Hopper
Banned
I aint tryin to rat ya out, or nuthin, eh, Sloanie, but, since ya done axxed, then, hell, yeah.
It's, like, the homophobiciest, eh?
I can see it now, eh?
- Thread starter Hopper
- Start date
I aint tryin to rat ya out, or nuthin, eh, Sloanie, but, since ya done axxed, then, hell, yeah.
It's, like, the homophobiciest, eh?
Your position being that, since Russian Orthodox churches, Southern Baptist churches, and the Jehovah's Witnesses are all Christian, they are all the same religion? My interpretation is that "Christian" covers a whole group of different religions (much the same way "Jewish", "Islamic", "Bhuddist", and "Hindi" do).
By the way, I said "two different churches express different official religious beliefs", not different people express different beliefs.
OK. So, let's get back to the point. Do you expect the moderators to tolerate any sort of behavior that someone says is religious? If not, is there a reason that, in this forum, homosexual slurs deserve to be tolerated more than racial slurs?
Was that irony intentional?
Almost never happens. Word meaning are dependent on what people consider to be basic truths. So, when two people have different views of basic truths, they tend to assign the meanings of words differently, even each of them is generating their word choice honestly and appropriately.
A belief is a deeply personal thing, and I don't expect to change them. On the other hand, free speech is about the exchange of ideas, so when people express ideas that I disagree with, I feel free to disagree. I don't believe that rises to "oppose" in the sense of this definition, which would seem to require some sort of official opposition. YMMV. However, if you believe that this behavior is intolerant, then it would be hypocritical to identify the original expression of distaste as tolerant. So, if you say my opposition is intolerant, than it is intolerant of intolerance. I' m OK with that. Since you believe in the substance or truth of a situation naturally generating an honest and appropriate choice of words, I ask you: is the expression of disapproval on a message an act of intolerance?
i just wanna say that "some" (not namin' names, just "some") might find Hopper's use of the term "tasteful" in this context to be rather "distasteful"
or a wee bit ironic...
that's all
or a wee bit ironic...
that's all
Hopper
Banned
If each group was a "different religion" then they wouldn't all be "Christian." Once again, "your interpretation" is inconsistent with common usage. What else is new?
Yeah, I know you said that. That's wrong, to begin with. Even if it was correct, how could you glibly assert that all white power splinter groups are "different religions?" Where are the "official" religious beliefs of these groups expressed? What are they? If you don't know, how could you, by your own criterion, assert that they are "different" religions?
Slurs? Who said anything about "slurs?" Is noting that a player is black a "slur?" Is expressing a preference for "caucasian culture" over "mongoloid culture," or vice versa, a "slur?"One Brow said:
One Brow said:
I fully agree with this. Mere disagreement is not intolerance, and it is not an attempt to prohibit or disallow the view you may disagree with, which is the type of "opposition" the definition I cited is referring to.
One Brow said:
Again, no, of course not. That said, do you consider yourself "tolerant" of the belief that homosexual practices are distasteful? Or do you believe the expression of such an opinion should be prohibited?
Last edited:
C l u t c H 385
Banned
That's sooo homophobe.
Hopper
Banned
As should be clear from my prior posts, I don't agree with your first sentence here. I don't see the "meaning" of words changing according to one's understanding of truth. If they did, you might need as many dictionaries and there are people.
The question is a little different, I spoze, if you wanna talk about what meaning different people might "assign" to the same word, but again, my view would be the same. The meaning I "assign" to a word shouldn't vary according to my understanding of "truth." Assume that I know full well what the color "black" refers to, but I don't like that color. I therefore tell people that my car is "blue," even though I know it is black. I just don't want them to know it's black, because, well...because, leave us face it, black aint a good color (which is "true," for me anyway). So, now, black means "blue" in my book.
I think you might be confusing a person's attitude toward an object or concept with the meaning or substance of that thing or concept. I used the phrase "word choice," rather than "word definition" for a reason. "Defining" words in accordance with one's subjective attitude toward, or evaluation of, the person, place, or thing being referred to is, for me, the ultimate in abuse of language.
By "word choice" I was referring to the selection of words more for their connotations than denotations. I agree people often do this. Their choice of adjectives is often just an indirect way of stating their opinion.
This is understandable, and not per se objectionable. I didn't object to that. I objected to the (implicit) belief, that many seem to project, that their choice of words defines a thing, as opposed to merely expressing their attitude toward that thing.
Calling a person a "black man" does not make him black or white, obviously. He either is or he aint (or mebbe the term has no meaning). My description of him may be either accurate or inaccurate, but, either way, it is not my description of him that makes him what he is.
This is true, in spades, when it comes to descriptive adjectives. Me calling him a black man does not make him black. Me calling him "just another, degenerate, immoral, stupid, inferior black man" does not make him any of those things either. Characterizations of a thing often say much more about the person making the characterizations than they do about the thing being characterized.
Even so, many people seem to think that if they call a person "immoral" (just as an example) they have thereby established what he "is" in that regard.
It is a waste of time to attempt to persuade, reason with, or even "discuss" things with such people in any way that is meaningful or satisfying.
Last edited:
Why not?
In this context, a religion is an institutionalized system. The Baptists have a different system than the Lutherans, so they are a different religion.
I didn't. I referred to independent churches, all that have some white power beliefs in common but also with religious differences, as different religions.
At their churchs,
If you really care, do the research.
Moot.
Has anyone yet received a warning or an infraction for identifying an openly homosexual person as gay, or for saying that they prefer not to be involved in a gay festival? If not, is there any way that such a question is significant in a discussion of board policy?
To answer your question directly:
So, the precise policy you are trying to "clarify" mentioned slurs. I guess you forgot.
Yes. I believe a person should be free to say that they don't want to date the same sex (or a different sex), or that they are more comfortable in the company of people of their own religion (or different religions), similarly colored skin (or differently colored skin), or anything else. Taste is an inherently personal issue, which does not offer judgment. As a personal example, I've said many times that having sex with men has no appeal for me at all. No one ever claimed such a comment was homophobic.
It would be useful.
Where you aware that the color identified as the purest white by people in the USA tends to be bluer in tint than the color identified as pure white by South Americans? So, when I talk with an Argentinian about painting a room "white", I actually am picturing a different color than they are. Some people picture a prototypical chair as having arms, others as not having arms. I am not discussing hiding information, but that people naturally see things differently.
I would alter the quoted part to "Choosing to define". Subjective differences in defintion happen naturally, without people choosing them.
I agree.
Hopper
Banned
I've said all I care to say about what constitutes "different religions." You cling to your assertions about meaning, and I'll stand by mine. That said, are you trying to imply that you have "done the research" about how these supposedly "different relgions" vary from each other in their "official" pronouncements?
This isn't a discussion of "board policy," per se. I don't claim to really know what "board policy" is, or what is intended by "slurs." The only information I have about that is that Colton has said that Bum was given a two-week suspension for uttering "Gayward." I presume that this is deemed to be a "slur" by the powers that be. But truth be told, I'm not even clear about that. There are some indications that Bum may have been punished for "testing" the mods--I don't really know.
I have no idea what Bum intended by this. According to this own explicit statements, he himself is gay (or bi-sexual). I don't know if he was attempting to condemn homosexuality, to suggest that Hayward is gay or stupid, or what. I suspect his word choice was intended to irk Hayward supporters, like Honz, but I don't really know. I really just took it as some light-hearted play with words rather than some attack on homosexuals, or the moderators, but who knows what others think it meant? Who (other than Bum himself) knows whether it was intended to be a "homophobic slur?" Who knows if a poster's intentions matter at all? I don't.
You have seemingly stated that it is all very clear. That's one reason I'm interested in any knowledge/opinion you may have to enlighten me on that. But, these posts are related to your personal opinions and claims, as I read them.
You have claimed that the word "gay" is rude and should be prohibited, as I understand you, at least if it is used in any sense that someone could possibly interpret as suggesting, directly or indirectly, that homosexuality is "distasteful." As far as I could tell, this had nuthin to do with any suggestion that any "infraction for identifying an openly homosexual person as gay" has been issued.
Last edited:
Yes, I've looked up a couple of these groups from time to time. Some endure, some pop up and disappear.
How would that be relevant?
No. I have said that "gay" is used as an indication of dislike or distatse for things that are not related to being homosexual, and the reason for this usage is the association of the word with homosexuals. That is why the usage is a slur.
Hopper
Banned
Well, Eric, just to keep the record straight here, what ya done said was this here:
And also this here:
Even with what you just said, I'm not sure why you think you need to "correct" my summary of your statements on the topic:
The "usage" of the word "gay" is a "slur" if used to express distaste, right?
And also this here:
One Brow said:
Even with what you just said, I'm not sure why you think you need to "correct" my summary of your statements on the topic:
One Brow said:
The "usage" of the word "gay" is a "slur" if used to express distaste, right?
Last edited:
Hopper
Banned
Is it safe to assume that you are equally offended by terms such as "ghetto" and "redneck" as these would also be slurs against groups of people that society typically finds distasteful?
C l u t c H 385
Banned
only if they're homosexual.
Hopper
Banned
The most insultin thang I can think of to call someone, after "cheese-eater," is "city-slicker."
Just so disgustin, ya know?
After that, probly "Californian," or mebbe "French." Tough call there, but they're virtually identical in content, so it don't really matter which one ya pick.
Just so disgustin, ya know?
After that, probly "Californian," or mebbe "French." Tough call there, but they're virtually identical in content, so it don't really matter which one ya pick.
Hopper
Banned
Some City-Slicker insisted I come to his "wine and cheese tastin" party once. I didn't even know what that was. He said: Just bring your favorite wine, cheese, and crackers for everyone to sample, and you can sample theirs, see?
I said: I don' think so! Homey don't play dat. I don't never eat no cheese.
He kept on insistin, and I got to thinkin....all kinda wine... might be OK...so I finally said I would go. Big-*** mistake.
I brought some genuine imitation cheese (Cheez Whiz, large can with a full-throttle nozzle), a few jugs of Mad Dog, and plenty of saltine crackers.
I almost had to hurl chunk when I got there. Alla them candyass city-slickers, drinkin wine out of long-stemmed glasses with they pinkies stretched out, takin lil-*** nibbles offa Limberger cheese, talkin in pretentious tones about the opry they done seen last week, and all, ya know?
Then they acted like they was all too damn good to sample the fine stuff I done brung. Typical of your stuck-up city slicker, know what I'm sayin?
It was cool though, I guzzled it all down, and hogged it all up, all by my own damn self.
I said: I don' think so! Homey don't play dat. I don't never eat no cheese.
He kept on insistin, and I got to thinkin....all kinda wine... might be OK...so I finally said I would go. Big-*** mistake.
I brought some genuine imitation cheese (Cheez Whiz, large can with a full-throttle nozzle), a few jugs of Mad Dog, and plenty of saltine crackers.
I almost had to hurl chunk when I got there. Alla them candyass city-slickers, drinkin wine out of long-stemmed glasses with they pinkies stretched out, takin lil-*** nibbles offa Limberger cheese, talkin in pretentious tones about the opry they done seen last week, and all, ya know?
Then they acted like they was all too damn good to sample the fine stuff I done brung. Typical of your stuck-up city slicker, know what I'm sayin?
It was cool though, I guzzled it all down, and hogged it all up, all by my own damn self.
I was quite a bit more specific than that. Your statement is too general.
Perhaps if you would stop generalizing what I did say into something I did not say, and instead applied the limitations I spelled out, you would see why the two paragraphs are not in conflict.
If you use "ghetto" to describe a neighborhood filled with a single ethnic group (e.g., the Hill was an Italian ghetto), it's not a slur. If you use it to disparage something that has nothing to do with such neighborhoods (e.g., I wish my kid wouldn't wear ghetto clothing), it can be and often is a slur. If you use "redneck" to describe a contruction worker whose spent the last week in the summer sun withnot sunscreen, it's not a slur. If you use it to describe the financial status of a person or the condition of their house, it typically would be a slur.
LOL @ ghetto
seems to me the more up-to-date term is "projects" at least around here
in terms of a fashion style, I think many would consider "looking ghetto" to be a compliment, or at least an appropriate description of a trend and not a slur at all
seems to me the more up-to-date term is "projects" at least around here
in terms of a fashion style, I think many would consider "looking ghetto" to be a compliment, or at least an appropriate description of a trend and not a slur at all
That's so 90's. "Public assisted housing" is the currently acceptable terminology. That being said, the phrase, "That's so public assisted housing" is a mouthful. Ghetto just flows off the tongue so much more smoothly.
Hopper
Banned
They aint, eh?
On the one hand, you maintain that people should be banned from this board for sayin "that's gay" because
One Brow said:
Next breath, this here:
Hopper said:
One Brow said:
Go figure, eh?
Mebbe you need to look at the defintion of "tolerant" again, eh?
Your position sumthin like this here, mebbe?
1. I will tolerate the view that murder is distasteful, sure, but
2. Anyone who suggests that the status of bein a murderer is distasteful should be banned.
That it?
Last edited: