugh to hear it used in American English contexts, though ("Ooh, something's sticking in my fanny" etc.)! |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 15:37:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
[quote]Originally posted by Salopian
Obviously not, as this is assault. It causes physical pain which is beyond one's control.
Well, many would argue that one can rise above physical pain quite successfully. However, the more important thing is that you're going back to this idea that it is people's own fault if they find demeaning language to be demeaning. This is not true. This is a factual aspect of these words, and objecting to someone's unacceptable attitudes is not something that one should want to wish away. I'd much rather be kicked in the shin than witness someone using this type of vocabulary. By 'this is assault', I don't really see how that's a reason. Do you mean because it is a crime? People should do what is right, not just what the law allows. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 01/24/2007 : 16:22:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
the word "homophobia" implies a 'fear' which isn't entirely appropriate
No, -phobia means 'extreme fear or dislike', which is why it is also in xenophobia etc. Also, when it comes down to these sort of attitudes, the hatred ultimately comes down to fear anyway.
quote:
The only reason I don't use the term "nigger" is because if I did I'd probably be punched in the face by someone who incorrectly assumes that my use of the word illustrates my racism.
This is clearly false. You do not use that term in your reviews and there is essentially no chance of your being punched in the face based on people reading this site. Also, I find it rather bizarre that fear of violence to yourself is a stronger motivation to you than not wanting to demean others.
quote:
In my view the quickest way to 'de-offensivise' a word is to use it as often as possible. If everyone used it 20 times a day it would very quickly become irrelevant and lose it's power. Actually I see the common use of it among Afro-Americans as the beginning of the end of it's offensiveness; it's only a small leap from blacks calling each other "nigger" to the point where they 'allow' a white friend of theirs who they know is not a racist to call them "nigger". I'm guessing that this day will come and I look forward to it. I look forward to calling a black guy "nigger" and him seeing it as a term of endearment synonymous with "dude" or "mate".
This is a common idea. Yes, this reclamation of language does go on. However, its function by the group in question is to disarm the majority who previously used the term. There is not supposed to be cross-over back into that majority. I realise that that could not be stopped and that there is no overall consciousness to this process anyway, but I think that that would be a negative thing. The reason for this is that the connotations of words do not easily fade. Yes, word meanings change over time, but they are actually amazingly constant in most cases and nuances only rarely disappear. For this reason (or historical ones or others) there are highly likely to always be many black people who do not go along with this 'de-offensivisation' or even just its use by black people themselves. Those who do so are not somehow in charge.
quote:
So, I approach "homophobic" terms in the same way (IMO there's no such thing as homophobic language, only in as far as it reflects homophobia in the user).
I know that this is your whole concept, but it's just off the wall. Like I've said again and again, nuances are a real part of words' meanings. Thus if I use a word not intending all of its nuances, that is just my fault. All the terms in question were coined specifically in the context of demeaning gay people. Their tone irrevocably encapsulates this. The same goes for racist terms. Nigger isn't just a word that happened to become racist. It was created to be patronising and dismissive. Here's a scenario for you: Assume a society the same as ours except that you could not be punished or attacked for doing this. If you found a load of N.F. posters saying 'NIGGER' and you knew a school where they needed drawing paper, would you suggest that they could use the blank backs of these posters?
quote:
I'm not a homophobe, and have probably used terms like "gay", "fairy", "queen" etc in my reviews as I've heard homosexuals use them so they've got the green light.
Let's make clear that gay is fine by everyone; don't put that in the same category. (I, like a lot of people, do not think this or black or white should be used as nouns though. The reason for this is that using adjectives as nouns is the type of thing that is normally applied to objects or animals and is thus a bit demeaning, though it is preferable to the use of the other terms.)
Gay people really do not use fairy or queen in an everyday fashion. They might be used in specific contexts, especially critical ones, but/therefore you should not assume that they are generally acceptable. They both criticise effeminate behaviours. The reason that it is not as bad for a gay person to use them (though still not ideal) is that it is clear they are not criticising them for being gay, whereas if you used them it would never be possible to eliminate the chance that that was your intention.
quote:
I haven't used the word "faggot" in any review (not to my knowledge anyway, if I have let me know and I'll delete it) as this has only been used (to my knowledge) in a derogotary way by heteros and gays.
I would say that this, and especially fag, are preferable to the above too, perhaps because they do not refer to certain types of behaviours. This, poof and especially queer are used by gay people in something like the manner of nigger by some black people. I don't think that straight people should use them, but they are not so bad. Faggot is perhaps the worst of this set, though.
quote:
So, tell me, which are the reviews of mine you find "homophobic"?
Any using any term indicating gay people other than gay or homosexual would be homophobic to a degree, even if you could be proven not to be homophobic. As I've said, this comes from the words themselves. Once they are out there, they are their own thing - you are not in charge of them any longer. Another aspect to all of this (or perhaps another way of putting it), which I realise that I won't convince you of, is that it therefore just is homophobic to think it's acceptable to use these terms. It need not be homophobia by malice - it's like homophobia by negligence (i.e. neglecting to incorporate words' connotations into one's attempt at communication). Finally, all cases of people using terms ironically/internally/regardless of connotations contribute towards people who are unambiguously prejudiced thinking that they are acceptable. (I'm slightly guilty in this regard.) |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 01/25/2007 11:08:13 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Film of highly questionable taste
