I still find it difficult to believe that your friends would be so stupid as to trash talk to a waitress. Scraping the bottom of the barrel there, aren't we? Not only is it uncourteous - she <b>handles your food!</b> I'm on my best behavior around those that choose whether or not to spit in my meal.

Well, we're the cooks at the restaurant. So she doesn't handle our food.

<sigh>The reasoning isn't "because it's true of someone else it's true of you". That's a straw-man argument.

The reasoning is "If people who *are* queer have trouble with homophobia, how can just having a relationship--no matter how close--with a queer person be evidence your own lack of homophobia"?
I didn't say you harbor strong resentment of homosexuals. I said your use of "fag" as a perjorative, even in jest, even just to your intimates, promotes homophobic thinking, regardless of your concious intentions. I don't have to get inside your head to know that.

Well said. That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. You can't imagine the amount of times that I MUST tell people that they absolutely do.not.own such a "power" over people.

My bad. I misunderstood. I see now - you know exactly the effects my words have on these other very specific people. How silly of me to doubt you.

While we're here and you're showcasing your omniscience, do you mind telling me who's gonna win the Superbowl in 2013 and what the spread will be? I think I could make a lot of money from that information, and I would definitely be willing to share.

Perhaps in the same way as me openly admitting "I hate faggots" would be evidence of homophobia? I don't know Maggie. I don't know how your brain works. It has been my experience that people who are homophobic do not generally carry on lengthy personal relationships with people who are openly not straight (nor bi).

Regardless, I still feel that you are painting everyone with a broad stroke. We are all individuals in this world, and what applies to one (or many) does not necessarily apply to all. If some gays have trouble accepting their sexuality, it is because they have been brought up believing that it is wrong to be different. I have mostly raised myself, and it's been in an environment of "so she likes girls... so what?" I don't have the trouble with it that a lot of people do (I have a friend who is very openly homophobic and when he called me "gay" in a restaurant last month, I had no trouble saying "Honey, I thought that was <b>our</b> secret!" and lovingly putting my arm around him), and it quite simply is nothing to me. "Word, she's a lesbian. I guess I should cross her off the Possible Wife List." That's the extent of my concern.

Now, comments regarding my elders in general:

Why is it that middle aged people seem to always go through a phase of "I have been here long enough to know how everything works, and while you say one thing, I know that it is not the truth"? It seems to be the exact opposite of older people (70's, 80's), as they seem more accepting of new ideas. I have ran into this <b>many</b> times in my life, where someone will tell me that I am <b>wrong</b> even when I am right (take, as an example, the Havarti Cheese Incident, the Dryer Incident or the Maggie Knows How I Feel Better Than I Do Incident). It is one of the most absurd phenomenons I have witnessed in my little time on this silly Earth. The thinking seems to be "because I am older, I am right" or "because you are younger, you are incapable of having a valid argument". The closed-mindedness is simply astounding to me - these people could never utter "touché" because they are unable to see any flaw in their argument (or truth in their adversary's). Has anyone else noticed this? And what the fuck is going on?

Using "fag" as a perjorative promotes homophobia. Knowing this doesn't require omnicience, prescience, telepathy, or a deep knowlege of your friends.
There's precious little connection between those two cases.

"I hate fags" is nearly a "performative utterance"; it demonstrates its own truth. "I have queer friends" really offers little assurance that the speaker doesn't engage in behavior that promotes homophobia...any more than "I am queer" can, which is why I mentioned internalized homophobia.


None of this has anything to do with "how my brain works"...evidence and argumentation aren't matter of relativism.
Can you really put these two sentences in the same posting without laughing?

Look, I'm not trying to contradict your report of what's in your concious mind. But I can say confidently that certain behaviors promote homophobia. I don't need to get inside either your head or your listener's head to do this....hearing your report of what you say is quite enough. This has nothing to do with intonation, context or subtle shadings of meaning possible between close friends.

