Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

You can use faggot against a woman. It seems the word is turning into an insult that means that person is killing the vibe. That, whatever they are doing, is screwing up how things were going. It can still be used as you say, but I think there is a meaning here that's developed beyond the masculinity and homosexuality angle.

Imagine any other insult associated with a minority, and use it as an insult that didn't have to include that particular minority. Is it weird if someone of that minority got offended at, not only it's use, but it's use as a general insult?

 

[Ollie Pooch]

And that's what Kobe was doing?

I don't know what he was doing, nor do you. I'm also not outraged about it like so many here. But the negative connotations of the word and the fact it's an insult come from its association with gay men. Anyone arguing otherwise is full of shit, as i said. Maybe it's an American thing - I've never heard it used here in Aus to mean anything else.

 

[etiolate]

Imagine any other insult associated with a minority, and use it as an insult that didn't have to include that particular minority. Is it weird if someone of that minority got offended at, not only it's use, but it's use as a general insult?

I saw your example. It would be an awkward situation. I can understand someone reacting to it.

But if the person is attempting to transform the word, then that is what the person is doing. The social viability of his attempt is determined by how well the transformation takes.

 

[Dude Abides]

Kobe is probably appealing the fine at least in part because the player's union wants him to. The players don't want a precedent set where a profane outburst gets a heavy fine.

 

[MWS Natural]

Gay GAF and Natural's Law always a winning combination.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Gay GAF and Natural's Law always a winning combination.

That's funny and accurate.

 

[dschalter]

Gay GAF and Natural's Law always a winning combination.

you mean:

Natural's Law - is a humorous observation made by GAF poster MWS Natural in 2011 which is becoming an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion in which GAF poster MWS Natural is a part of grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving black people approaches 1. In other words, Natural put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion regarding any form of conflict someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to discrimination faced by blacks.

yes, sounds about right.

 

[Kinitari]

Is it weird or wrong that discussions that involve the topics at hand are often peppered with the history of black discrimination? It seems like one of the most important struggles for equality in known history naturally will be brought up when discussing subsequent struggles. But go to like... The Demons souls OT and I doubt there will be a reference.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Is it weird or wrong that discussions that involve the topics at hand are often peppered with the history of black discrimination? It seems like one of the most important struggles for equality in known history naturally will be brought up when discussing subsequent struggles. But go to like... The Demons souls OT and I doubt there will be a reference.

I don't think he was necessarily saying it's wrong, just that it's true.

 

[Dead Man]

I saw your example. It would be an awkward situation. I can understand someone reacting to it.

But if the person is attempting to transform the word, then that is what the person is doing. The social viability of his attempt is determined by how well the transformation takes.

So Kobe was attempting to transform the word? Nice. So if I was to say that was 'Very niggerish' in an attempt to transform the word, that would be cool? Of course it wouldn't.


Yes, I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using a word as an insult is not exactly any noble action, or even meaningless. He used the word 'faggot' as an insult. It is not a general insult, like fuckhead, or dick, or turd munching shit buger, it is a specific word that calls someone gay as an insult.

 

[vas_a_morir]

So Kobe was attempting to transform the word? Nice.

So Kobe was using his appearance on national TV as a forum to discuss his feelings about the homosexual community? Nice.

 

[Dead Man]

So Kobe was using his appearance on national TV as a forum to discuss his feelings about the homosexual community? Nice.

No, he called someone a faggot. As a means of insulting them. That is all I know for sure.

 

[vas_a_morir]

No, he called someone a faggot. As a means of insulting them. That is all I know for sure.

Did I just get counter-trolled? lol

 

[Dead Man]

Did I just get counter-trolled?

Not even a nibble? Nah, not trolling, I just don't think there is any way to spin this anything but a person calling another person gay as a means of insulting them.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

So Kobe was attempting to transform the word? Nice. So if I was to say that was 'Very niggerish' in an attempt to transform the word, that would be cool? Of course it wouldn't.


Yes, I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using a word as an insult is not exactly any noble action, or even meaningless. He used the word 'faggot' as an insult. It is not a general insult, like fuckhead, or dick, or turd munching shit buger, it is a specific word that calls someone gay as an insult.

And obviously this new meaning didn't arise in a vacuum, either. Changing the meaning isn't a valid argument because the change itself can be traced back to its original derogatory context. To deny that is insulting, you'd have to claim it was a coincidence that it just happens to be that particular word.

It's probably a fun word to use, so I recognize that that's probably why some people who aren't ostensible homophobes hold on to it, and that there is no malicious intent behind it. But as long as it holds the meaning that it does, or the still-intact connection to its former meaning, it won't be a fun word to hear for anyone with intimate experience with these issues. And that isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[vas_a_morir]

Not even a nibble? Nah, not trolling, I just don't think there is any way to spin this anything but a person calling another person gay as a means of insulting them.

But... you were... and then I was...

Ah fuck it.

I agree with you 100%. I think we made a huge issue out of a non-issue. That's me, though. Gaffers are free to disagree all they want.

 

[etiolate]

So Kobe was attempting to transform the word? Nice. So if I was to say that was 'Very niggerish' in an attempt to transform the word, that would be cool? Of course it wouldn't.

Yes, I know that's not exactly what you were saying, but using a word as an insult is not exactly any noble action, or even meaningless. He used the word 'faggot' as an insult. It is not a general insult, like fuckhead, or dick, or turd munching shit buger, it is a specific word that calls someone gay as an insult.

My point is that it may not be an insult that is calling someone that. There could be a split in meaning of the word, where meaning of the word was once in a popular fashion one thing but has begun to grow into a separate meaning like a mitosis, and maybe the new meaning at some unknowable point had to do with homosexuality, but the new entity/meaning does not.

The question then becomes is it ethical to fight against this new meaning, to forever tie the word to homosexuality and is it even possible to stop the new meaning from happening and possibly taking over?

 

[Mumei]

You practically started this whole gay vs black thing. No one said they are not similar but the are not the same.

That would be Londa when he (or she, maybe, come to think of it) made a comparison between what gays are going through today with what black people were going through in the 1960s in order to argue that the two are not on the same level.

He's right that they aren't, but it's not really an intellectually honest argument.

He responded to my post in response to his, but I wasn't really sure what he was trying to say so I just sort of ignored it.

Words don't evolve in a bubble. There are larger social and cultural contexts that determine meanings of words. The onus is on someone who would deny the connection between faggot as an insult to a homosexual and faggot as a more general slur to prove they are separate, IMO. There's a clear logical connection between the two. As an example, the word "wigger." Well, it's a portmanteau of "white" and "nigger." It didn't evolve into its use as derogatory term without some connection to its origins, namely, that being a nigger is a bad thing, and that being a white nigger is also a bad thing. One hundred years from now, hypothetically, sure, we could say that "faggot" eventually becomes a generalized insult that personifies some negative quality about a person. The same could be said of a word like "geek" which historically meant a crazy person, or fool. But that ignores the present context completely. The present context is that prevailing, normative attitudes construct homosexuality as something that is wrong or aberrant, and its effect on language is to sanction use of homosexual slurs in a general derogatory sense. The ideology is that homosexuality is wrong, and that people are condemned not for practicing it, but are condemned as implicit practioners through the use of faggot as an insult. We have to keep in mind faggot is always directed at someone - it's always meant as an insult. It's not entered into the modern lexicon as a general exclamation or interjection. To my knowledge people aren't saying "Oh, faggot, I forgot my keys in the house!" They are saying instead "I don't like you - You are a faggot."

<3

Precisely.

And that's what Kobe was doing?

'Masculinity' is defined very broadly. For instance, a sociologist spend 18 months going to a California high school and observing the ways in which boys called each other fags - what things made you a fag, essentially:

"I saw and heard boys imitate presumed faggots and hurl the fag epithet so frequently at one another that I came to call it a "fag discourse." I use the term fag and not gay, advisedly. Boys at River High repeatedly differentiated fags from gay men. For these boys gay men could still be masculine, whereas a fag could never be masculine. Thus the term "gay" functioned as a generic insult meaning "stupid" or "lame" whereas "fag" invoked a very specific gendered slur, directed at other boys. For these boys a fag was a failed, feminine man who, in all likelihood, was also gay. Boys participated in a fag discourse to ensure that others saw them as masculine by renouncing any fag-like behavior or same-sex desire. They did this by imitating fags and calling other boys fags. Boys imitated fags by lisping, mincing and pretending to sexually desire men, drawing laughs from male audiences who howled at these imitations.

They frantically lobbed the fag epithet at one another, in a sort of compulsive name calling ritual. In the context of River High (the pseudonym of the school where I conducted this research) being called a fag had as much to do with failing at tasks of masculinity as it did with sexual desire. More often than not these fag-like behaviors were those associated with femininity. Exhibiting stupidity, emotions, or incompetence, caring too much about clothing, touching another guy, or dancing were all things which could render a boy vulnerable to the fag epithet. In this sense what I call a fag discourse is not just about homophobia, it is about a particularly gendered homophobia as these renouncements of the fag are as much about repudiating femininity as they are about denying same-sex desire."​

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/28/pascoe

 

[numble]

Kobe is probably appealing the fine at least in part because the player's union wants him to. The players don't want a precedent set where a profane outburst gets a heavy fine.

It's a reasonable point, if you look at the history of NBA fines, there seems to be a uniform pattern and a $100k player fine is either an outlier, or a start of a new precedent. If someone gets 100k here for talking to oneself on a bench, those fines for actually confronting refs are going to need to be higher in the future.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

<3

Precisely.

Yeah, that was said much more clearly than I could ever manage.

Also, your posts are, as far as I've seen in topics like these, always right. The word faggot has rather deep and specific implications, my experiences of which go back until I was very young. I've known what it "meant" long before I knew anything about my own sexuality or even sexuality in general, simply by how it was used, especially when directed at me... and it has always carried a very special sting. If it was a general or broadly applicable insult that wouldn't have been the case. General insults are more likely to result in confusion as for why one is being insulted, or something, but the fact that I had a very clear idea of why I was being insulted as far back as I can remember, to me, seems pretty telling.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Mumei, that link was really interesting - thanks for posting it.

 

[ionicbluebird]

Hey straight guys... you ever been called a faggot? Yeah? Didn't like it? Now imagine you were gay.

Fuck off.

 

[Mumei]

Mumei, that link was really interesting - thanks for posting it.

The book is better!

Although I did find this gem, which is just from the article, absolutely hilarious:

For instance, a member of a Dartmouth College fraternity called a passerby a "fag," inspiring his fraternity brothers to hold a panel on inclusivity entitled, "Don’t yell fag from the porch."

A splendid sentiment, I think.

 

[Dead Man]

That would be Londa when he (or she, maybe, come to think of it) made a comparison between what gays are going through today with what black people were going through in the 1960s in order to argue that the two are not on the same level.

He's right that they aren't, but it's not really an intellectually honest argument.

He responded to my post in response to his, but I wasn't really sure what he was trying to say so I just sort of ignored it.



<3

Precisely.



'Masculinity' is defined very broadly. For instance, a sociologist spend 18 months going to a California high school and observing the ways in which boys called each other fags - what things made you a fag, essentially:

"I saw and heard boys imitate presumed faggots and hurl the fag epithet so frequently at one another that I came to call it a "fag discourse." I use the term fag and not gay, advisedly. Boys at River High repeatedly differentiated fags from gay men. For these boys gay men could still be masculine, whereas a fag could never be masculine. Thus the term "gay" functioned as a generic insult meaning "stupid" or "lame" whereas "fag" invoked a very specific gendered slur, directed at other boys. For these boys a fag was a failed, feminine man who, in all likelihood, was also gay. Boys participated in a fag discourse to ensure that others saw them as masculine by renouncing any fag-like behavior or same-sex desire. They did this by imitating fags and calling other boys fags. Boys imitated fags by lisping, mincing and pretending to sexually desire men, drawing laughs from male audiences who howled at these imitations.

They frantically lobbed the fag epithet at one another, in a sort of compulsive name calling ritual. In the context of River High (the pseudonym of the school where I conducted this research) being called a fag had as much to do with failing at tasks of masculinity as it did with sexual desire. More often than not these fag-like behaviors were those associated with femininity. Exhibiting stupidity, emotions, or incompetence, caring too much about clothing, touching another guy, or dancing were all things which could render a boy vulnerable to the fag epithet. In this sense what I call a fag discourse is not just about homophobia, it is about a particularly gendered homophobia as these renouncements of the fag are as much about repudiating femininity as they are about denying same-sex desire."​

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/06/28/pascoe

I always enjoy your posts when you bring the knowledge. Thanks.

 

[AZ Greg]

Considering this thread is 43 pages, I'm just going to assume

Spoiler

pretend

that the first and last page of this thread are just a front. And the reason there are so many pages is because the middle of the thread is discussing how to redeem free XBL points or something and everyone is trying to keep it secret.

I don't want to lose faith in you GAF.

 

[Zeke]

Hey straight guys... you ever been called a faggot? Yeah? Didn't like it? Now imagine you were gay.

Fuck off.

I usually laugh it off or blow them a kiss and mind fuck them. Yes I'm serious.

 

[Jin34]

What is it with so many people having no concept of nuance and blanketing this under PC as if he called the ref a fucking moron or something? How can you not see the difference? I'll give you a recent sports example. Some commentators were trying to say calling a player a "cancer" in the locker room/team was a term that should stop being used. See that's PC ridiculousness; calling someone a slur word used to disparage an oppressed minority group ("nigger", "spic", "fag/faggot") does not fall under the a fore mentioned example. If you can't see this then I don't know how you made it past the critical thinking part of standardized tests.

 

[Londa]

That would be Londa when he (or she, maybe, come to think of it) made a comparison between what gays are going through today with what black people were going through in the 1960s in order to argue that the two are not on the same level.

no, get outta here. I was replying to someone who compared both. I then replied with the fact that I do not understand this idea and explained why. It took like a couple of hours for people to prepare a reply to my comment because I had very valid points. Still no one has proven me wrong. Unless they try to re-write history like a certain poster.

 

[ZephyrFate]

My point is that it may not be an insult that is calling someone that. There could be a split in meaning of the word, where meaning of the word was once in a popular fashion one thing but has begun to grow into a separate meaning like a mitosis, and maybe the new meaning at some unknowable point had to do with homosexuality, but the new entity/meaning does not.

The question then becomes is it ethical to fight against this new meaning, to forever tie the word to homosexuality and is it even possible to stop the new meaning from happening and possibly taking over?

The current and pervasive meaning of 'faggot' is tied to its insult towards homosexuality. Currently, no, you cannot separate the two.

 

[Satyamdas]

Nice to see Devolution hit her "Privilege" quota 10x over within the first 3 pages of this thread. That's gotta be a new record!

Also, it was cool to see ZephyrFate appropriate the civil rights struggle blacks suffered in the 50s for his own cause in 2011. Then make the claim that when his friend calls him a faggot it is an endearing term and is OK but the rest of the world needs to just shut up and stop saying it. That seems like something only a.... wait for it...... privileged white male would say! Oh the sweet, sweet irony!

Gaborn calling for a $300K fine or dream demanding a 5 game suspension were similarly ludicrous. Nothing brings the crazy like some food ole faux outrage.

 

[kid ness]

But if the person is attempting to transform the word, then that is what the person is doing. The social viability of his attempt is determined by how well the transformation takes.

It's not like whoever says faggot with the intention to offend, is doing so in an effort to give the word a new meaning. I don't think that people are trying to transform the word, and even if they do, the roots of the word, no matter how many times "transformed", will still strongly offend regardless -- and with good reason. It's a very hateful word, and those who say it should be more aware and considerate.

 

[Dabookerman]

Would anyone be offended if I said I will "smoke you like a fag"?

 

[oneHeero]

Nice to see Devolution hit her "Privilege" quota 10x over within the first 3 pages of this thread. That's gotta be a new record!

Also, it was cool to see ZephyrFate appropriate the civil rights struggle blacks suffered in the 50s for his own cause in 2011. Then make the claim that when his friend calls him a faggot it is an endearing term and is OK but the rest of the world needs to just shut up and stop saying it. That seems like something only a.... wait for it...... privileged white male would say! Oh the sweet, sweet irony!

Gaborn calling for a $300K fine or dream demanding a 5 game suspension were similarly ludicrous. Nothing brings the crazy like some food ole faux outrage.

lol:

 

[dialmydrive]

Would anyone be offended if I said I will "smoke you like a fag"?

Offended? No. Turned on? Possibly.

 

[Dead Man]

Nice to see Devolution hit her "Privilege" quota 10x over within the first 3 pages of this thread. That's gotta be a new record!

Also, it was cool to see ZephyrFate appropriate the civil rights struggle blacks suffered in the 50s for his own cause in 2011. Then make the claim that when his friend calls him a faggot it is an endearing term and is OK but the rest of the world needs to just shut up and stop saying it. That seems like something only a.... wait for it...... privileged white male would say! Oh the sweet, sweet irony!

Gaborn calling for a $300K fine or dream demanding a 5 game suspension were similarly ludicrous. Nothing brings the crazy like some food ole faux outrage.

Wow, you're pretty obnoxious, huh?

 

[MaddenNFL64]

WTF, why is this thread so huge? It's a fucking non-issue.

Wow.

 

[Londa]

Nice to see Devolution hit her "Privilege" quota 10x over within the first 3 pages of this thread. That's gotta be a new record!

Also, it was cool to see ZephyrFate appropriate the civil rights struggle blacks suffered in the 50s for his own cause in 2011. Then make the claim that when his friend calls him a faggot it is an endearing term and is OK but the rest of the world needs to just shut up and stop saying it. That seems like something only a.... wait for it...... privileged white male would say! Oh the sweet, sweet irony!

Gaborn calling for a $300K fine or dream demanding a 5 game suspension were similarly ludicrous. Nothing brings the crazy like some food ole faux outrage.

This is perfect bait for them to respond, just to let you know. This will cause more of the black civil rights movement = gay rights movement disgussion.

 

[jorma]

Wow, you're pretty obnoxious, huh?

He did not even bring up when you dismissed Londa with the words "stop playing the victim" and devolution called him out for playing "oppression olympics". That shit was hilarious

 

[Londa]

He did not even bring up when you dismissed Londa with the words "stop playing the victim" and devolution called him out for playing "oppression olympics". That shit was hilarious

excuse me, huh?

I played the victim because I said I was black? To let them know that I know how it is to be black in america. When someone who isn't even black or in america was trying to tell me how it is here. LOL

 

[Chinese Electric Batman]

Sigh.

 

[Dead Man]

He did not even bring up when you dismissed Londa with the words "stop playing the victim" and devolution called him out for playing "oppression olympics". That shit was hilarious

Yeah, I know, or the bit where I said such comparisons were obviously not the best ones to use since people get so offended by them.

This is perfect bait for them to respond, just to let you know. This will cause more of the black civil rights movement = gay rights movement disgussion.

Oh no!!! Comparisons!!!!

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Oh I see. This is glorified IRC right now.

 

[Londa]

Yeah, I know, or the bit where I said such comparisons were obviously not the best ones to use since people get so offended by them.


Oh no!!! Comparisons!!!!

I'm not comparing.

 

[Dead Man]

I'm not comparing.

I know. That is your problem.

Anyway, I think this thread has run its course.

 

[Mumei]

no, get outta here. I was replying to someone who compared both. I then replied with the fact that I do not understand this idea and explained why. It took like a couple of hours for people to prepare a reply to my comment because I had very valid points. Still no one has proven me wrong. Unless they try to re-write history like a certain poster.

Sigh.

Masked Man said that both gay people and black people have been marginalized en masse and suggested that there's a connection between that history of oppression and the existence of slurs like faggot or nigger. He said nothing about them being exactly the same, or one being worse than the other. His post was not about that.

You responded by saying that, no, black people have been marginalized en masse and all gay people have experienced is not being able to marry. Not being able to marry, you said, does not compare to what black people went through in the 1960s. So from what I saw, you began the comparison between 2011 and 1960s with your post that, er, explicitly made the comparison between the two. And what you said was true, as far as it goes, but it was also a fundamentally unfair way of comparing things, as gay rights issues did not start in 1993 in Hawaii with gay marriage, but started much earlier with basic issues like the right not to be imprisoned for having consensual sex or not be blacklisted from employment.

I responded by explaining just that, and you responded by saying, "Anyone got Kobe's email address so he can send this to him?"

I don't know you were trying to communicate there, so things got dropped until now.

Also, I think it should be noted that the comparison between the civil rights movement and what gays are going through is mostly a rhetorical device to suggest that it is hypocritical to celebrate one group of people acquiring equal rights while supporting denying equal rights to another group. It isn't meant to suggest that the two are one-to-one the same, or that one did not exist in a worse climate for the protesters.

 

[Londa]

Sigh.

Masked Man said that both gay people and black people have been marginalized en masse and suggested that there's a connection between that history of oppression and the existence of slurs like faggot or nigger. He said nothing about them being exactly the same, or one being worse than the other. His post was not about that.

You responded by saying that, no, black people have been marginalized en masse and all gay people have experienced is not being able to marry. Not being able to marry, you said, does not compare to what black people went through in the 1960s. So from what I saw, you began the comparison between 2011 and 1960s with your post that, er, explicitly made the comparison between the two. And what you said was true, as far as it goes, but it was also a fundamentally unfair way of comparing things, as gay rights issues did not start in 1993 in Hawaii with gay marriage, but started much earlier with basic issues like the right not to be imprisoned for having consensual sex or not be blacklisted from employment.

I responded by explaining just that, and you responded by saying, "Anyone got Kobe's email address so he can send this to him?"

I don't know you were trying to communicate there, so things got dropped until now.

Also, I think it should be noted that the comparison between the civil rights movement and what gays are going through is mostly a rhetorical device to suggest that it is hypocritical to celebrate one group of people acquiring equal rights while supporting denying equal rights to another group. It isn't meant to suggest that the two are one-to-one the same, or that one did not exist in a worse climate for the protesters.

He was implying it heavily in the way he said it and earlier in this thread there was others who said the same thing. It honestly doesn't matter who did what first. I think it is childish to go around pointing the finger. Gotta take the heat off yourself.

I asked if anyone has Kobe's email, because in all honesty you should be talking to him about your displeasure. Not trying to convince others to agree with you. The stuff you mentioned are not eye opening or even on par with the civil rights movement. That was my point. Because others were implying that and still do with every gay topic here. No one is saying we shouldn't acknowledge the bad treatment of gays, but in all honesty, leave other peoples struggles out of it. Especially when you don't even do research on black history or what they even go through. Like how someone didn't even know about permits and assumed that blacks didn't get beat up and killed.

 

[Gaborn]

He was implying it heavily in the way he said it and earlier in this thread there was others who said the same thing. It honestly doesn't matter who did what first. I think it is childish to go around pointing the finger. Gotta take the heat off yourself.

I asked if anyone has Kobe's email, because in all honesty you should be talking to him about your displeasure. Not trying to convince others to agree with you. The stuff you mentioned are not eye opening or even on par with the civil rights movement. That was my point. Because others were implying that and still do with every gay topic here. No one is saying we shouldn't acknowledge the bad treatment of gays, but in all honesty, leave other peoples struggles out of it. Especially when you don't even do research on black history or what they even go through. Like how someone didn't even know about permits and assumed that blacks didn't get beat up and killed.

Perhaps you're overly sensitive and need to get over a direct comparison that is only in your mind rather than parallels which are fair game.

 

[ChocolateCupcakes]

Perhaps you're overly sensitive and need to get over a direct comparison that is only in your mind rather than parallels which are fair game.

Wow a pot calling the kettle black.

But that's it I'm officially done with this thread.

 

[theignoramus]

Is it weird or wrong that discussions that involve the topics at hand are often peppered with the history of black discrimination? It seems like one of the most important struggles for equality in known history naturally will be brought up when discussing subsequent struggles.

because the civil rights struggle has moral appeal that any reasonable person can understand and support. but it's interesting that the same community that provides a useful civil rights paradigm gets ranted at and blamed for Prop 8, often with spurious data.......

 

[Mumei]

He was implying it heavily in the way he said it and earlier in this thread there was others who said the same thing. It honestly doesn't matter who did what first. I think it is childish to go around pointing the finger. Gotta take the heat off yourself.

... There wasn't any heat on me. I was disagreeing with ChocolateCupcakes' assessment that the comparisons began with Zephyr.

I asked if anyone has Kobe's email, because in all honesty you should be talking to him about your displeasure. Not trying to convince others to agree with you. The stuff you mentioned are not eye opening or even on par with the civil rights movement. That was my point. Because others were implying that and still do with every gay topic here. No one is saying we shouldn't acknowledge the bad treatment of gays, but in all honesty, leave other peoples struggles out of it. Especially when you don't even do research on black history or what they even go through. Like how someone didn't even know about permits and assumed that blacks didn't get beat up and killed.

You must not have noticed; I don't particularly care about Kobe. He said something he shouldn't have, he apologized but doesn't want to lose money because of it, however little it proportionally is. Whatever; hopefully his apology was sincere. My issue in this topic was primarily with the people who insisted that 'faggot' is a perfectly acceptable thing to say to people and that its usage as a generalized insult has nothing to do with its prior and contemporaneous usage as a slur towards a specific group of people, and people who insisted that 'nigger' is fundamentally wrong while 'faggot' is not.

I'm bit amused by the notion that none of those things were eye-opening. I somehow doubt you were aware of a single one of them before I posted it, since they aren't things you are likely to learn without reading books specifically about gay history in the United States - and you don't really seem to the type to educate yourself on the history of gay rights, since you seem to go out of your way to be dismissive of it. I'd also argue that, actually, of any time period we could compare, black people and gay people were closest in terms of their political and social marginalization during the 1940s - 1970s - which is probably why, after the passage of the civil rights bills in the late 50s and 60s, one of the founders of the Black Panthers argued in the early 70s - in what I imagine was not a particularly popular speech - that gay people were the most oppressed people in American society.

I'm also a bit amused by the notion that I said something to indicate that I did not do research about black history. I won't pretend that I've got every detail memorized, but I've my fair share of books on black history and taken my fair share of college courses on black history.

And you've yet to explain why other people's struggles should be left out of it. You seem to have this position that comparing gay rights movement to the civil rights movement, in any fashion, somehow denigrates the civil rights movement. There are clear parallels (for instance, marriage rights, adoption, discrimination in housing and employment) that black people have gone through. It doesn't make sense to argue that you cannot compare gay people being denied the ability to adopt or being discriminated against in housing with black people being denied the ability to marry or being discriminated against in employment.