Jonah Hill on Calling a Paparazzo "Faggot"

Status
Not open for further replies.
When someone called me a faggot on league of legends today, I guess they just meant I was a bunch of sticks, or a cigarette, or I guess food? Hmm, maybe I shouldn't have gotten offended after all. You live you learn right?

Seriously though, language is vast, find another insulting word or create your own and let that spread. Why hold onto the past with words you learned growing up. You know better now, you can do better now than to thoughtlessly throw around words you know are slurs. Or how about be nice to others and not call anybody names or try to demean them? Why the need for insulting language at all?
 
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?

They don't want to acknowledge that they're being assholes.
 
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?


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.
The idea is to phase the word out so that younger kids don't pick it up like the previous generation, due to the accidental splash damage.
 
I knew gay people who really enjoyed being part of a no-holds barred group where everything including oreintation was fair game for joking around. One dude in particular would howl with laughter at jokes that could be considered homophobic in another context.

So I'd agree that not using the term in public is a good policy, but it is possible to have good natured ribbing that involves such words, provided it's done with love.
 
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.

why would I want this. who would want this. just let it die entirely.
 
They don't want to acknowledge that they're being assholes.

Nah, it's closer to "just let me be an asshole, don't ruin my fun by complaining about it."

I mean, to use FullMetal's post down below as an example:

It's a fun word to say haha.

That's essentially the gist of any sort of defense of the term's use in a conversational way: The pleasure gained from using the word is worth more than the potential unintended pain caused to others. So in that mindset, complaints about the use of that word in a "harmless" manner hurts the user of the word more than anyone the word is aimed at, and is therefore "unfair."

If you make a person think about the words they use beyond the immediate satisfaction in using them, it might make them uncomfortable, depending on the word. People don't like that, and will immediately try to find a good justification for their continued use of it.
 
I cut a guy off in traffic, my fault. I waved an acknowledgement that I fucked up. He pulled up beside me and called me a Fucking Fag! Which I found odd because I don't recall him being there that night.
 
Originally Posted by Spider from Mars
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?

Cocksucker?
 
It's a fun word to say haha. I kind of like South Park's take on the meaning of the word.

South Park could have done the episode with any slur. I don't get why people take a comedy show that spouts half-baked libertarian political philosophy seriously.

Considering that the word is almost always used as an insult, and often with an annoyed or angry tone of voice, I don't get how you find it fun to say.
 
Cocksucker?

ibUjNOhx7rzhn.gif
 
South Park could have done the episode with any slur. I don't get why people take a comedy show that spouts half-baked libertarian political philosophy seriously.

Considering that the word is almost always used as an insult, and often with an annoyed or angry tone of voice, I don't get how you find it fun to say.

In high school and in college (currently) a bunch of buddies and I say it jokingly to each other. As an insult, yes, but a fun, just joking around you're my buddy type of insult if that makes sense? Not just the word fag, but also queer, douche, etc.
 
In high school and in college (currently) a bunch of buddies and I say it jokingly to each other. As an insult, yes, but a fun, just joking around you're my buddy type of insult if that makes sense? Not just the word fag, but also queer, douche, etc.

Somehow I get the feeling Jonah Hill wasn't using the term as an in-group jest with his best friend paparazzo. I certainly wouldn't care about your particular usage, though calling someone queer or a fag as an insult seems a bit odd. Why is calling someone gay considered an insult by your group of friends and you?
 
Well all I can say is that I hope you're all happy that you're part of the reason why LGBTQ+ youths have among the highest suicide rates for any demographic.
 
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.
I think it's less that and more "I am the one who gets to ascribe intent to what I say, not you."

Offensiveness is a bit of a two-way street. I could say some of the most heinous things to you, but if you don't have a fuck to give, you might not be offended. Rather, you might be amused at my attempts to offend you. On the other end of the spectrum, I could say something innocuous like "niggardly" and you might take offense at it. It's not so simple as "X is an offensive word. On some level, you have to "allow" yourself to get offended (although "allow" implies a choice which I don't believe is often the case so it's probably not the best word to use there).