Hammering a negative connotation for a word (which you *must* to do use it perjoratively) reinforces the connection between the negativity and the word This is why advertising and other forms of propaganda emphasize repetition. There's nothing in how understanding, tolerant, accepting or enlightened you or your friends may be that changes any of this.

Is the only way for me to not be a condesecnding old fart in your eyes on this issue for me to say "OK, dham, I'll accept your report that you only talk like this to people who you know don't take it the wrong way, so therefore it's a harmless practice, and has no impacts outside your circle. I'll ignore what I know about how the use of language affects people, just to show how much I respect younger folks."?

'Cuz that ain't gonna happen.

No. Perhaps not being such a hypocrite would be a good start. Your facts are facts; my facts are opinion. Mmmmhmmmmmmmmmm.

All right, then: "<i><b>In my opinion</b></I> your use of "fag" as a perjorative promotes homophobic thinking."

Now, convince me I'm wrong by answering the already-asked questions: "What <b>does</b> "fag" actually mean when you say it in this special way to these special people? And why do you use "fag" to convey that meaning?"

... again?
 

Please do correct me, but I believe that I tried to address that issue <a href="http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?postid=20408#post20408">here</a>, with dhamsaic then agreeing to disagree.

This may sound patronizing, but surely we can go our separate ways on this issue without resorting to ad hominem attacks; to pre-empt further barbs: dhamsaic is ignorant and uneducated, and Maggie is an old know-it-all fart. :-)

I won't even mention Tony...

Flame on.

X.

PS: Thus, dhamsaic thinks that using what others perceive to be racial slurs in a familiar, friendly context is perfectly acceptable, since those supposedly hate-filled words are redefined to mean something else, harmless, in his own socio-etymological context (which is good), whereas Maggie believes that any usage of supposed racial slurs promotes their general use, with their general definition being that of hate and fear (which is bad).

Re: ... again?
 

OK.

You do say in that post that you won't speak for me...so let's note nowhere did I call dham either ignorant or uneducated. In fact, I characterized him as "sophisticated in most other ways".

He called me old only by implication..and "fart" was my word, not his. But he did call me "a hypocrite" and "ugly".

"Not that there's anything wrong with that." --Seinfeld

During the 1960's, a rabbi was commenting on sudden interest in Quaker beliefs among his congregation. When asked if this trend disturbed him, he replied "Not at all. Some of my best Jews are Friends. "

I didn't <b>call</b> you ugly. I said that I think you are ugly. The difference is that I don't mean it as an insult.

The irony of that statement is so perfect I fear I might sully it by commenting on it in any way.

When dhamsaic says "I think" he means it as an oxymoron.

That's a good one! I'm going to have to add that to my repertoire.

Hey, do us a favor and post more often. You seem to <b>always</b> have something useful to add. Thanks!

The argument isn't "words mean nothing". The argument is, "Words only have the meaning that people give them". That's a huge difference.

Please don't get angry and assume someone is dumb just because you don't understand their argument. It's okay to disagree. Really.

In this situation, you are 100% correct. You've already proven yourself to be a troll, so your words mean nothing, at least to me. :)

There is no reason to explain anything to Parmenion, juju. They have serious trouble reading and exist only to spew venom. They are of the lowest order of trolls, those who cannot compose a well crafted message and must therefore provoke by insult. Don't waste your time with them, because they are not interested in discussion. They have issues that they are unable to address in a positive manner and so they take out their anger in online communities. They are best added to the Ignore list (under user cp) and forgotten.

Truly, as far as I can see, nobody here was saying that "words mean nothing" or "words don't have effects". The discussion was about the effects speech can have <i>beyond</i> the speaker's concious, even express, intent.

I think Parmenion's intention was quite clear to everyone, and completely inapproriate.

Been there, done that, own the T-shirt...and it sucks ass. I've met a bunch of so-called self proclaimed "older and wiser" folk, and a lot of times, the extent of their "wisdom" amounted to a hill of beans! By the same token, I've met younger people who had a lot to say, and sounded years ahead of their older counterparts.

