May i start the bidding for that brain of yours for $1,000,000,000,000!!!

another top shelf effort mate... It has only been a few months that you have been here, but the voice of reason you display - especially in this insightful article, is second to none...

Thanks again King you certainly are a very valuable member of our community!

BAM!!!

You've made it plain that you differ with my opinion that the slur in question is equal to the characterization "homophobe". That's the great part about JU, we are both allowed to post our opinions.

You weren't interested in my post, though, you were just insulted that I used the 'n' word. You didn't comment on the substance of the piece, you didn't offer a dissenting opinion, you just critiqued my choice of words.

I think that when you say N is more hurtful than H, you discount how hurtful it is to me to be called a 'homophobe'. It may well be so for you, but you have no way of knowing my reaction to the accusation. My beliefs, my feelings are apparently secondary, though, and that was mainly what I was trying to say with the article.

I didn't blacklist you, I didn't give you a 'trolling', and I didn't delete your initial objection. Once I answered it, though, I didn't see any reason for further "back and forth" on something that wasn't the point. You have no right to say that I hurt more or less than anyone else, and honestly you didn't need to. My thoughts on it are there for you to read, and I have no reason to lie.

My apologies if I offended you, that wasn't the intention. I stand by what I wrote, though, and barring administration asking me to remove it, it will stay.

im not planning on blacklisting or deleting your posts either. i spent most of sunday morning discussing your previous article with you (im not sure you caught my last comment there actually) and i did read your post. (actually i think the title is more accurate than you intended it to be--it is an empty word by comparison) im not personally hurt by racial slurs (not in the same way as i might be if i were the target of that particular one). but i truly believe that the real damage isnt limited to the race being nullified. its like freedom. when freedom is denied to one, we are all that much less free. i hope ive been clear enough in differentiating the chasm between words that cause pain and those that deny a persons basic humanity that you can perhaps see why i find this so problematic. btw--check google and youll see the draginols comment is the first hit on the list.

A person who has not encountered such discrimination themselves should not dare to pass judgement on whether something is offensive or not. They don't have such a right or a mandate. It's as simple as that.

exactly mack.

quote: "comparing a slur to even the most abombinable non-slur is never valid nor logical because at bottom line, none of us chooses the racial or ethnic group into which were born"

king, you again have my admiration for your compassionate handling of a loaded issue. you are exactly right - i wish you could shout it from the rooftops - using descriminatory weapons in any battle says much more about the person making the slur than any simple insult they may have made.

any attack based on such slurs will almost certainly have no other wind in it's sails except a lurking "ism" of some kind - usually a dead giveaway for those stubborn "fighters" who repeat their same dull point over and over ... they just didn't have a better one.

great writing king.

mig XX

You have no right to say that I hurt more or less than anyone else, and honestly you didn't need to

i dont believe i said that. i have no reason to cause you or anyone else pain
.
my point is simply this: as painful as the most inappropriate, cruel or unfair characterizations may be, they still fall far short of the damage done by racial slurs which exist only to express one message: the target is less than human because of his racial/ethnic ancestory.

May i start the bidding for that brain of yours

muggaz i truly appreciate your compliment and im glad you found this worthwhile. but the bidding needs to be massively reduced. the only real selling point is 'hardly been used' hahahahah

thanks mig. it kills me to think the internet--a venue in which color or ethinicity is even more totally irrelevant than the real world--can be so easily and mindlessly despoiled.

"my point is simply this: as painful as the most inappropriate, cruel or unfair characterizations may be, they still fall far short of the damage done by racial slurs which exist only to express one message: "

In your judgement that may well be true. YOu have no idea how the characterization effects me, though. Racial slurs say nothing about the individual, they just crudely describe race. Being called a homophobe is a direct accusation of hate, intolerance, or mental illness, all directly personal, hurtful accusations.

If someone calls someone else the 'n' word in public, bystanders don't go away thinking, "Wow, that guy is an 'n'..." On the other hand the accusation of homophobia sticks; it is a label of character, and cannot be "denied" with any objective success.

If you believe that a 200 year old racial slur that is almost completely rejected by society is more hurful than being called intolerant and metally ill, I respect your beliefs. The term "homophobia" is packed with implied meaning, all derogatory to me and my beliefs.

This is all I'll have to say on the subject.

kingbee, im curious to know if youve ever called or referred to someone as a "bitch," or worse yet, a "cunt." Be honest. And do these terms then imply that a woman is "less than human?" i havent used that word to describe female humans in general or a specific female in over 30 years. it may actually be longer but im positive i havent since march 1974 (which is a milestone for me because thats when i moved permanently to southern california) i cant recall using before then but im guessing i probably did when i was in high school. ( i frequently use the expressions 'son of a bitch' or 'what a bitch' to express surpise, frustration or disappointment etc.) i dont like hearing women use it to refer to themselves even when theyre doing it in a joking sorta bragging context. i know there are women who intensely dislike the word 'cunt' . i never use it for anything except as a euphemism for vulva and only in the company of woman ive heard use it in the same sense and only after asking make sure were both on the same page. pussy always strikes me as sorta childish. i dont use either word in anger nor as an insult of any sort because i dont find anything unbeautiful about that part of the body. i dont have a problem with more than a handful of the hundreds of thousands of words i use and read and hear or the hundreds of thousands of words of which im unfortunately still ignorant. im not advocating censorship much less political correctness but voluntary restraint in regard to the use of words that are used solely to insinuate that their target is something less than human because of an accident of birth. in addition to the damage they do to the target, i believe they enable a climate in which those who use them--even casually--diminish their own humaneness. on the other side of the coin, ive tried to de-toxify words such as 'witch' and 'slut' that are customarily used to manipulate, control or diminish women. in general i find euphemisms annoying and stupid and use them seriously (as opposed to sardonicaly or humorously) only when it seems likely doing otherwise would be hurtful or upsetting. just as an aside, i grew up in detroit where children above the age of 8 who are unable to use the word motherfucker as three distinct parts of speech in the same sentence are led to the city limits and banished.

If someone calls someone else the 'n' word in public, bystanders don't go away thinking, "Wow, that guy is an 'n'..." On the other hand the accusation of homophobia sticks; it is a label of character, and cannot be "denied" with any objective success. im equally concerned with both parties in this type of situation. the person who is slurred racially is as likely to become convinced he is less than human. i doubt very much that you would ever buy into an insult of any type but im not goint to attempt to speak for you. having said that, i really have to wonder how the use of one cancels out or invalidates use of the other?

"im equally concerned with both parties in this type of situation"

No offense, but I find that a bit hard to believe, actually. I have seen the accusation of homophobia needlessly lobbed at people on threads you have taken part in. I never saw this kind of outrage leveled at the people who disparaged others because of their religious beliefs.

"i really have to wonder how the use of one cancels out or invalidates use of the other? "

I never said it did, and I never refered to anyone with the 'n' word, so no one was slurred. I'm not "using" the 'n' word, I'm referring to it. By your standards you can't even discuss the 'n' word without using it hatefully.

I placed homophobia in the same class, not to lessen the blow of "worse" words, but to show how hurtful it can be to be called mentally ill or hateful because of your religious beliefs. I see little difference between religious faith and the "accident of birth". To me changing my faith would be about as feasable as changing my race.

i dont associate the dreaded N word with race anymore, ie: accident of birth. To me, its more of a mentality

if only it were that easy. isnt that the equivalent of me deciding i can cut a piece of paper to the size of a bill, write $100 in each of the corners, sketch in ben franklin, color it green and take it to the bank for change?

i doubt theyd hand me 5 real twenties with the same measure of certainty with which i doubt if you walk up to a group of black people and tell them exactly what youve posted here that youd be thanked for having solved that problem.

i remember you mentioning this woman last week or the week before. ive heard others explain how the term is more appropriate to 'bad' white people than 'good' black people because it really is a description of unsavory characteristics regardless of race. if it had been originaly applied only to 'bad' blacks to start with, it might make a little sense--but the fact is in this country it has a 200+ year history of use as a means to justify treating a readily identifiable racial group no better than plow mules--and frequently a lot worse than that. whats more, it was applied to all blacks without regard to their accomplishments or meritorious conduct or the content of their character.

there are plenty of other powerful derogatory terms that are actually much more accurate for your purpose. the fact of her race is really not relevant your choice to use this word in order to underscore your contempt for is very convincing evidence that it hasnt been rehabilitated. if you look into yourself objectively and frankly, im fairly sure youll realize you chose to call her that precisely because you wanted to suggest she was not fit to be considered a member of the white race.

sorry i wasn't as clear as i intended. i had to take care of something unexpectedly. in the case of your hypothetical, a person who is so obsessed with racial issues that he or she would attack a stranger in public for no other reason than race is clearly in need of help. the victim is likely to be traumatized no matter how well hes able to appear unaffected. and id be concerned equally about both parties. i wouldn't be able turn back time and prevent it. i would--and have--make sure it didn't go unremarked. i've seen a lot of terms hurled wildly and irresponsibly throughout the threads of various blogs. at this point im probably desensitized after having seen accusations of vileness, idiocy, irrationality, disconnection from reality, hatred, obsession on pretty much a regular basis. i was pretty much concerned with the discussion we were having and not paying a lot of attention to much else. nothing you said in your posts struck me as homophobic. at worst you seemed a bit too focused on the number of deaths per year rather than the numbers of people who were identified as infected (which until the early 90s was tantamount to a death sentence after 10-20 months of suffering ) and the very rapidly increasing number of people testing positive for hiv is why it was considered an epidemic. iim not sure why you seem to be saying that you're being singled out for your religious beliefs. i don't think it likely that christ would have been attacked by gay men and women as a homophobe. its much more likely he would have been accused by temple leaders of homophilism (as he was for samaratiphilia). im not at all what homophobia has to do with mental illness unless you're saying phobias are a type of mental illness--which isn't at all the case the impression i get from what little reading ive done seems to attribute the phobia not as a fear of gay men so much as a fear of being gay. based on the dates you mentioned sunday, you're an adult and by now theres no fear of that im sure. i never even consider the possibility Jim gay and i doubt you do either. if youre being unfairly attacked--and thats what youre saying; im in no position to refute that nor would i want to. youvve twice expressed your belief that homophobe is a meaningless term. that being the case, why subject yourself to any more of it? in this situaiton youve got a great advantage over a black man being attacked with that slur. you can move on choose a more favorable battle on your own terms. unless youre involved in a blog that draws attacks on your religious beliefs you can avoid all that becase you dont stand out as as being religious so no one will know unless you choose to tell them. a black person is going to look like a black person- unless he or she wears a face mask, and gloves. thats why theyre called racial slurs