Jonah Hill on Calling a Paparazzo "Faggot"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? Directing at someone whom he doesn't know is gay is just saying 'you're gay and that's a bad thing'.

It's using sexuality as a put-down, I don't think it matters who you are aiming it at.
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.
 
Apologize to the guy you called a name. I don't know if I really think an apology to anyone else is necessary. Explanation? Sure. But I don't think I really feel like I need to be apologized to in this case.
.

I fully disagree. He still wants to insult that asshole, he's apologizing for using a word that goes beyond just insulting his intended target and insulting the entire gay population.
 
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.
Just don't use the word. I'm just constantly shocked when white men think they get to dictate what's offensive or not after centuries of these other people being victims of it.
All they ask us don't use the word. Nothing else. What's the big deal? Same with Redskins. Geez.
 
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.

How about just don't use the word at all and don't consider calling your buddy a faggot as 'ribbing'?

Solve one you solve the other.
 
I am unable to get home right now due to a hostage situation in my neighborhood (no, seriously). And I'm at the library now, and there's a child - early elementary school - who is sitting next to me calling the computer character who is "mean mugging" him a "faggot."

There's something almost strangely appropriate about this happening during this topic. Fortunately both his brother and his parents have admonished him about this, though the fact that he knows to say it at all is sad.

The fact that a significant amount of people use it in a non-homophobic manner is all I need. Collective usage is the only thing that determines word meanings so if there's a significant chunk of the population that uses a word in a way that's different from the traditional usage, I don't think that's something that can be ignored.

No, that's not all you need.

The "words have changed" argument relies not simply on the assertion that it is used in as a general insult in significant numbers, but that the homophobic usage is defunct. As it is, we have both usages existing side-by-side which does nothing to lessen the impact of the word for gay people. I'm quite sure that not every person who was throwing around faggot in middle school and high school meant it specifically as, "Gay people are bad." But there's absolutely no way to separate the two meanings when they are in use simultaneously, which means that even "non-homophobic" usages are still implicitly homophobic regardless of what the speaker intends. When Dark Octave calls only "someone of despicable character" a faggot, he is not working to separate it from its homophobic usage. Instead he is adding one more voice to the chorus that says that a "faggot" is a bad thing, and until "faggot" means something other than "gay man" - and we're nowhere close - then he's implicitly saying that being a gay man is a bad thing. As far as I'm concerned, even the supposedly non-homophobic usages are homophobic.

And gay people are of course capable of being saying things that are homophobic, and a gay person using "faggot" as an insult is doing that.
 
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.

What if your buddy was closeted and not out to you? What if somebody close to him had suffered a hate crime?

You don't get to decide how your words will be received.
 
I don't understand the point of this exercise.
I was responding to Cheezmo who was sarcastically using the example of yelling at Orthodox Jews out the window and calling them 'kikes'.

Which to me, is pretty direct hate speech.

Calling some a faggot as a substitute for 'asshole' or something is badly judged and wrong, but not necessarily indicative of their feelings towards gays.

Just saying it was a bad analogy and not really the same situation, basically.

Just don't use the word. I'm just constantly shocked when white men think they get to dictate what's offensive or not after centuries of these other people being victims of it.
All they ask us don't use the word. Nothing else. What's the big deal? Same with Redskins. Geez.
What does being white have to do with this?

And where did I defend using the word? I stated multiple times that its wrong. I even made a disclaimer saying that I wasn't defending it because somebody might try and accuse me of that, missing the point. And yet here you are, STILL doing it. lol

Anytime a controversial subject comes up, too many people's brains just go into 'finger pointing' mode and forget to stop and think sometimes.
 
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.

It is different, don't worry. Yet in both cases you are still perpetuating that word and the idea that "faggot" can be used as an insult or a stand in for lame.



The insult "gay" went out of style around 2000 in my school and I haven't used that word since about that time but I never really saw how it was such an awful thing. The argument that "gay" just means "lame" pretty much made sense to me. But then I listened to Todd Glass on last weeks Comedy Bang Bang!

112.jpg


This guy is such a macho, steel working, Philly dude who is also gay. He mentioned that yes, people interchanging "gay" for "lame" does make it harder to accept yourself. I don't think I would have ever thought about that as much unless I heard him say it.
 
So calling a gay a 'faggot' to their face isn't any different than ribbing a buddy as a 'faggot'?

Not saying either is right, but these are honestly equally bad in your eyes? Severity and intent don't matter whatsoever?

Its crazy how some people see the world in such black and white sometimes.

I find it interesting how you and others focus on the target of the insult and not the user of it. I don't see a difference on using it toward someone you know is gay and using it toward someone you don't know is gay. They're still using an anti-gay slur, and the guy ribbing his friend is still using that word for a reason - and I'm going to assume it's not a good one.
 
It is different, don't worry. Yet in both cases you are still perpetuating that word and the idea that "faggot" can be used as an insult or a stand in for lame.
No, I'm not. I've said quite a few times now that its wrong in either case.