I currently work closely in my department with an older woman (I think she's in her fifties or early sixties). She's a great person, and she doesn't reek of that "I'm older, therefore I'm right all of the time" crap. I feel that we are equal in our efforts to get the job done, and get it done right. Sometimes, she'll come across a tad bit "high and mighty", but it's so mild that it's not a big deal.

Age has little to do with it.

Old folks who think they have all the answers thought they had all the answers when they were young and couldn't understand why older folks thought they had all the answers.

[quote]Originally posted by Parmenion
[b]Ladysycamore sed:
<I>
Well said. That's pretty much hitting the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. You can't imagine the amount of times that I MUST tell people that they absolutely do.not.own such a "power" over people.
</I>

Oh excellent. People have no power over other people, but you just <I>MUST</I> tell others what they have and haven't got a right to do.

My statement was about power over MYSELF, not others.

Try eating less, maybe your fat head will stop being full of cholesterol and a couple of brain cells will recover.

Thanks to Lipitor, my cholesterol is down. :-)


[b]Like any afro-americans wouldn't be annoyed by this post.{/B]

*shrugs* Oh well. If they do, then they do. And?

[quote]Originally posted by Parmenion
Besides, shouldn't you be helping your fat significant other with her dialysis machine, or something?

Gee, how did you know that he helps out? I'd doubt you'd do the same, with your evil self.

Maybe go to the hospital again, and have your heart checked. Short fat white fucks like you have an ever-decreasing life span these days.

You could easily be put on that list as well...

Hope you enjoy life by the time you're fifty or sixty, if you even get there, smoker boy.

Hrm...interesting choice of words...

<snip pathetic garbage>

Anyway, time to killfile (ignore-list) both of you - and Sycamore's fat useless woman.


Whooo, such a BIG man now. Use that big, bad killfile...LMAO! This is priceless!

For all four of your posts, Parm, you really look like a badass.

Too bad you won't let us in on your true identity so that we could all killfile that one as well.

I think the mistake being made here is thinking that one should bother replying to Parmenion. They are sorely full of themselves ("But my words still hurt." when no one really cares about their opinion or what they say at all) and are just looking for attention. That's fine - we all need attention. But I don't think it's worth it to give to someone who won't give back. They are hiding behind a handle because they are afraid - whether they'll admit it or not. That's okay, it's just a bother having to read through their posts.

Again, I'd recommend putting Parmenion on your ignore list and forgetting about them.

The posts are like car wrecks...you can't help but look at 'em.

Dave, your post and the other postings today reminded me of an Ice-T line: "They talk a mean fight, but fight like hoes."

Hey...stop the presses! When did I solely become white? I better call my mom...

Third asking, dham. <i>I'm</i> not about to let diversionary gambits take me off-point.

I believe you are on his ignore list.

Oh. Well, I wasn't about to let someone profit by that whole sordid mess. For me that reinforces the "diversionary tactic" theory over the "random troll" theory.

For me, it reinforces the "Some people are tired of Maggie's bullshit" theory.

Well, there's all kinds of BS.

You see posts that mention things I (and a number of other people) wrote about and you're suspicious it's me, even though anybody who runs a Cellar search has all that information too.

I see posts that I know I didn't write, perhaps clumsily crafted to look like they came from me, and then somebody opens a thread in their own forum openly accusing me (with no more evidence than you or I have) of being the sockpuppet, and I develop my own suspicions.

Tony's client-string information is interesting, though...if I was going though an anonymizing proxy I probably wouldn't bother to hack the client string, even though in the past I've busted sockpuppets on mailing lists because they were using an obscure mail client that had a distinctive header.

So, if dham was in the same situation, I don't think he would bother with it either. For my money that suggests strongly that somebody else is responsible for that crap.

What makes you say this? I thought we all respected each other.

"Arrant" is an adjective I like for sneering with -- roll it around in your mouth; doesn't it sound like a sneer?

"Hemipygian" is a word I'm trying to coin. If "callipygian" means "possessed of or pertaining to beautiful or shapely buttocks," then hemipygian works no matter how you slice it.

You'll have to ask him.

Perhaps you should reread your respect thread. :)

I wasn't referring to that debacle.

on the other hand, i think most people are both sexist and racist. for instance, i am happily married, with many males, both friends and family, in my life, but i think men are, in many ways, clueless and weak..i think women are far smarter, stronger, and more cunning.

and as for racist...well, each race has habits/cultures that become stereotypical, and other cultures & races find them annoying...in our heart of hearts, most of us should admit (if only to ourselves) that we ARE racists.

dar

I think you're giving in to the feeling that you're superior just because you're you. The fact that you are yourself a woman isn't in and of itself is a good enough reason to feel that all women are superior.

Sounds like someone needs to add "sexist" to her list of publically confessed self-confessions.
And I think you've got a stereotypically mushed definition of race-culture.

yeah, probably. i may be a sexist, although i never really thought about it before.

what do you mean, a mushed definition?

plus i know a lot of men.

Heh. I like darclauz already.

Really, I'm not sure how I should approach you. You're obviously an angry dyke, and that's fine - but it means that there's no reasoning with you, because I have a penis.

Women are, on the whole, much physically weaker than men. This has more to do with anatomy and physiology. A vagina does not make you strong (and neither does osteoporosis, cough). A larger bone structure and a tendency, in nature, to be the physical worker does. These are the assets of men, not women. So your notion that women are stronger than men is absurd at best. A woman might be stronger than a man, but as a whole, there is no contest.

As far as intelligence and cunning go - you may be right, and you may not be. There are definitely highly intelligent and mature, mentally developed women out there - you're just not one of them.

Women also have a tendency to think emotionally instead of logically. Many men do the same thing, but I submit to you that the number of women who think emotionally is far greater than the corresponding number for men. It has to do with how you are wired and how the brain works. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule - but these are <b>exceptions</b>, not the rule.

Now, if I haven't offended to the point of burning your bra on my doorstep, you arrogant fucking feminazi, let me attempt to convey another idea to you.

We are all individuals. Everyone is different. And stereotypes get you nowhere. I can't judge you as weak, stupid and overly emotional because you have a vagina, and you can hardly judge me as stupid and weak because I have a penis. Take the time to know the person before you slap down a label.

Thank you for your time, and have a beautiful evening.

actually, there are lots of men that i love and respect...juju even being one of them. i think the differences between men and women are obvious to everyone...women think more as a big picture, men think more focused single task. men think more with the rage/anger emotions, women with the mushier emotions.

obviously i'm drawing broad, sweeping generalizations. i can also tell you that lots of men that i've met - and women too - directly contradict that.

but i can tell you this: i would expect a man to react to this on a generalization level; to get angry at what i've said on a surface, to blame pms or a sexual deviance, and to retort to profanity and name calling....

what do you think of that?

you have a nice evening too. =)

one more thing -- FYI - i'm 34, and have been married 5 years. i have actually very conservative views on many things, and tend to the religious mindset, as juju may (or may not) confirm.

i don't burn bras, or sleep with women, or endorse the feminazi viewpoint. if you were smarter than the shoes i wear, you would look at how i said it as well as what i said, and recognize humor or tongue in cheek when you saw it. you were being SO emotional and abusive that i'm not sure you saw it.

so get a grip, sweetie..... learn to look beyond the surface. i don't think that's the fault of your penis...just your IQ.

xxoo

Again, the point is lost on you because you're self-assuredly right.

The namecalling and the use of my language presents itself to make a point - that I can't rightly assume those things about you.

I find it spectacularly ironic that you would say that.

As jaguar would say, We are currently cruising at 30,000 feet above darclauz's head.

i've finally met a man smarter than i .... ah, dave... will you marry me??????????????????

These so called differences aren't obvious at all. If they were, we wouldn't be disagreeing with you. You yourself said that you knew many men and women who directly contradicted your views. Doesn't this tell you that maybe your views are a little suspect?

I think you're seeing these differences between sexes because you're looking for them. If you really gave the data an honest look, you'd see that the diverseness of individuals is far greater than the sexual tendencies that do exist.


He didn't <i>resort</i> to profanity in any sense of the word. It's a part of his everyday vocabulary. I don't agree that he's only seeing "the surface" of your comment. Except for being wrong about you being gay, I think he understands what you said pretty well.

I'm glad you think so, but I've never said such a thing (nor would I presume to think so).

You are obviously grossly ignorant of my way of writing (and the spats that I have been involved in during my online career). I will now attempt to clue you in on something that you obviously do not have a grasp of - though I wouldn't argue that it's your fault.

I don't necessarily say things that I think are true. I say things because I believe that some people, in reading them, will be able to see things more clearly. In other words, I say things to make a point.

Me calling you an angry dyke (I'm actually a bit disappointed in juju, 'cause he didn't pick up on it when he usually does - :P) is only done because your comments can be read to fit that particular stereotype. That you are 34 and married only aids in the illustration of my point - that stereotypes are rarely correct and never appropriate.

My words did not (and do not) come from anger. I will not allow an emotion to control my communication, because it weakens any argument I am going to make. Your notion that I was being emotional is wholly incorrect. I am dry as a cracker. I may sound emotional, but I (and others) can assure you, I am not. Sorry, but the joke's on you.

Take a minute and think about why I have written the words that I have. Try to look at them without emotion - as something other than an attack on you, which you have seemingly interpreted them as. I submit that it will be easier for you to understand when you look at them in that manner.

My point still stands - stereotypes are rarely correct and always inappropriate. I'm sorry you missed it the first and second times around. Hopefully this has made it a little more clear.

You ARE a cracker.

Thanks, T... now I have to clean off the little bits of sputum on my monitor.

(you know, caused by the sputtering laff you just caused me)

I find clear racial distinctions are hard to find and cultural groups do not so neatly relate. The stereotype I associate with this kind of simplification is someone who is young or not met many diverse people. Can those who are (in what ever way defined) to be of different racial groups share a culture? I love that the clear notion of race is becoming blurred. Blend on.

What race has the culture "Latina"?

i did and i didn't.... guess you missed a little, too.

I managed to locate this picture of Dar. Hope she doesn't mind me posting it. <g&gt;

http://users.abac.com/images/bg/brick-wall.jpg

Glad I could help!

My ex-fiance is Latina. She was Native American, African, and Italian...covered all 3 major races...now that's cool.

I don't have any African in me (that I know of...Mom?), but as Meat Loaf said, "Two out of three ain't bad."

cute pic, juju...but i've had my hair done since then.

wisdom versus youth
 

if i had realized you debaters were still children like juju, i'd have used more care in how i phrased things.... i know you all have the idealism and inflexible convictions of youth instead of the maturity of life experience.

Re: wisdom versus youth
 

Are you related to MaggieL?

I'm glad you think you're superior. It must be very comforting.

Re: Re: wisdom versus youth
 

Oh oh, here we go again.

birds of a feather.

There is a word for "saying things that aren't true for the effect they will have." :-)

I don't know what this is supposed to mean, but I'm shocked that you don't feel the least bit guilty about your views. We all used to make fun of Chad Tharpe for being egotistical. But while he, to me, seems to embody the best form of egoism, you now seem to embody the worst form of it.

Also, the whole age thing is the main reason I quit talking to you in the first place. It shows that you really don't respect me at all. You think you're better than me just because you're a little older. That used to not bother me, but i've changed a lot since then. Today, I demand that my friends respect me. Perhaps that's why I don't have very many friends anymore.