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.
Let's take that to the extreme. Imagine two scenarios. In both cases, you're walking down the street at night and cross by a man who looks at you and yells "Faggot!" out of the blue.

In scenario 1, the guy is just an asshole. He is saying it with hurtful intent (not caring whether or not you're gay). That's clearly offensive.

In scenario 2, the guy has Tourette's which manifests itself through coprolalia (i.e. the involuntary uttering of obscene words or phrases). He had no control over saying what he did. That doesn't strike me as offensive. Granted, you wouldn't know of his affliction and so might understandably take offense at what he said in your ignorance of his condition.

But what's the difference between the two scenarios? The context is essentially the same. Same street, same time of day, same culture, same complicated history of the word's usage in our society, same understanding of the word's taboo nature, etc. I would argue that the only thing that is different is intent. In scenario 1, the man is clearly intending to offend you. In scenario 2, he is not (even if it's not known to you at the time). From what you said here, you'd say that the man in scenario 2 exhibited homophobic behavior even if what he said was completely beyond his control.

Like I said, it's an extreme case. However, if you concede that it is in principle possible to call someone a "faggot" without being homophobic about it (which I admit I don't know that you will concede that point), then I think it's not a terribly large leap to think that other instances are similarly not offensive in that way. After all, language is 100% context-driven. Certain words and phrases--even just sounds--might have more significance to me than you or vice versa. There are generational differences, regional differences, cultural differences, and racial differences (among others) in how we use words and language. For that reason, I feel like a rule that says "this is implicitly homophobic or offensive no matter what the context" is a bit heavy-handed.
 
Somehow I get the feeling Jonah Hill wasn't using the term as an in-group jest with his best friend paparazzo. I certainly wouldn't care about your particular usage, though calling someone queer or a fag as an insult seems a bit odd. Why is calling someone gay considered an insult by your group of friends and you?

I get that but I don't think Jonah Hill was literally calling the paparazzo "gay" or anything. The word really has different defintion now. Honestly back in 6th grade (when everyone in my school started using the word and I soon followed) I thought the word basically meant "asshole" or something. I didn't know what the word meant until 10th or 11th grade.
 
I get that but I don't think Jonah Hill was literally calling the paparazzo "gay" or anything. The word really has different defintion now. Honestly back in 6th grade (when everyone in my school started using the word and I soon followed) I thought the word basically meant "asshole" or something. I didn't actually didn't know what the word meant until 10th or 11th grade.

The definition hasn't changed at all. This word is still being used against gay people as a slur every day.
 
I get that but I don't think Jonah Hill was literally calling the paparazzo "gay" or anything. The word really has different defintion now. Honestly back in 6th grade (when everyone in my school started using the word and I soon followed) I thought the word basically meant "asshole" or something. I didn't know what the word meant until 10th or 11th grade.

It has multiple definitions (I guess two in this case) but curiously enough both are used as insults. One just being a hell of a lot harsher.
 
The definition hasn't changed at all. This word is still being used against gay people as a slur every day.

But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.
 
Yeah every american fratbro on xbox live really is just calling me a bundle of sticks

right
Basically. I remember back in elementary school when my class had to read And Then There Were None, and no black student would even go near "the nigger in the woodpile," even with our teacher having explained the meaning before we started reading the book.
 
Come on man.

You don't think it contributes at all? "Faggot" either is used as an anti-gay slur, or as an insult. In both cases it is used in a negative fashion. I think that contributes to an atmosphere that prevents gay adolescents from coming out for fear of being socially rejected.

But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.

"Against its definition" makes it sound like you think the word has an auto-antonym, similarly to how "literally" can be used to mean "not literally, but for exaggeration." That isn't the case. In both cases, the word is used negatively. You don't ever call someone a "fag" positively. You may not call a friend it with hateful intentions, but it isn't used in a positive manner.
 
But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.

Using it as an insult isn't against its literal definition in the slightest, you do realize that? "I don't mean 'fag' in a homophobic way, I just mean 'dumb and stupid'." That's not how "reclaiming a word" works.
 
But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.

What are you talking about? Anti-gay bullying and the use of the word faggot in that context is alive and well.
 
We live in a sad world when it makes national news when someone calls someone a name, even when that someone is a celebrity. Especially when the person who was called the name is a paparazzo.

No one is disputing if it is hurtful and if we should or should not say it. A grown ass man provoked another grown man and he called him a name. Why is this shocking or news worthy in any way?

I remember a saying, "Sticks and stones..." In my opinion if you allow a word to provoke this much sensation you shouldn't be evaluating the person who said it or who was called it, you should evaluate yourself. You are in for a rude awakening if you get blinded by inward pain by someone making a rude remark or slur towards yourself or a certain group of people. Guess what, it happens everyday and it will continue to happen until the end of time. When the word faggot doesn't matter something else will. However, the fact that he is apologizing, period, means that it is culturally unacceptable. This entire thread should be discussing the progress gay activism has made in our country vs. Jonah Hills blinded rage.

It's the 21st century and we are not twelve, lets take all this collective input and drama and put it toward something useful like ending the monopolization of our internet service and take down the ISP's!
 
We live in a sad world when it makes national news when someone calls someone a name, even when that someone is a celebrity. Especially when the person who was called the name is a paparazzo.

No one is disputing if it is hurtful and if we should or should not say it. A grown ass man provoked another grown man and he called him a name. Why is this shocking or news worthy in any way?

I remember a saying, "Sticks and stones..." In my opinion if you allow a word to provoke this much sensation you shouldn't be evaluating the person who said it or who was called it, you should evaluate yourself. You are in for a rude awakening if you get blinded by inward pain by someone making a rude remark or slur towards yourself or a certain group of people. Guess what, it happens everyday and it will continue to happen until the end of time. When the word faggot doesn't matter something else will. However, the fact that he is apologizing, period, means that it is culturally unacceptable. This entire thread should be discussing the progress gay activism has made in our country vs. Jonah Hills blinded rage.

It's the 21st century and we are not twelve, lets take all this collective input and drama and put it toward something useful like ending the monopolization of our internet service and take down the ISP's!
u sound straight
 
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?
It perpetuates homophobia because it perpetuates the association of homosexuality to inferiority? Just because you don't realize you're doing it doesn't mean you aren't doing it our that it's totally ok to do. It means that people who do know should say "hey don't say that," like that kid's parents did. That kid didn't just learn it in a vacuum, someone said it as an insult, probably in a homophobic context, and kid learned it was an insult, and continues to perpetuate. Sorry if I don't see that as a non-issue after having had to deal with that bullshit as a kid.

And it doesn't always matter what your intent is if what you're doing is harmful. And if you don't see kids saying the word faggot, nigger, or whatever else as problematic then, fuck, I don't even know what to say.
 
But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.

Why do you think faggot became popular as a generalised insult?
Why do you think the word gay came to mean something is shit?

In both cases it's just casual homophobia, and their use just reinforces that being gay is a negative thing.

If people didn't make so many excuses for it you wouldn't have had this 'words change' argument in the first place. It's the casual homophobia that has made it happen.
 