Just that there IS a difference in severity, that's all.

Just like hitting killing somebody in a car accident from speeding and murder are different, even if both still resulted in somebody dying.

I find it interesting how you and others focus on the target of the insult and not the user of it. I don't see a difference on using it toward someone you know is gay and using it toward someone you don't know is gay. They're still using an anti-gay slur.
I'm focusing on both and I only focused on the target for the specific response to Cheezmo's post!

I'm out. People are clearly out for blood here.
 
Calling some a faggot as a substitute for 'asshole' or something is badly judged and wrong, but not necessarily indicative of their feelings towards gays.

I'd say it's perfectly indicative of their attitude about gay people: they don't regard gayness as a thing even worth their time to consider.
 
No, I'm not. I've said quite a few times now that its wrong in either case.

Just that there IS a difference in severity, that's all.

I agree. There are always differences in severity in things. When Obama said that one Governor was a very attractive women, that was sexist, but to a very small degree.

Things can be a little, wee bit racist or a little bit homophobic. I think everyone needs to accept and this allows for people to better analyze their own actions and those they are arguing against.
 
I'd say it's perfectly indicative of their attitude about gay people: they don't regard gayness as a thing even worth their time to consider.
I think that's really unfair. Lots of people grew up with the general 'teenage culture' saying this. I still hear adults say it sometimes.

Could he be more socially conscious? Of course. But like somebody else said here, 'old habits die hard'. When you're angry, you don't often give yourself much time to think. Sometimes you say something that, looking back, even just a few seconds later, you regret saying.

Unless you really think that Jonah hates gays and that's why he said this, then I don't know what you're trying to argue with me about.
 
When I was in college the gay roommate I was roomed with in the dorms and his buddy were chilling in my room, and when I came back in, his buddy says "r u wearing flared jeans?" (It was 2004). I said "... They're boot cut..." And the guy laughs at me and says "what a faggot!"

:( damn that hurt.
 
Just don't use the word. I'm just constantly shocked when white men think they get to dictate what's offensive or not after centuries of these other people being victims of it.
All they ask us don't use the word. Nothing else. What's the big deal? Same with Redskins. Geez.

i dont get it, why single out white men? Plenty of white man are gay, statistically probably a larger portion of gay population is white male.

As to Jonah, he is a cool guy... as a public figure, he should be an example and he is.
 
Anytime a controversial subject comes up, too many people's brains just go into 'finger pointing' mode and forget to stop and think sometimes.

hence the apology from Jonah...

in perfect world, we would have insults that don't have deeper meaning.
 
Why did you cut down my post and post it along with that other post?

And what do you mean to say by posting this bit?
it has to be posted at least 27 times in these kind of threads, he's just following the rules

also that stephen fry picture, hopefully that gets posted at some point so we can resolve all this
 
This is an ignorant view. If you can't accept that word meanings transgress and change frequently, then you're been just as ignorant.

Yes the word started off as a slur. Yes people use it as a slur. But many people absorb words in the context they are used. Not through the meaning behind them.

There are people who use it just as a word that has impact, not because it has a deep routed meaning.

So next time someone lets it slip, take a good look at who they really are before you immediately grab the pitchforks.

I like you, man.

112.jpg


This guy is such a macho, steel working, Philly dude who is also gay. He mentioned that yes, people interchanging "gay" for "lame" does make it harder to accept yourself. I don't think I would have ever thought about that as much unless I heard him say it.

I had no idea he was gay. I love that guy.
 
The nature of speech can be changed.
Words can have countless meanings depending on their usage and intent when delivered.

For instance...

a95f692fc0fd0d126aa028d6a21611773b21ffeb81b9d1acd8c2deba70e40851.jpg


FsbuEXo.jpg
 
Can those arguing that the use of faggot isn't always a slur towards homosexuals explain why another word can't or shouldn't be substituted in its place? Explain the need to defend its use when there are plenty of other words that get the same point across without the use of a word that is rooted in hatred towards a minority class?
 
It's a good thing you skipped the next four pages of people telling him exactly why he was wrong so you could reveal your own inability to understand the changing nature of speech.
Bullshit.

Using Gay as an insult will always be offensive. You're still demeaning gay people.

You can't seperate the words into two different meanings.
 
I think that's really unfair. Lots of people grew up with the general 'teenage culture' saying this. I still hear adults say it sometimes.

Could he be more socially conscious? Of course. But like somebody else said here, 'old habits die hard'. When you're angry, you don't often give yourself much time to think. Sometimes you say something that, looking back, even just a few seconds later, you regret saying.

Unless you really think that Jonah hates gays and that's why he said this, then I don't know what you're trying to argue with me about.
I really don't get what you're saying with this last part. Are you claiming that either Jonah Hill shouldn't have apologized for the remark, or that he should not be more careful about his use of language in the future, or both?
 
Can those arguing that the use of faggot isn't always a slur towards homosexuals explain why another word can't or shouldn't be substituted in its place? Explain the need to defend its use when there are plenty of other words that get the same point across without the use of a word that is rooted in hatred towards a minority class?
Most of those people arguing the former are not arguing the latter.
 
Can you people please fucking stop with your 'the meaning of words change man, faggot used to be a slur for gay people but now it just means a person who is generally just a shithead'.

DO REALLY NOT SEE HOW THAT'S THE DUMBEST FUCKING THING I MEAN REALLY
 
It's a good thing you skipped the next four pages of people telling him exactly why he was wrong so you could reveal your own inability to understand the changing nature of speech.
Why is "the changing nature of speech" relevant? Should a group of persecuted people "just feel better" about themselves in order to accommodate your use of our changing language? No, and I find that a silly notion to even consider.
 
What if your buddy was closeted and not out to you? What if somebody close to him had suffered a hate crime?

You don't get to decide how your words will be received.

I don't give a fuck how my words would ever be received. If I offend someone with my words, they can express themselves to me about it. I would apologize if I deemed it important for my relationship with that person moving forward. I say it. I own it.
 
I don't give a fuck how my words would ever be received. If I offend someone with my words, they can express themselves to me about it. I would apologize if I deemed it important for my relationship with that person moving forward. I say it. I own it.
I'm not sure you get how being closeted works. But sure, sounds like a fun attitude to be around.
 
Nobody was mad at Jonah except for himself.

He was mad at himself because he used a shit word and in so doing made the world a worse place.

He apologized to the world at large for making it worse.
 
What? He didn't direct it to people at large, he said it to one dude. If he apologizes to the guy, and the guy accepts it what right do we have to be mad?

Fuck the guy! The guy deserved to have an insult yelled at him. Just not an insult that denigrates an entire global group of people.


You aren't getting this. Insulting a person is not what is wrong here, the insult used was wrong.
 
I think everyone has blind spots. I don't think many people out there -- even if they can concede the existence of these blind spots -- are keen on seeing themselves as bad people. It's a natural reaction to defend oneself when called out. I do think that there is room in the discussion to consider whether or not some individuals are overly eager to take offense at every potentially offensive thing in the universe. I think there can be room to give people the benefit of the doubt and not always assume the worst at the utterance of every non-politically correct syllable.

However, the flipside is that I think that people absolutely should try to be cognizant not just of what they think they're saying, but also how it can be interpreted. Now obviously if you're going out of your way to twist my words and quote things I've said out of context just to make me appear to be a monster, that's not really my problem. But at the same time, I have a responsibility to try to communicate my thoughts clearly and effectively, and that necessitates understanding what words mean. Not just what I think words mean, but the broader context behind them.

Maybe some slurs really don't have much of a negative connotation surrounding them in my close social circle. Maybe I'm taken aback a bit when I see a celebrity taking heat for the word "faggot" knowing full well that I use it when hanging out with my buddies and don't really see the harm. I erroneously assume that the point of the conversation taking place right now is to demonize people across the board for using a word instead of trying to understand the overall context of the conversation. But if that's the case, I kind of feel like that's on me.

Yes, I can understand some concern about prioritizing weeding out more serious forms of bigotry. But at the same time it's important to realize that for many people, this kind of thing permeates throughout their day to day interactions. I'm very much against homophobic behavior, but I'm also not gay. I'd be lying if I argued that taking a stand against homophobia is high priority in my life. It's not something that affects me. As such, I don't really see it as my place to be the final arbiter of what is a real problem and what problems are simply the result of manufactured outrage.

There's something to be said in regards to "sticks and stones" arguments. Words can't hurt if you don't let them. But I don't think everyone has the same amount of impulse control or can just bottle up their emotions. It'd be great if we could all have thick skin and not be concerned about being insulted, but for many, many people, words do have power.


Good post.
 
I'm not sure you get how being closeted works. But sure, sounds like a fun attitude to be around.

I'm talking about anything that anybody would remotely take as offensive coming out of my mouth. Personally I don't go around using slurs in general conversation but you never know what some person will be offended by in today's age.
 
But there's absolutely no way to separate the two meanings when they are in use simultaneously, which means that even "non-homophobic" usages are still implicitly homophobic regardless of what the speaker intends.
I disagree. If the speaker's intent isn't homophobic AND the person on the receiving end understands that intent, I don't see the argument that that's perpetuating homophobia. To take your example of the child in the library, his family was obviously in the right to prevent him from using a potentially harmful word. But, if he were to say the same thing to a classmate who also has no idea what homosexuality even is, then how can one argue that they're perpetuating harmful trends in the vacuum of their conversation?

When Dark Octave calls only "someone of despicable character" a faggot, he is not working to separate it from its homophobic usage. Instead he is adding one more voice to the chorus that says that a "faggot" is a bad thing, and until "faggot" means something other than "gay man" - and we're nowhere close - then he's implicitly saying that being a gay man is a bad thing.
You're right, we are nowhere close. However, the only way for "faggot" to ever mean anything other than "gay man" is for people to use it in some other way. But if you're arguing against that, then it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom