It goes further. Raj, a self proclaimed “bottom” defends Steverino’s use of the homophobic slur.
Speaking as a bottom…
That sounds like a homophobic slur.
…not necessarily. “Bottom boy” could very well be a reference to bottom feeders, as in bottom-feeding fish like catfish. If you were from the South, you’d know that catfish were and are considered trash fish. Kind of like bottom-feeding shellfish–like lobster–used to be.
As some would but it, puh-leeze.
Later in the discussion Raj does a little better job of defending the Steverino.
What you are doing, by objecting to Steverino’s use of terms such as “business’s bitches” and “bottom boys” and assuming that it is an anti-gay slur, is maintaining the same stereotype that I saw a decade ago on FreeRepublic.com: assuming that the only homosexuals are the bottoms. I suppose that the tops were presumed to be–straight. There are a number of reasons for that–the primary one being the fact that anti-homosexual fervor is basically misogyny. And the FreieRepublikaner were a bit dumb-struck when I asked them who we bottom boys got to top us.
But it is obvious that what Steverino was trying to convey is that the people he was referring to were subservient to other interests. Colorful way of putting it, to be sure. Anti-homosexual? Not really. And it isn’t in league with Ann Coultergeist’s comment, which was obviously intended to denigrate John Edwards’s masculinity*. Quite frankly, Steverino’s comment might have been intended to demean somebody’s masculinity, but it isn’t clear that the people he was referring to were even male. Maureen Dowd certainly isn’t, and, as far as I can tell, Judith “Bush administration stenographer” Miller isn’t, either. Context is important.
While I appreciate the time Raj took to respond on this subject, his answer is BS.
As Gary said:
Right. And a fagot is a bundle of sticks
As Raj points out, “bottoms” could also be heterosexual women, but Steverino used “bottom boys” not just “bottom”. “Straight”/heterosexual men can not be “bottoms” as Raj has defined it (the receiver of anal sex as a willing participant), by the definition of the term heterosexual. A man that is a “bottom” can be either bisexual or homosexual. This also applies to a man that is a “top” with a male “bottom”. I know I will ketch some flack for saying this, but that is what the words “homosexual”, “heterosexual” and “bisexual” mean.
My point is that steverino could only be making a homophobic slur with the term “bottom boy”. Yet their was no outrage. Why?
The hypocrisy continues later, when after Peter Porcupine makes this remark:
Raj – I believe the term ‘bottom boy’ has a rather more robust etymology than a reference to the missionary position.
Or, as Truman Capote one wrote, “I pitch, but I don’t catch.”
To which Laurel responded:
How do you know so much about anal sodomy Peter?
I mean, that is what you’re inferring the phrase means, right? Oh that’s right, I forget that anal sodomy is a major heterosexual passtime. But for some reason heterosexuals, especially those against LBGT equality, like to pretend it’s only something “those people” would engage in. Why is that do you suppose? Is it because they’re raised to be ashemed of sex, and so project their own self-loathing onto a vulnerable minority? I guess you know what I think.
Again, the term was “bottom boys” not “bottom” and why go after PP when steverino was the one who used the slur?
This is similar to the hypocrisy of other “hate speach” words. Mitt Romney was soundly criticized for using the term “tar baby.” While John Kerry did not recieve any criticizism for using the same term. And let’s not forget about the use of the word “nigger” by Senator Byrd as recently as 2001 and their was no objection from the left.
Why is there this hypocrisy on the terms deemed as “hate speech” based on political idealology?
“Bottom boy” is a term of art among gays. It is a sexual term. Perhaps, JK, you find it homophobic because you find actual homosexual sex icky and this is a term that touches on sex among gay men. It is much more explicitly sexual than reflections on gay couples filing jointly.
<
p>
If the people being hated do not think this is hate speech, it is difficult for you, a man married to a wife, to argue that it is. Certainly, there are enough gay men on this board, some of them even self-identified bottoms, that if it were offensive Steverino would be hearing about it.
<
p>
Now, possibly in a different context, for example on a conservative blog of the type you were more used to visiting, the term “bottom boy” might have an extra spin of shock or negativity. That’s because homophobes are well-represented, alas, on the right, so the cultural context is much more one of hating “teh gay”. An explicit reference to a gay sexual practice would seem super-icky.
<
p>
Here it is not read that way.
<
p>
May I extend to you, another welcome to the world of liberal discourse, JK?
First, I admitted feel that male homosexual sex is “icky”. I also believe that homosexuality is a “nature” thing not a “nurture” thing and that no amount of exposure to it would change that impression for me. That being said, I believe that anyone is entitled to have what ever sexual preference they prefer as long as they don’t force/hurt any one else.
<
p>
I do not disagree that the term “bottom boy” is a “term of art among gays” but so are “faggot” and “queer” and many other words that are labeled as “hate speech” based on content. And the content that steverino used the terms in was to insult the “business bitches” journalists he was referring to.
<
p>
Regardless as to weather the source was liberal or conservative, it is the use of the term in context, it was intended as an insult, that makes it “hate speech”.
<
p>
You have some what confirmed the core of my problem with how this is being handled. It is being ignored because someone of liberal persuasion said it. The various self identified homosexuals on this page are ignoring it as a slur because steverino said it, hell raj even defended it. But if PP, Gary, Jeremy, RRRM, demolisher or myself said it we would be condemned for using a homophobic slur. As PP was called to task for using a quote from Capote to try and clarify a point. This is my problem, the different sets of rules for different people.
<
p>
Is this done for the convenience of being able to not call to task a fellow liberal or is this something deeper. Are liberals in favor of different sets of rules for different peoples, say based on their political idealology, race, sexual preference, personal wealth, etc.?
“Bottom boy” is not a slur. Honestly, I think your ick-reaction is what makes you think so. The ick-reaction, by the way, tends to be social not biological. Interracial marriages used to provoke ick reactions widely; they hardly do anymore.
“Bottom boy” is not a slur if it is used to insult someone?
<
p>
Then why is “faggot” or “queer” or “receiver” or “catcher” or any of the other terms that have been deemed as insults that also have other meanings or can be used in non insulting contexts? I remember when I was getting out of college the “code word” for someone you thought was homosexual was “suspect”? That term clearly could be used without insulting people in other context.
<
p>
Again, the bottom line is that Steverino used “bottom boy” as an insult.
<
p>
As far as the nature vs. nurture, social vs. biological, we could argue that for years. But it is not paramount to this discussion so I will leave it aside for now.
In the sentence,
is goat a slur, an insult, hate speech, ageist, or taxonomic?
Perhaps if Steverino said “bottom boys with bad taste”, it would have satisfied you?
<
p>
Steverino’s comments, though, unlike mine are terse, succinct, and sharp.
That I oftentimes find it hard to apply it to the group it was originally meant to apply to. Example: I was at new york bagel in Dartmouth with friends. I was wearing my College Republicans shirt. Some random person slapped me on the back and said “nice shirt, faggot.” I’ve been called a Nazi, Fascist, warmonger…but not “faggot”. It was a confusing experience, reminiscent of when I was campaigning for Phil Paleologos and someone yelled out their window that I was a “baby-killer”. Normally I respond to heckling with a smile and a wave, but the best I could muster was a confused look.
<
p>
There just comes a point where homophobic, racist, and sexist hate speech just get snowballed into plain old hatespeak.
Do you want someone from On High to say “You may use these words” and “You may not use these words”? That way the six of you can use whatever words you want and we won’t jump on you.
<
p>
The problem is that “hate speech” is not a grammatical or syntactic category. It is a social category. Context matters. One can say the words “You did a good job” and convey a broad array of meanings. Boston used to have a monthly magazine of thought, poetry, opinion, and, uh, other things called Fag Rag. The editors and contributors even had some notion of faggot as distinct kind of gay man. Calling someone a faggot in the pages of Fag Rag has a very different feel from Coulter’s using the same word. (Do read Greenwald.)
<
p>
I note among conservatives a tendency to imagine we liberals all think alike. You might have the misimpression that all liberals are language police. We aren’t. I don’t know if you think that or not, but it bears pointing out.
<
p>
Please excuse my climbing in your head a bit further. By reading RGM, I note that Steverino irritates you. (Maybe all six of you.) Wouldn’t it be nice to have a rule he’s violated — maybe even a liberally sanctioned rule? I’m sure you think you have found such a rule here.
<
p>
You haven’t. So you must continue to bear his scorn stoically.
is that when it has been deemed that the use of certain words as an insult is “hate speech” that liberals are held to the same standard.
<
p>
By the way, in case you didn’t gather it by my use of quotes, I hate the whole “hate speech” thing. I think we all know when people or groups are being insulted. When someone uses “faggot” at a heterosexual man as a way of insulting them for wimping out of something, this is not meant to condem all homosexuals.
<
p>
Honest question, what is “RGM”?
<
p>
By the way, steverino does irritate me. Not because he holds a different point of view. Because he routinely tries to insult those who don’t agree with him, gives zeros and 3s to those he disagrees with, and routinely “demands” people back up their point of view but when the same is asked of him he pulls a duck-and-cover and tries to change the topic.
<
p>
Oh, I read the Greenwald piece and found it very interesting. Many of the points are some of the problems I have the Republican party and why I refuse to call myself a Republican. It also calls out some of the concerns I have about the conservative political movement. If you have moment, here are a couple of posts I made on RedMassGroup about this.
and he meant RMG, redmassgroup
was Red Mass Group. I had read one of those posts and skimmed the other.
<
p>
I can’t speak for Steverino, but he seems to operate similarly. In your Two Faces post, you express the interest in being better able to debate liberals — and presumably win those debates. In my “why I’m here” comment, I said what I care about is progressive unity because I don’t think we fight for what we believe. For me, the Blue Dog waffling on Iraq or the loss of Connecticut Democratic votes to Lieberman or the readiness with which liberals believe bad things about liberals are very important. In Massachusetts, at least, I don’t yet have to learn how to convince Republicans or conservatives. What I do want to do is see Democrats, moderate and liberal, united, fighting, and winning.
<
p>
So for that reason, I am not always going to rise to the challenge of debating you. If something’s a settled question on the center-left (progressive taxation or the critique of privitization), I’m not going to research it to prove it to you because that’s just not important to you. If I refer to something generally believed on the center-left, I don’t feel I have to back it up — unless presented with overlooked data or a fresh analysis.
<
p>
I know you want us to be your debating buddies, but I’m afraid I care a lot more about what the moderate Democrats think and I’m much more willing to run around researching things to convince them or to learn from them.
The clause that’s just not important to you should read that’s just not important to me.
Note to JK: The gay rights movement spent many years getting major publications to use the word “gay” rather than the medical sounding “homosexual”. I know no one who would say he or she was a “self-identified homosexual”.
<
p>
I think your homophobia meter needs a tune up.
I would have thought it an insult to use “gay”. Also, I do perfer to use as precise language as possible.
JK, you’re too funny!
you admit you know so little about gays that you don’t even know that the term “gay” is not just not insulting, it is generally preferred. then, in this state of (friendly, i’ll assume) ignorance, you proceed to get indignant over what, from your uninformed hetero viewpoint, you think must be an anti-gay slur. what you have done, JK, is demonstrate the conservative (or just young person’s?) protensity to think you know more about other people than they do. i’m glad that you posted this diary, because through it i hope you can learn something. instead of trying to win points off of liberals, maybe it would be more worthwhile to actually observe and listen to how we communicate and what we find important. then you will be equipped to engage us in meaningful discussion that has value to both parties. willing to give it a try?
<
p>
p.s. what makes you think i wear panties? 😉
but your defense of the term “bottom boys” just does not make sense to me.
<
p>
I completely understand what the term “bottom boy” means. I even explained that above. Do you disagree with anything I have concluded about the meaning of that term?
<
p>
While there are things about the LGBT community I don’t know and quite frankly don’t care to know when it comes to the actual details of the acts, I don’t need to know these things to understand why “fag” or “pillow bitter” or “carpet muncher” are insults to people in that community. I also didn’t need to know everything about the LBGT community to agree that marriage should be extended to that community.
<
p>
As I have already asked,
<
p>
<
p>
p.s. the panties line filled my hetero head full of sexy thoughts
regarding the appropriate use of language has nothing to do with an appreciation for “precision.” “Gay” and “lesbian” have been the terms used in serious discourse on these issues for years. You are not authorized to determine how one community chooses to identify itself. How do you come by that power? Are you going to tell us now that you reject black or African American and instead choose to use Negro because you believe it is “precise”? Do you not see the hubris inherent in such a position?
<
p>
Steverino’s language was not hate speech. Hate speech betrays and openly communicates a bitter enmity towards a particular group. Steverino’s posts here have always been supportive of the rights of gays and lesbians. To my knowledge, he has never uttered a homophobic remark on this site. You, therefore, are in no position to either a) characterize him or his speech based on sensibilities you impose on him or b) appropriate and espouse sensibilities you clearly don’t hold in order to suit your own rhetorical purposes.
<
p>
IOW, your position on this matter appears self-serving and ill-informed. Indeed, there’s the merest whiff of expediency and exploitation about it, as well.
JK – did you take the comment as being anti-homosexual? I would think that if people perceived it to be that way he would have been called on it.
<
p>
At the same time, justly or unjustly if you made a similar post I’m not sure of the reaction. Which I think is why you wanted to put this out there.
<
p>
I do think that people’s perception will be based on other posts and you have been mostly about discussion on issues. Comments do get heated at times. If it were from some other un-named posters of the same political persuasion they might get a different response. Again, opinion based upon history of the poster.
I don’t believe I have read other posts by steverino that made me think he was homophobic. However, PP was called out for her quote of Truman Capote. I don’t believe she has a history of homophobic slurs.
<
p>
When John Depitro called Matt Amerillo “fag Matt” there was considerable outrage even though he followed that line by saying “I don’t mean in a homosexual way, just the way you call someone a sissy boy.” Same with Ann Coulter on Edwards, she obviously wasn’t calling his sexual preference into questions, it was comment on his “intestinal fortitude”. And don’t get me started about the hate that was sent towards the NFL because Rex Grossman and other players reacted to two guys kissing as “gross” and asked “did they really have to kiss? Ew!”
<
p>
As I said above, if this type of slur is called out when only non-liberals use it, that is wrong. That establish two different sets of rules based on political idealology. Does that mean that any liberals who comment on religion are practicing “hate speech” against the church? Were do the different sets of rules end?
Sometimes you just have to brush it off. Someone I went to High School with was a atheist secular humanist. He would comment how he looked forward to a state on non-existence following death, I would reply that I looked forward to seeing him in Hell……….from Heaven.
<
p>
I think everyone, myself included at times, just needs to stop being so damned sensitive.
I would reply that I looked forward to seeing him in Hell You haven’t reflected on what that literally means?
was for the sake of parallel structure, however, since salvation is achieved through faith and the grace of God alone, by his own admission he would be condemned to Hell.
<
p>
I didn’t literally look forward to it, for more than once I attempted to make him see the light. I find myself to be good at many things; missionary is not one of them.
Russell makes of the belief in Hell one of his central arguments against Christianity. Europeans oppose the death penalty, but Christians support — eternal torment?
But the sacrament of reconciliation allows a person to make amends with God and be forgiven of their sins no matter what transgressions have been committed. See parable: The Prodigal Son. “It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.” If a man is condemned to eternal torment, it will be by his own accord, for no man who embraces God with sincerity will be denied eternal paradise.
but not your bad thoughts.
but I am not sure what you were referring to.
not, like spelling, a syntactic or lexical construction.
There was a poster who insisted on denigrating the Christian Scriptures by referring to them as the Wholly Babble. This same poster also refers to the RCCi, or Roman Catholic Church, incorporated, and anywhere he doesn’t like as JesusLand. I was the only person to call him on it, though some did give my comments some high marks.
<
p>
Still, it was a noticeable difference a few days later when Ann Coulter called Edwards a faggot and there were 84 comments on David’s post. Why is it you think that everyone was so quick to jump on language offensive to gays, but no one seemed to care when it was Christians that were getting made fun of?
because one was two commenters on a blog and the other a syndicated columnist speaking at CPAC about a presidential candidate that was widely reported in the media?
<
p>
That’s just a guess.
although I am not answering for that poster.
<
p>
The RCC and most other large-scale christian institutions, like the republican party, are actively working to keep LGBT citizens from fully exercising their civil rights. I too sometimes say derrogatory things about the RCC and related institutions. Wouldn’t you, if the Pope himself declared you a menace to Western Civilization and made his organization an instrument of your opression? So what we have here is the elephant complaining that the ant under it’s foot is complaining for getting squashed. Should we expect the ant to smile sweetly and thank the elephant for the pleasure of the squashing?
<
p>
A menace to Western Civilization? I think thats a bit much, don’t you? Also, I’m sure he has said some things about agnostics like myself but I don’t feel like I am an ant getting squashed by an elephant. Further, which institution do you think has more pull in this state, the Catholic Church or the gay rights movement? I think Eileen Issacson’s calls get returned a lot faster than Cardinal Sean’s these days.
<
p>
In my first post here on BMG I said why I don’t think marriage – gay or otherwise – is a civil right, so I disagree that the Church is actively working to deny them to you. If it didn’t was trying to prevent you from voting, well, then, that would be a different matter.
<
p>
Finally, the Church is not an instrument of your oppression at all. The US Bishops pastoral message on gays was entitled “Always Our Children.” They put it out TEN years ago. They may disagree with you on some policy issues, but they are hardly an oppressor.
are you really that ignorant of your own church? Ask Sean O’Malley yourself – he has never hidden the fact that he worked hand in glove with the other religious conservatives to get out the anti-gay, anti-equality amendment. In fact he sacked some priests who refused to circulate the petition on “Kill Civil Rights Sunday.” The Pope has made numerous statements about how sick gay people are, how marriage equality will ruin “the family”, etc. You call that love? Then please, don’t love me!
<
p>
As for the pastoral message, let me try this on you: “We believe that people ignorant of the political innerworkings of their own church are pathetically delusional, bring harm to themselves and the children who they recruit into this belief, and are psychologically ill. But we love them. We love the ignorant & deluded, while we hate the ignorance & delusion.” Well, how do you like it when the pastoral message paints you as something I’m sure you don’t believe correctly describes you. now you know what I think of the spit shine of love the RCC’s pastoral message is meant to put on their actual hateful anti-gay agenda.
but thats not the point (I’m a he, but thats not the point either :)). Its been a long time since I read Always Our Children, but I am fairly certain the words delusional and mentally ill never appear in it. However, it does say that we must love everyone, no matter what their sexual orientation is. It does say that everyone, gay and straight alike, is made in the image of God and is thus entitled to respect, dignity and love. They will continue that respect, dignity and love, whether Laural wants it or not.
<
p>
Again, I don’t believe marriage is a right, much less a civil right. Is it a public good? Yes. Is it a right? No. Is it a civil right, a specific type of right that allows you access to government by voting, assembling, petitioning for a redress, etc? Most certainly not. To want to limit who can get married is not to “kill civil rights.”
<
p>
Since you have no stake in the lives and relationships of consenting adult strangers, i.e., who they sleep with, who they rear children with, one can only infer that your opposition, then, to same-sex marriage is an attempt to preserve some sort of purity in our social structure. Why else would anyone wish to impose their views on perfect strangers?
If people are going out and having wanton promiscuous sex and spreading venereal disease, then that is a concern to me. Who rears children is an utmost to me and to society at large.
<
p>
However, you are right, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is of no concern to me. My opposition comes not from any religious views but rather my adherence to a teleological philosophy. I believe of the many telos((es?) – how do you make a Greek word plural?) of marriage, procreation is one of them. To remove any telos from anything, not just marriage, is to abuse it.
Who are you? Why should strangers you have never met, and never will, need your approval to order their personal and financial affairs as you see fit?
<
p>
Who cares what you think?
<
p>
<
p>
You don’t seem to think very much about your positions before you arrive at them, do you? You know, those positions that give you right to tell other people whether they can marry or not?
<
p>
Perhaps you didn’t cover this in grad school, but you don’t need to be married to fuck. You don’t need to be married to give birth. You don’t need to be married to adopt.
<
p>
You don’t need to be married to have children.
<
p>
But you do need to be married to keep your your children from losing their home when one parent dies. To let your child see both parents in the hospital. Or to give your child a response when a jackass tells her, that’s not really your mommy.
<
p>
But, you don’t really want to think about that. Or the fact that we regularly marry people who are sterile, or past the age of fertility.
<
p>
You just want to tell other people, people who you have never met, and never will, how they will conduct their most private affairs.
<
p>
Because of your, you know, “teleology.”
<
p>
Perhaps we should abolish constitutional democracy and replace it with government by grad school papers.
I never said marriage was a precondition for procreation. All I said was that having and raising children is an integral part of marriage. Not everyone agrees with me, and thats fine, but if they get to articulate their views so do I.
<
p>
I have a friend who is a prostitute. We had dinner last week and I just spoke to her on the phone this afternoon to make plans for this weekend. She makes way, way, WAY, more money than I do, but her profession is illegal.
<
p>
Still, society has deemed it fit to outlaw her profession. They have given a stamp of disapproval of the way she has chosen to “order [her] personal and financial affairs as [she] sees fit” even though most people have never and will never meet her. Thats unfortunate; shes really a great girl.
Who cares what you think? Why do you feel empowered to impose your sensibilities on others, on other people’s children? The law doesn’t afford you that authority, why do you think you have some moral authority to do so?
<
p>
As has been pointed out to you, you have NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER over who has children and who raises them. Should abuse be an issue, then our collective society steps in on behalf of ALL of us to protect these children, but short of that, what you think about the sexual orientation, values, opinions, or beliefs is positively irrelevant. Indeed, I should think you’d be more concerned with the marrying habits of violent hate-filled bigots and their desire to procreate and indoctrinate their children than you would two people of the same sex who simply love each and share the values society, in general, shares.
<
p>
As for the “spreading of venereal disease,” what are YOU to do about it? Are YOU to say these people can’t have sex? Are YOU to take away their children? Sterilize them? Isolate them in small neighborhoods? Incarcerate them? Hmmm…..sound like another regime of the early and mid 20th century to you? BTW, venereal disease is a public health concern, not a moral concern.
<
p>
That you feel empowered to actively IMPOSE, by legislation, your interpretation of “teleological philosophy” on the real lives is others is something bordering on pathological. Your hubris is astounding.
We impose our sensibilities on others all the time. Perhaps not you or I directly as we are not legislators, but indirectly through our elected officials.
<
p>
I never said I thought venereal disease was a moral concern. I never even said I thought there should be a legislative ban on promiscuous sex. All I said was it is a concern to me. Perhaps I should have been more clear in saying I thought it was a public health concern. I apologize. I also never said I thought there was or should be a law about who can and can not raise children. I do worry about bigots raising children but I recognize that they have the right to do so, just the same as you or I do, and they can teach them whatever they want.
<
p>
Do I have direct control over who does? No. However we as a society put laws into place that directly and indirectly influence the decisions people make. Couples make conscious decisions every day to try and have kids or to try and avoid the possibility. These decisions are at least partially influenced by the law and the economic conditions the law helps create.
<
p>
We all have philosophies by which we order our lives and our societies. We all act and vote in accordance with them. Mine happens to have a fancy Greek name but I am sure you have one too. You don’t just randomly support this policy and not that one, you don’t choose the first candidate on the ballot this race and the third on the ballot in that race.
…it is controlled by the state–hence it is civil. The right to marry is also controlled by the state.
<
p>
The only issue for “civil rights” purposes is whether discrimination–that is, the categories of persons or couples who the state does permit to marry in contrast to the categories of persons or categories that the state does not permit to marry–has at least a rational basis.
The usual argument, based on dreamed-up sociology, is that Marriage is the Foundation of Western Civilization. Marriage is sanctioned by the Church. To change it, will strike at the basis of Western Civilization and – and – and cause all the feathers to come out of the pillows.
<
p>
Yes, it is an incoherent picture. Our country has plenty of heterosexual men working hard at adjusting to the changed expectations of marriage, expectations that are quite different from 1950 or 1900. And Denmark remains civilized.
<
p>
But Laurel’s point is correct. They really do portray this as foundational thing.
It is the epitome of too many exchanges on BMG.
<
p>
I made a joke about farting, but I meant it.
<
p>
This is a typical pattern: Someone utterly unread in an issue tosses out an off-the-cuff opinion, one that’s ill-informed, behind the times and out of touch. Like the kind of offhand remark you’d make in a bar.
<
p>
Or, in other cases, it’s a Republican spouting regurgitated talking points that they received predigested like a chick from a mother bird.
<
p>
And it’s always the informed progressive’s job to provide all the research, all the backup and all the sources on a silver platter.
<
p>
Am I supposed to waste my time providing the links for the Catholic Church’s enormous funding of the Massachusetts Family Institute? For affiliate James Dobson’s comparison of equal marriage proponents to Hitler? For physical violence by a Catholic “leader” against equality supporters?
<
p>
There’s an old saying, “Everyone is entitled to his opinion.”
<
p>
You know what? It’s just an old saying.
because RMG is so bloody lousy that it’s members are driven here out of sheer despiration?
<
p>
OK kidding aside (I was kidding, wasn’t I?), I engage in these exchanges for every reason, depending on my frame of mind. But it is never a waste of my time. My knowledge base is getting more organized and I am better versed in the art of verbal & ideological chess for it. It’s a new realm for me, and BMG is a great learning environment.
…And I have done so many times before, and I will do so many times again, as long as the people who attack gay people use excerpts from their heavily abridged and poorly many times translated scriptures to attack gay people.
<
p>
Apparently you are unable to understand the phonetic reference regarding Wholly Babble I will explain it all to you. It’s a pun on both the reference in the Wholly Babble of the tower of Babel, and the accents of the people in JesusLand. I’m from there. I know the accents.
<
p>
BTW, yes, the RCCi is little more than a corporation. Actually, it’s little more than a Mafia hit. If you want to dispute that, we can discuss that another day.
as a pig lagoon.
<
p>
You better get off your high horse before you get a groin pull.
<
p>
First of all, JK, they just don’t make enough crack to make us believe that you — you, a straight, male, married conservative who still calls gays “homosexuals” and “icky”-have a shred of credibility as the Defender of the Fays.
<
p>
You couldn’t care less about hate speech or gay sensibilities. You’re just trying to defend Ann Coulter and her massive conservative following of pimply fake-macho dorkboys who would sooner brown their shorts than march into Mike’s gym and call a gay bodybuilder a “faggot.”
<
p>
And you do it with your usual tactic — changing the subject, ginning up fake outrage, and blowing smoke to obfuscate simple obvious truths.
<
p>
Second, when it comes to the actual language I used, you’re so far out of touch with reality you can’t even get a satellite hookup.
<
p>
Who said “business’s bitches” and “bottom-boys” referred to gay people? You did, O all-wise arbiter of PC sensitivity.
<
p>
But they don’t refer to gay people at all. They refer to prison. Where, unless I have my demographics badly confused, the overwhelming majority of prisoners are straight.
<
p>
To bitch for someone in prison — to be his bottom-boy — is to totally submit, sexually and otherwise, to the guy at the top. To be completely loyal and subservient. To gain a status high in the pecking order, but at the expense of becoming somebody else’s slave.
<
p>
To be bought for a pack of cigarettes.
<
p>
And this?prison sex?is what you think gay relationships are? I have never read anything more homophobic in my entire life.
<
p>
Gee, what’s your next recommendation? Would you suggest we stop criticizing cheap people because that’s offensive to Jews? Should we avoid writing articles on funding cuts for the mentally retarded because Poles might get pissed off?
<
p>
Anything else from the Archie Bunker school of cultural sensitivity you’d like to share?
<
p>
So there. Now you’re edumacated. Did you learn anything?
<
p>
Who knows.
<
p>
For all I care, you can go jump in a lagoon.
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that Steverino’s use of “bottom boy” was homophobic. From your comments, it appears that you aren’t gay, but I am. If you want my bona fides, I’ll give you my two handles at gay.com, if you want to look at my profiles–just ask. And, since I’m gay, I’m going to pull rank on you. I’m sure that you are trying to pull a correspondence between what Steverino wrote and what Ann Coultergeist said about John Edwards, but the correspondence just doesn’t hold water. Ann Coultergeist was speaking of a specific person, specifically John Edwards. Steverino was using a descriptive term (more later) regarding an indeterminate set of people. There is a difference.
<
p>
A few random thoughts on a few of the comments above.
<
p>
“Bottom boy” is a term of art among gays.
<
p>
Sorry, I’ve been active in the gay scene for 30 years, and I’ve never heard “bottom boy” at all. “Bottom,” yes–I’ve used it myself. “Boi” yes (and people over 25 or so who still call themselves bois are oftentimes laughed at in gay chat rooms). “Bottom boy,” no.
<
p>
The various self identified homosexuals on this page are ignoring it as a slur because steverino said it, hell raj even defended it. But if PP, Gary, Jeremy, RRRM, demolisher or myself said it we would be condemned for using a homophobic slur.
<
p>
Not by me, unless you were actually attacking particular people when you did it. The problem that you have is that you are trying to juxtapose steverino’s reference against Ann Coultergeist’s use of “faggot” when describing John Edwards. Whether or not it was a homosexual reference, it was clear that she was using a classically anti-gay term to belittle his masculinity, and that’s my point. Steverino was using a graphic term to describe the people that he was referring to as being subservient to other interests. There’s a difference–context matters.
<
p>
Also, the term used would be relevant. If Steverino had used the term “fudge-packers” (which I first learned of when I was posting on FreeRepublic.com–and which I found quite funny) instead of “bottom boys” you might have a point. But he didn’t, and you don’t.
<
p>
Note to JK: The gay rights movement spent many years getting major publications to use the word “gay”
<
p>
This is true. Abe Rosenthal, the long-time editor of the supposedly liberal NYTimes, refused to run stories using “gay” to refer to homosexuals. Actually, he refused to run many stories about homosexuals at all, unless they were negative toward homosexuals. So much for the notion that Jews are necessarily homo-friendly (many are, Abe was not).
<
p>
I would have thought it an insult to use “gay”. Also, I do perfer to use as precise language as possible.
<
p>
“Gay” is hardly an insult. But I distinguish between “gay” and “homosexual” As far as I’m concerned “gay” is indeed a lifestyle, in contrast to “homosexual,” which refers to the sex of the person that one is sexually attracted to. Example: Jim McGreevy, while he was governor of NJ, was homo- or at least bi-sexual. He was not gay. He had been married to two women, and (supposedly) fathered a child by each of them–hence straight. But he was rutting around with men–hence homo- or bi-sexual. (NB: others will not agree with my distinction, but I make it anyway.)
<
p>
“Gay” may have been an insult at one time. It is derived from the use of “gay” to describe one of loose morals (this dates from at least the Victorian era, according to the Oxford English Dictionary). It’s not an insult now, and hasn’t been for some time.
<
p>
Then why is “faggot” or “queer” or “receiver” or “catcher” or any of the other terms that have been deemed as insults that also have other meanings or can be used in non insulting contexts?…
<
p>
Context matters. When The Go-Goes did their song Johnny, Are You Queer Boy? 20-some-odd years ago, their usage of “queer” was not considered a slur, but only in context. It was obviously intended to be a funny song. Context matters.
<
p>
BTW, I have yet to see where “reciever or “catcher” be considered to be insults. It is very interesting that you did not include “pitcher” in your list. Apparently, you, like many of your FreeRepublic.com colleagues believe that homo-pitchers are OK, homo catchers are not OK. I could go through a litany of why that is stupid but, to keep the site family friendly, I’ll avoid the issue.
<
p>
When John Depitro called Matt Amerillo “fag Matt” there was considerable outrage even though he followed that line by saying “I don’t mean in a homosexual way, just the way you call someone a sissy boy.” Same with Ann Coulter on Edwards, she obviously wasn’t calling his sexual preference into questions, it was comment on his “intestinal fortitude”.
<
p>
I’m sorry, but the fact is that, if that’s what Ann Coultergeist meant by the comment, she could have just used “intestinal fortitude” instead of calling him a faggot. She also could have said that he didn’t have the “balls” to do what she was criticizing him for. Heck, I’ve mentioned that someone doesn’t have the “cojones” (Spanish for “balls”) when describing people–both males (who have balls) and females (I don’t believe they have balls, but, whatever). But die Coultergeisterin chose to use the long-time recognized anti-gay put-down: faggot. And, when attacked for having used it, she lacked the cojones to defend herself, claiming it was just a joke. Yes, it was a joke. The joke was die Coultergeisterin. (Actually, I should eschew germanization of names)
<
p>
Were do the different sets of rules end?
<
p>
I hate to break it to you, but the sad fact that you have is that they won’t end. Some of us understand context, apparently some of you do not.
…Call it “hate speech” if you wish. I prefer to be a bit more subtle: speech that would cause me to denigrate not only the speaker, but also the people who pay to listen to the speaker knowing in advance what they are likely to get from him or her.
<
p>
That’s what Coultergeist did, isn’t it. Tell them what they wanted to hear.
<
p>
At base, she’s nothing more than an overpaid cheerleader, hired to get the rubes to pay to attend conventions. An overpaid cheerleader–something like GWBush.
in this spiritual journey of life has a different level of tolerance and understanding of people unlike themselves.
The far left seeks to “fix” that problem not by promoting understanding but by categorizing and then forcing people together whether they like it or not. The meme? One NEEDS government to intervien and “manage” the situation.
<
p>
As to Ann’s comment on John Edwards. Well, my jury on John is still out. With this man spending so so much of his time associating himself with globalist oriented organizations like the CFR and his invited attendance at Bildeburg 2004 I have the audacity to question his “champion of the common man” stances. Then again most of you have not one iota of what I just said. So it’s a moot point.
<
p>
The main point is that for all the vehemnent debate, the pictures of Sean Hannity in full Nazi regalia all over the internet the very same concepts are fully endorsed by the left, ie, global warming denial is equivalent to denial of the Nazi holocaust.
Yes, I am the Lasthorseman and all I want is the ride before the Apocalypse.