I think what Mumei is getting at is, regardless the context of somebody using the word "faggot", what is ultimately indicated by the current day usage of the word is the continued marginalization of homosexual men. When someone lashes out of anger or frustration, like Jonah Hill, who calls a paparazzi a faggot because he has been following him all day, it does not necessarily indicate Jonah's hatred or dislike of gay men. What it points to is the fact that in the language we choose, we actively participate in the shaping of others' identities. This is the case for all racial or sexual impotentials. When you call someone a "faggot" because you are angry, you are intending to hurt someone, to lash out at them, and to make them feel victimized. When someone uses this word, they know what the literal meaning is. Maybe it is not a gay man, but it is a weak man, or a "sissy", or someone who is not a man at all but something else. There is no positive connotation of this word, because it is always a sinister attack on the referent. It is therefore reflective of a certain social experience, and suggests that gay men are ready objects of villification and scorn. For that reason there's no getting around the homophobia that is embedded in this word.
 
sorry about my earlier post guys

straight people on the internet think i need to go re-evaluate myself, so i'll go do that now
 
But it's also being used against its literal definition everyday as well. In fact Im willing to bet it's actually used against its definition moreso than not.
Here, go read Mumei's post and stop using the fucking word.
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.
 
Basically. I remember back in elementary school when my class had to read And Then There Were None, and no black student would even go near "the nigger in the woodpile," even with our teacher having explained the meaning before we started reading the book.

This reminds me. In 11th grade English class, we were reading a play/book (I think it was A Streetcar named Desire). The teacher would designate someone from the class to read few paragraphs at a time. Anyway, just before there is a uasge of the word nigger, the teacher stops the guy currently reading and tell the only black girl in the class to start reading. Needless to say, there was an awkward silence for the rest of the class.

So if I say kiss my Ass is that homophobic?

If I say Suck My Cock is that homophobic?

That would be pro-homosexual because you are saying that I have no problem with you sucking my cock (if you were using it against a male if you are a male)
 
I get that but I don't think Jonah Hill was literally calling the paparazzo "gay" or anything. The word really has different defintion now. Honestly back in 6th grade (when everyone in my school started using the word and I soon followed) I thought the word basically meant "asshole" or something. I didn't know what the word meant until 10th or 11th grade.

But you can see how gay people would think it odd to use a word for homosexual as a word for "asshole." And maybe you can see how Mr. Hill would feel wrong for perpetuating that use?

And maybe you can understand how when you use that word casually you are perpetuating it's use?
 
Wow, I'm super impressed. I was expecting "the word is only homophobic if you make it homophobic" or some bullshit like that.
 
You don't think it contributes at all? "Faggot" either is used as an anti-gay slur, or as an insult. In both cases it is used in a negative fashion. I think that contributes to an atmosphere that prevents gay adolescents from coming out for fear of being socially rejected.



"Against its definition" makes it sound like you think the word has an auto-antonym, similarly to how "literally" can be used to mean "not literally, but for exaggeration." That isn't the case. In both cases, the word is used negatively. You don't ever call someone a "fag" positively. You may not call a friend it with hateful intentions, but it isn't used in a positive manner.

It was the blanket statement to everyone in this thread I was referring to.
 
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.

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.

That's the point I was making, that using words change in regards to faggot doesn't actually hold any water, because it ignores the way words change, as explained by Mumei and others in this thread. Of course the person I quoted didn't give a shit, because living in an ignorant world is much easier.
 
I don't see myself really reacting to things like this with anything more than indifference. It's good that he's being sensitive to the feelings of other people, I suppose. I just find myself pretty emotionally undisturbed by the words themselves.
 
Here, go read Mumei's post and stop using the fucking word.

Here's my problem with this though...
When people say "retarded" do you think actual retarded people won't be hurt by this as well?
Someone brought up the word "lame" and actual lame people
"Dumb blondes"
"Hillbilly" "Hick"
"Terrorist" "are you gonna blow everyone up now?" (I deal with this a lot)
In not gonna mention them all but there are a ton more.

Why is it that people who happen to like the same type of sex have to be entitled to some type of protection by the media/others, that is not entitled to these other groups of people or not as much so? Part of being "normalized" in society is accepting that there is an insulting word/stereotype/slur with everyone group of people. I have a few gay friends and what really annoys them is when people make a big deal about an insulting word. It's really just a word in the end. They don't want/need the protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom