2/9: Terrible MSNBC gaffe

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by MaggieL
The word in fact is not at all derrived from the same roots as "nigger"...it's as least as old a Chaucer.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But to use it in the context of DC politics is just plain stupid, it's *asking* for trouble.

Why?

[Joe]

I don't think gays ever decided as a group to co-opt words like gay or queer.

These were given to us by the straight world, for whatever reason. My guesses:

gay - overtly happy? Seems apt, most gays don't share the cares of the straight world.

queer - oddly different? Same, the straight world sees us and goes "..the heck?" they don't get it, so we seem strange indeed.

fag - Flaming? I think this predates my time, but there are (or were) some gays that dress flamboyantly, in costumes that would put a Vegas show to shame. For the record, I'd say 95% of gays dress so normally that they blend in with everyone else.

Any of these could be derogatory or not, depending on the speaker. I don't know who had the guts to do "Queer as folk" but that show is the coolest thing I've seen on TV in years. The level of production is awesome. Hats off to Showtime for that one.

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Why?

Because Maggie said so.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Because Maggie said so.

No, because race is a constant issue in DC city politics, and lots of people don't know there's no actual connection between "nigger" and "nigardly" *Chaucer* would have understood that, but I'll bet you the average DC resident doesn't.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Joe
I don't think gays ever decided as a group to co-opt words like gay or queer.

You must have missed that meeting. :-)

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by MaggieL
but I'll bet you the average DC resident doesn't.

Makes the average resident of DC seem a bit thick, doesn't it?

"My goodness, Gramma... what big, patronizing ideas you have!"
"The better to oppress you with, my dear!"

So... let me get this straight... not only are we not supposed to refrain from using words that have a genuinely offensive/pejorative/insulting meaning for fear of offending certain minority groups, but now we must also refrain from using their homophones for fear of offending stupid people? Yikes! When did morons become a minority group?

[jaguar]

When did morons become a minority group?

I wish.......

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by dhamsaic


Because Maggie said so.

Is there any reason you need to be so confrontational? Maybe you want to answer to Maggie's actual points, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks? (I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting)

About the actual reason 'why' it's stupid for that politician to use the word 'niggardly' the way he did:
It's fairly obvious why: if you are surrounded by people who will - mistakenly - get offended by something, and you knowingly say something that will offend them, you are quite stupid.

Yes, you read that right. You are stupid. They may be dumb and uneducated for not knowing the etymological differences between 'nigger' and 'niggardly', but as an educated man, well-versed in local and national politics, you need to be aware of how those people will react. Why? Because it's your job.

To sum up:

1. They are wrong.
2. You are right.
3. You know that even though they're wrong, you doing something right will cause a shitstorm.
4. Causing that shitstorm has no deeper moral cause or value. You aren't defending human or civil rights or saving any whales by doing that 'right' thing. You have nothing to win by using the word 'niggardly'.
5. You do it anyway.
6. You are stupid.


Sure, an overly sensitive approach to political correctness isn't really what your founding fathers were fighting for; but in the end, you have to take responsibility for your actions.

It's a bit like walking into a group of fanatical, heavily-armed right-wing Christian militia members, telling them that they are intolerant and dangerous.

You might be right.

They may be wrong.

But you'd still be stupid.

And that's what Maggie was talking about. (I think. Maggie?)

X.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Makes the average resident of DC seem a bit thick, doesn't it?

Bluntly, yes. Especially holdovers from the Marion Berry administration, who were the people he made the comment to.

Look...when an official of a large East Coast city speaks , he'd better be aware of who his audience is, and think about how he sounds to them. This guy was (and still is, he got his job back when the uproar died down) director of the Public Advocate office. He's a *politician*, fercrissakes.

It was a *dumb* move. There's any number of archaic words he could have used to express the same idea (although "squandering" isn't one of them) and he decided to use that one. If he didn't know it would cause trouble, he certainly should have.

I'm not saying he should be *prohibited* from using the word, but that he should think a moment and realize that it's ripe to be misunderstood.

Oh, by the way...he's gay. :-)

Originally posted by Xugumad


Is there any reason you need to be so confrontational?

Probably because I was raised an angry young man after being molested by your father when I was five.

Maybe you want to answer to Maggie's actual points, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

I have Maggie on my ignore list because I find her frustrating to debate with, even though I agree with her more often than not. Therefore, I do not read Maggie's actual points - except when they are quoted. I'll respond, how I see fit, to what I see. If you don't like that, maybe you should consider putting me on your ignore list. It's quick, easy and will save you time in the future.

(I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting)

Well I'll refer to them anyway, even though it was more some <b>bold text</b> and not at all resembling a "scream". You made a comment out of ignorance and I told you to, in your ignorance, fuck off.

I think I'll put you on my ignore list too. Your idiotic drivel always manages to go on for close to a page length; my browsing experience will be much greater with a little "This person is on your Ignore List" message instead.

[jeni]

I won't even refer to your screams of 'Fuck off' in another posting

oops, just did.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Xugumad

And that's what Maggie was talking about. (I think. Maggie?)

That's the major drift. I don't think for a minute the guy was a racist. But he *was* guilty of speaking without thinking. As a political appointeee, it's not in his (or his boss's) interest to be pissing off the citizens for no particular good reason, and that's exactly what he did.

As for dham's sticking his finger in his ears and singing "la, la la, I can't hear you!", I think his browsing experience might be maximized by surfing to file:///dev/null, where he'll never read anything that bugs him, even if he does agree with it more often than not.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL

As for dham's sticking his finger in his ears and singing "la, la la, I can't hear you!", I think his browsing experience might be maximized by surfing to file:///dev/null, where he'll never read anything that bugs him, even if he does agree with it more often than not.

It's actually very funny to read his previous posting; not only does he completely ignore what I said (in order to resort to some more personal attacks), but he misattributes who he told to 'Fuck off'. I guess it's easy to forget who you've insulted and then added to your ignore list.

Really, it's the oldest trick in the troll book from the BBS/Usenet days: insult someone, then killfile them and tell everybody in a smug tone of voice how you have ignored them, and how you've seized the moral high ground.

Then there's of course the 'amusing' crack about having been abused by my father. The sheer stupidity of that comment aside, I guess he doesn't live in a country where <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,224326-412,00.shtml"> lynch mobs</a> run through the streets murdering pedophiles.

His points were also entertaining in themselves: he will ignore you because he agrees with what you say yet finds you frustrating to argue with. Which is why he threw a profanity-laden fit over in the thread regarding drugs and alcohol.

It's just sad to see the mental maturity of a twelve-year old express itself in such aggression. Oh well. I guess there's always his 'weblog' where he posts about how pimped his many computers are, and how ordering pizza is great, and how he likes his ass to be clean. (no, really)

Luckily, he can't read any of this, though, otherwise I'd ask him why he again completely ignored the refutation of his points, just to go on about Maggie, and about how long my postings are.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I guess he's the 'see no evil' monkey.


X.

PS: I am actually sorry this degenerated into a flame. (and I'm addressing this specifically at Tony. I just get frustrated at snotty kids too easily, I guess.)

[jeni]

i think maybe david just doesn't want to waste his time trying to explain his points repeatedly to people who don't understand, or aren't willing to at least acknowledge those points. reason being, said people seem to think they are right about everything, and will not change their minds about anything, no matter what evidence or thought is put into the opposing argument.

his 'weblog' where he posts about how pimped his many computers are, and how ordering pizza is great, and how he likes his ass to be clean.

and you posted this because...? you are making a reference to something that is totally irrelevant, in the hopes of making him somehow look silly. you are no better than you say he is in those regards, then.

Which is why he threw a profanity-laden fit...

i know this because i have known dave for 19 years; he uses profanity to emphasize things. as do i. as do millions of other people. if you can't understand why someone would say "that is wholly fucking irrelevant", maybe you ought to familiarlize yourself with that person before you make comments.

i personally think it's a waste of time to sit here and quibble back and forth about someone. you don't like them for certain reasons, that's fine. but to actually drag a thread completely off topic because you have more fun picking at insignificant details is lame.

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by jeni
i personally think it's a waste of time to sit here and quibble back and forth about someone. you don't like them for certain reasons, that's fine. but to actually drag a thread completely off topic because you have more fun picking at insignificant details is lame.

And you posted this because.......?