Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[Keef]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DPF, huh?

>

> Aren't adulterers always getting stoned to death

> and stuff? Seems a bit intolerant.

Sorry I was being a bit slow. Well yes, one shouldn't be doing the dirty, but being stoned for it does seem somewhat OTT.

[Cassius]

Mmmmm - you can get stoned for getting raped in some countries.

[SteveT]

You can get stoned for under a tenner here.

[James]

Shame that Bob thinks this thread is about scoring points and has completely missed the point that has been hammered home about a hundred times here.

Also quite sad and pathetic that you have bothered to trawl through old threads to score a point.

If you think that me using the word "pikey" (which, as has been pointed out, is disputed as a racial slur - and I certainly didn't intend it that way) invalidates the point about homophobia being less challenged than racism in certain circumstances then you are more childish and ignorant than I thought.

[Frenchy]

.

[Keef]

I want to come to bob's defence here, but this thread has stolen my will to live. James why must you carry it on and on and on and on, especially when It's clear others have tried to make it more light hearted. If you read back, bob was one of the people that got the point from the very start. He just doesn't totally agree with you, that doesn't make him a homophobic gay basher for christ's sake. Please can this thread just be locked because it is just going in circles and people are just not hearing what others are saying.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm with Keef - make it stop. i don't think it should be locked - there MIGHT just be someone out there who can distil everything into a pithy paragraph and the we can all go "ahhhhhhh! now I see what he/she meant" - I just don't think it's any of us who have already posted! So, I'm withdrawing on this one....

[*Bob*]

The problem with being on a high horse is that it makes you such an easy target, James.

In this case you shot yourself in the foot anyway and didn't need anyone else to do it.

For the record, I find use of words like 'Chav' and 'Pikey', when used in that snootymiddleclassery way no better or worse than 'gay' when used to mean 'a bit rubbish'. And I don't use any of them.

[mockney piers]

Is today national mixed metaphor day or something, first folding packs, now people on high horses shooting their feet?

Have you tried doing anything on on any sort of horse, jeez, I find holding on for dear life hard enough?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem with being on a high horse is that it

> makes you such an easy target, James. >

> In this case you shot yourself in the foot anyway

> and didn't need anyone else to do it. >

> For the record, I find use of words like 'Chav'

> and 'Pikey', when used in that

> snootymiddleclassery way no better or worse than

> 'gay' when used to mean 'a bit rubbish'. And I

> don't use any of them.

I'm in full agreement with "Bob" here.Especially the final sentence,the only small difference is that I use all of them,but in mitigation,only when it is relevant.

[James]

>>I'm afraid the point - which has sailed right over your head (again) - is that neither of them should be used as insults unless you're a sad, narrow-minded, prejudiced person.

Or in your case - because you haven't thought about it enough yet.

___________________________________________________________________

That's funny. A minute ago you were saying it was okay to use the word "gay" as an insult. Now you've changed your mind. Contradicting yourself yet again.

Moreover, you still fail to address the issue that using the word "gay" to mean "sh*t" is akin to using a word like "black" or "Pakistani" to mean "sh*t".

Which you wouldn't. So why is the word "gay" different? Please explain.

[mockney piers]

""gay" to mean "sh*t" is akin to using a word like "black" or "Pakistani" to mean "sh*t". "

Black Wednesday, black mood, Pakistani democracy.

Clearly that can be the case then.

[Jah Lush]

I think this has become the thread that dare not speak it's name?

[SeanMacGabhann]

James

You didn't get anywhere the last (two) times and all that's going to happen now is that the people who know you are easy to get a rise out of (stop it at the back!) are going to do it again...

This re-started on the Mag thread because lozzyloz called the decor/wallpaper "gay" - now surely you MUST be able to see that that was not intended in any "sh1t" kind of way but in an entirely ironic-surely-James-won't-rise -to-this kind of way...

You know I am with you on the general point but you are trying to tell everyone that with some words NO ONE CAN EVER EVER EVER USE THEM IN ANY KIND OF HUMOROUS FASHION AT ALL. You aren't on the receiving end of any anti-gay sentiment - trust me -

[mockney piers]

Soo, Lindsey Lohan drinks from the furry cup then huh?

Finally she might be in a movie I'd like to see!!

[James]

>>""gay" to mean "sh*t" is akin to using a word like "black" or "Pakistani" to mean "sh*t". "

Black Wednesday, black mood, Pakistani democracy.

This doesn't work Mockney because all these expressions rely on context. Whereas the word "gay" is routinely used out of context to describe anything that's rubbish.

Moreover, the derivation of "black" as in "black Wednesday" or "black mood" is clearly not a racial one. "Pakistani democracy" is a hsitorical, not a racial comment. But the word "gay" when used as an insult or slur carries overtones of "effeminate, ineffectual" etc. which obviously derive from its meaning as a descriptor of sexuality.

And Sean, the problem is if you tell me I can't reply it's basically a bit like censorship! I'm sorry, I will not accept the way that certain people on this forum think it's okay to discriminate against gays because we are an easier target. If they bring up the subject I will give as good as I get... the only difference is that I don't have mindless cronies to back me up.

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm not censoring you JAmes - just asking for common sense to prevail. You are not being discriminated against and to make the accusation is poor form if you ask me. or even if you don't ask me

[mockney piers]

Can anything be used out of context? If it has no context then it has no meaning at all does it?

"The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog gay" That's out of context.

I think you just mean you don't like the way it's used contextually to mean shit rather than as a mere description of hoomosexuality, jollyness, or caddish behaviour, rather than out of context.

God, I'm boring myself again!!!

[lozzyloz]

James let's not get into who started it first except that I will say that your use of the word chavvy sparked me off and I didn't actually call the decor gay but merely inferred that some people might.

I still don't understand how you can on the one hand use a word without conscience that denigrates a section of society who find themselves (often through no fault of their own) in less fortunate circumstances and within a certain sub culture, yet the use of the word gay in a slightly negative sense but dislocated to any homosexual references in that sentence, is somehow damning of the entire gay community. You are not alone in the gay community with this opinion but at the same time it is not a belief shared by all gay people.

Personally, I don't have any major issues with the word chav or gay. As already mentioned above and on many previous occasions it is indeed all about context. If you stick your head in my face and call me a c*nt I'll get offended. If you put your arm around my shoulder and with a smirk call me a c*nt I'll just make sure you get the next round in.

IMO I think you're being a little over sensitive about the use of the word gay to mean naff (shit is a bit strong). I remember as a youngster when the word gay was coming into common use to mean homosexual, many of the older generation were kickin up that a word essentially meaning happy (Salad Days?) had been hijacked. But hey ho, that's how language evolves and in 20 years time the word gay may have morphed yet again.

Finally and once again for the record, in case you think the whole world is against you I'd like to reassure you that it's not. I don't think any forumites have any personal issues with you. Your argument is fairly eloquent even if a lot (not all) of us disagree with you. I'm definitely not homophobic, I've been occasionally propositioned in clubs and bars and never felt threatened or offended (in fact was in a gay bar off Old Comp St last week) and even had my dress sense called gay by my teen son and of course there's that old cliche about some of my friends.

Hope this makes sense even if you disagree.

[KalamityKel]

So "gay" isnt used to describe merry (full of light-heartedness and merriment), bright in colour (brightly coloured) carefree (having or showing a carefree spirit) any more? Shesh James stop being a melon! :p

[Huguenot]

Just bored myself to death reading the whole thread again. There wasn't a single person on here who thinks it's okay to "discriminate against gay people because you're an easy target".

It is perhaps one of the tragedies of the gay community that, for a minority, an inability to see normal life through anything but gay-coloured glasses has established a verbose isolationist faction.

"Is it 'coz I is gay?". Tell you what, no it's not.

There do however, on this forum, seem to be an unreasonable number of people predisposed against hypocrisy.

As for the the pathology of semi-literate medieval societies, which fish shall we fry first? These are substantially bigger than gay issues.

[DaveR]

"There do however, on this forum, seem to be an unreasonable number of people predisposed against hypocrisy. "

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[Brendan]

I think he was taking the piss which is terribly hypocritical considering how seriously he chose to address the rest of the issue.

[Huguenot]

;-)

[James]

Not a single person has yet explained to me why it is okay to use the word gay to mean sh*t but not okay to use e.g. a racial word (in my opinion neither are okay).

I repeat, why the difference? Everyone keeps ducking this. Why the double standard?

My flatmate works in a school, where the use of the word gay in this way is endemic. He often has to correct it. He has engaged in debates with the kids about it and whilst (thankfully) many are actively against homophobia, quite a few are virulently homophobic. Many of these kids won't know anyone openly gay; they may be brought up in homophobic households.

So if they hear a word that means "homosexual" openly and repeatedly used to describe anything lame and rubbish - and this goes unchallenged - what conclusions do you suspect they will come to? In my opinion they will - and do - end up believing that gay people are abnormal, rubbish and okay to ridicule and harass. This can - and does - lead to bullying and misery.

The problem is that, unlike people of different races, you can't (usually) tell who's gay by looking at them. This means that not only are gay people horrendously stereotyped, but also people tend to assume that 'normal everyday people' aren't gay. It's a vicious circle - many teachers are gay for example but fear coming out in case the kids and parents react badly. It's easier to stay quiet - who needs to know? But then we remain invisible. This means that it's really important to challenge negative attitudes where they appear.

Regarding the "Is it coz I is gay?" remark, well, in the case of Matthew Causer from Liverpool, yes it was. Which is why I reject the suggestion that low-level homophobic language is somehow acceptable. We don't all live in tolerant Guardian-reading enclaves of London. In other words, I don't see the media men of East Dulwich going on a gay lynching anytime soon but the language we allow to fall into common parlance has huge consequences for impressionable minds who don't know any better.