-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kobe Bryant slinging homophobic slur during nationally televised NBA game
- Thread starter Aruarian Reflection
- Start date
- Status
Neither word is "acceptable", but they will both be said for as long as english speaking humans populate this planet. So you can either wait for society to become completely enlightened and never say those mean words again, or you can take it upon yourself to not give a fuck about what some dumb ass person says as an insult. I'm not expecting much of either to happen. I'm pretty resigned to the fact that people have no desire to rise above their emotional responses. I don't expect us to engage our logic and reasoning to a greater degree any time soon.Dead Man said:
I'm sorry dude, but you are just plain wrong on this. It DOES happen that way, for me and many others. I am not the only one with the ability to not be offended by words. It is not some superpower that is not available to anyone but me. It requires a level of introspection and detachment from emotions that most people are not willing to bother with, but you are flat out incorrect to say that it is impossible.Kinitari said:
The word faggot already is as taboo as nigger. People dislike hearing it, and it causes just as much discomfort and awkwardness as hearing someone say nigger in public. But just like nigger is the ultimate taboo word and is still being said every day, so too will faggot be said no matter how taboo the word becomes.Kinitari said:
And why will they still be said? To goad emotional responses out of people, to rile them up, to insult, etc. Since the words will never disappear, it is incumbent upon the recipient of the word to not let himself be manipulated by it but to instead shrug it off and refuse to get in the mud with the person slinging the insult. There will never be a day when these terrible words are erased from language, or when society is so perfectly enlightened that they will never say terrible and hateful things. So taking control of one's response to hearing them seems a practical thing to do. Again, I have no illusions about people's willingness to control their emotions, so I neither expect this to happen nor advocate for it. It's just what makes sense to me.
He didn't get punished for making fun of Charlie Villanueva's disease, and he's never been punished for all the mocking he's done to white players, either. Including getting into physical fights with his white teammates at Minnesota. But people are throwing conspiracy theories that Kobe would've been suspended but for the playoffs.Tom Penny said:
Just a couple quick responses before I do bail out for a while. Yeah, I get that, what I am talking about is many other slurs that ARE widely acknowledged as being unacceptable, so even if you hear them it makes them easier to shrug off, since the persons saying them is an outlier. With this situation, it seems as if about one third of the people I have spoken with, IRL on and here, seem to think it is acceptable to say, and some of the others think it is rude, but only like calling someone an arsehole. Shit is depressing.Satyamdas said:
True enough, I guess.Blair said:
*sigh* See, Satyamdas, this is the shit I am talking about. Not the specific comparison to nigger, but the ignorance and casual statement that being gay is wrong.Tom Penny said:
I'm talking about people who are not used to hearing those words being said regularly. To their more sensitive ears both words are equally disgusting and unacceptable. To the majority of adults, hearing either word is offensive. Both words are taboo, and just because you hear one more than the other doesn't make it any less so.Tom Penny said:
Bloodbeard
Member
dehydratedbabies said:
Check out the Rick Crom poker scene from Louie Louie's 2nd episode for a little bit of background on how 'faggot' came to be the term for 'a bundle of sticks'.
EDIT: Since the video is not on youtube, I'll just tell you. Puritans used to burn witches. They would also burn homosexuals but considered them to be so disgraceful that they weren't even worth the logs of wood needed for a fire. So, instead, they used kindling and "a bunch of sticks" to make the fire to burn the homosexuals.
06nbarnhill
Member
This thread.......
People say stupid things. This is not that big of a deal. However, Kobe is at fault.
People say stupid things. This is not that big of a deal. However, Kobe is at fault.
Satyamdas said:
Did I say it was impossible on the individual basis? I didn't, I specifically said it would never become the norm, not even half of people will ever get there.
Absolutely incorrect. If faggot was as taboo as nigger, you wouldn't have people in this thread defending Kobe's use of it, you wouldn't have people using it all over, as easy as anything to insult someone. This is wrong, and you know it.
I do not expect faggot to ever disappear in it's entirety, I don't have as lofty goals such as that. I would agree that a measure of control over ones emotions would be ideal, but it doesn't happen - like you said yourself - on any important scale, and it can't. Sometimes the most casual things said to me, devoid of insult or slur can hurt me more than any use of the word nigger or faggot or the combination of the like. I can't fight that, and I can't do anything about that - but if I can make a few more people consider removing 'faggot' from their vernacular, I will be happy. You assume I have much more impressive goals than I do - I can't change the world, but if I can do a bit of good I'm happy.
If faggot ever becomes as taboo as nigger, then I'll be even happier.
Satyamdas said:
That's not what taboo means. You're thinking of the word 'offensive'. A taboo is when a society of sorts decides that a certain thing shouldn't be done. There is a taboo on using the word nigger as an insult - there is no such taboo on faggot, or if there is one, it is mild in comparison. Both words are just as 'offensive' but not just as 'taboo'.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Tom Penny said:
The word sticks to some people more than others, and I'd guarantee you that those people care.
Effemiphobia and homophobia are joint issues, and the insult directly reflects that as it happens to be used for both. I guess stigmatizing effeminacy is okay, or some kind of acceptable sacrificial goat in reinforcing one's own masculinity in comparison? Never mind that petty cruelty makes one less of a man, not more of one, at least by any measure of manhood that matters.
That this word is directed disproportionately at 'queer' seeming kids in particular (regardless of sexuality, as most kids don't have any sexuality to speak of) is representative of a problem. A good chunk of these kids will probably grow up to be gay, a good chunk probably won't, but for either of these groups (and the gay ones in particular) the word will always carry a rather clear meaning.
As long as the word carries a stigma, it will reflect poorly on the implied worthiness of homosexuality, since all of it's derogatory meanings are traced directly back to that.
Mercury Fred
Banned
Hey thanks. No one has posted this in like an entire page.overcast said:
And your post is a great example as to why. It reeks of resignation as if attempting to control one's emotional responses is futile. Your sentiment is shared by the vast majority of people, so this is not an attack against you personally. I just recoil at the defeatist mindset in general.Kinitari said:
Really? The ULTIMATE SUPREME TABOO WORD is still thrown around all over, every day, by kids and adults alike. If nigger is SO MUCH MORE TABOO than faggot, why do I hear/read nigger so constantly??Kinitari said:
See, this is what I'm talking about. You "can't" fight that? That is fucking bullshit. You CAN fight it but you don't want to. Most people don't want to. And that is fine, it's every individual's prerogative to respond to something in any way they want to.Kinitari said:
But I think more good is done by people learning to control their base emotional responses than by lessening the amount of utterances a particular word is said or by assigning some arbitrary measure of "taboo-ness" to different words. Because not only does not responding to hateful words rob them of their power, but controlling your emotions can also be helpful in a million different areas unrelated to epithet usage. If a person can control their response to nigger and faggot, then when nigger and faggot are phased out and replaced by a new epithet, they will be able to shrug the new word off just as easily.
Basically you are professing your subordinate position relative to words. You are trapped beneath these all powerful things and their power over you is absolute, so your solution to the harm they cause you is to somehow lessen their occurrence. I got news for you, bro. Not gonna happen.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Satyamdas said:
You can't control a base emotional response, you can only control how you interpret or process said base emotional response. And people have varying levels of sensitivity. You can encourage people to be less sensitive, but all you're doing is causing them to interpret their feelings differently, the feelings themselves are the same. You can argue that such sensitivity is less practical because being hurt by the insensitivity of others is a fact of life, and you'd be right, but that doesn't invalidate the initial response at all. People internalize things at different levels and in different ways, and this is a problem of internalization, that's why many gay people still struggle with a kind of internalized homophobia, which is probably why gay teens are more likely to commit suicide.
I agree we shouldn't let the actions of others govern our behavior, and how we respond to these things, but at the same time we have to be careful. No response at all is as bad as a disproportionately negative response, because that can often imply that it's perfectly okay.
Mercury Fred
Banned
I thought you'd be too busy looking out for number 1 to post in this thread again. From what you've posted, it seems like it's tough work being so disinterested in the well being of other people. My heart goes out to you.Londa said:
Satyamdas said:
*shrug* I don't see a need to argue this particular point with you, I completely respect your position, but you know as well as I that it can never ever be that way.
In a fight, call someone a faggot, then in another fight call someone a nigger. It's not the same thing. Maybe it's because I am black, but the only people I really hear using the word nigger a lot are other black people. That's not how it works for faggot, I hear it all the fucking time.
It's not bullshit, It's more than in my power to not have emotional investment in language used. It's not possible - if you had a traumatic experience that happened to you in your life, hypothetically, some guy ran over your dog right in front of you as a child. Then someone goes up to you and says "gonna run over you like I ran over your dog" or something along those lines, it will resonate with you, it will connect with you - you'll have an emotional flashback and you'll have some sort of response. This is how language works, it's not possible to get around that. We can shield ourselves a bit, we can never be immune.
Words are powerful, we can't change that. Nothing will ever change that. To deny the power of language is to deny politics, to deny speeches and catch phrases, to deny songs and poems and all the communication that comes with it. I could never hold an expectation where people could shield themselves from all negative language and shrug it off - people CAN fight it, people do. I know gay people don't break down and cry every time they hear the word faggot, or someone calls them a faggot - but it doesn't mean that I am happy with the word being used.
Is it resigning when I fight the only way I can, or is it resigning when I give up fighting and just accept that people will always slur? Which one really seems like I am resigning?
Actually, you CAN control a base emotional response. It requires a lot of conditioning and practice, but it is not an impossible feat. Swamis and ascetics for centuries have conditioned themselves to not be aroused at even the sight of a naked woman, and that is as primal and base a response as the human body has, going even deeper than emotions. We are able to control ourselves a bit more than you are giving credit for, even if such control is exceedingly rare to witness these days.umop_3pisdn said:
Now I do not expect nor advocate for people to learn this ability, because it is not a practical suggestion and is not something that is even attractive in the first place for most people, but it can be done. My only point has been that there does exist an alternate method to dealing with words which one may find objectionable other than subjugating one's self to them and flailing in vain to somehow have them erased or uttered less frequently.
I'm not saying that the way to deal with hatred and insults is for everyone to become an emotionless shell devoid of feelings and just take everything that is thrown at them. That is as unhelpful as it is impossible. Balance is key.
Agreed.umop_3pisdn said:
Kalnos said:
Well yes, the way some
old
umop_3pisdn
Member
Satyamdas said:
I know, and I understand this point, I think at least as far as people's expectations have been colored, this point can seem insensitive, as it often seems to be used insensitively. Everyone has to take responsibility for themselves (and thus their feelings) but it's also true that it's easier for others to exercise consideration than it is for the individual to cultivate a more equanimous response towards insensitivity.
Really I was just adopting a simplified perspective for the purpose of argument, since such mental discipline isn't really relevant to this discussion and reflects a kind of individual commitment that most would balk at.
So the most practical response is a social response, at most we can only urge people to recognize the impact that their words have, I don't think anyone with realistic expectations is considering much else to be gained from this discussion.
Your point is valued, though, an individual interest of mine is the mental discipline of such yogis, etc, and I intend to cultivate such qualities myself, but that's beyond the purview of most.
Also, even just to touch on Maslow's hierarchy of needs (for an example), some forms of happiness (financial/security, social, etc) tend to take precedence over spiritual cultivation even within such spiritual philosophies, only because if these needs aren't met it makes successive development more difficult. That may not be entirely relevant to this discussion, though.
Breaking News: Bernard Hopkins calls Jean Pascal a "Fucking Faggot"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6cFqA3Pa9M
watch the first 50 seconds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6cFqA3Pa9M
watch the first 50 seconds.
ZephyrFate
Banned
I'm glad that this thread teaches me over and over again that there is a ridiculous amount of people who honestly think faggot has evolved beyond a homosexual slur. It's honestly the saddest thing I've seen on GAF.
Jeff Albertson
Member
scorcho said:
Don't worry he's untouchable.
To clear up a misconception, a faggot isn't a cigarette in England, a fag is however.
Obviously faggot can also mean a kind of offal meatball but its also quite a common insult.
In fact amongst males in England, homophobic or indeed most slurs are used relatively often as a way of banter between friends (faggot, bender etc)
Maybe there is a degree of homophobia still ingraned into some people but I've never thought of people saying them being actually consciously homophobic, I recently became more aware of it as my sister came out 3 years ago.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Newsflash: America.Londa said:
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
To be honest, as a black gay person, the name calling quit hurting on a personal level after high school. Its shocking to hear grown assed people resort to name calling, but I don't take it personally anymore.
Kobe calling the ref a fucking faggot is no more surprising to me these days than the sun rising in the east. I, personally, believe that reacting to it lets them know that they can fuck with you.
Kobe calling the ref a fucking faggot is no more surprising to me these days than the sun rising in the east. I, personally, believe that reacting to it lets them know that they can fuck with you.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Jeff Albertson said:
Few people are saying that people who use the word that way are homophobic. Generally the claim made is that it's always a hurtful word regardless of the intent, because whatever the negative connotations are in any instance that it is used, the origins can always be traced back to bigotry.
You have not tried to remove your emotional ties to language, so how do you know it is impossible?Kinitari said:
Language is a tool, like a hammer. I am able to use language without an emotional attachment to it just as I am able to use a hammer without an emotional attachment to it. And like a hammer, the tool of language can be used to bludgeon and cause harm. I don't deny that. All I'm saying is that in the case of language, it isn't like the hammer where you cannot avoid the physical harm of it hitting you. With language, YOU DO have a degree of control over how much it affects you. How much control you have is up to you.
Sometimes the most trite and cliched sayings are the most accurate. Sticks and stones......
Wrong. We can change that. We do it all the time. Words are powerful because we give them power. They are not earthquakes or tsunamis. They aren't powerful forces of nature which exist outside of our control. They have power solely due to our emotional ties to them and the sentiments they express, not because they stand on their own in nature as some immutable physical force. Since we imbue words with their power by our reactions to them, we do have control over it.Kinitari said:
If tomorrow everyone decided to totally shrug off the word nigger as if it was alien speak, and those who said it got no response from anyone, how long do you think the word would continue to be used?? It would have zero effect on anyone, would not produce the desired emotional response, and would therefore become a useless and powerless word overnight. Even in this hypothetical scenario nigger would still be used by certain people to refer to other people, but it's usage as an insult would quickly discontinue because it would be ineffective. This would be a clear example of changing the power of words. It will not happen, but not because removing power from words is impossible. It won't happen because people are not interested in controlling their emotions, or they think it can't be done, as you have suggested.
The power of words are not held within the word itself, or the sound that is made when they are spoken. It is in the speaker knowing that you are emotionally tied to the word and that by uttering it they are basically pushing a button which zaps you. A button which you cannot turn off. That is where the power comes from, whether it be an uplifting speech which moves you to tears, or a hate filled rant which hurts you deeply. We DO have the ability to turn that button on and off. We just choose not to.
krypt0nian
Banned
Londa said:
Yes, brainiac. He called the ref something that is smoked because he was mad.
ZephyrFate
Banned
NO ONE in America would use the word fag to mean cigarette.
If you're arguing that, then you've truly gone mental.
If you're arguing that, then you've truly gone mental.
Amibguous Cad
Member
Satyamdas said:
It's cool to see people using Oppression Olympics bullshit to delegitimize a struggle for equality. That seems like something only a..... wait for it... privileged heterosexual male would do! Oh the sweet, sweet irony!
enzom21 said:
No joke. The Prop 8 debacle really opened my eyes to what a problem racism can be in the gay community. The racism that came out of it- including blaming blacks as individuals for the collective action of the majority of blacks in voting- was simply despicable.
Still, I think the most important thing I learned from that brouhaha is that guilt has to be assessed on an individual and not collective level. It's really shitty to your black allies to complain about the actions of black people as a whole when they, as a black ally, have done nothing wrong. In the same vein, I hope that you would remain open to "joining arms" with individual gays and segments of the gay communities that haven't shown racism to you.
ZephyrFate said:
Oh boy here we go-
ZephyrFate said:
Actually, yes, you are defending racist actions. Not treating someone with politeness or rationality because of their race? Racism. Blaming individual blacks for the collective votes of their race? Racism. Hell, even treating that statistic as if it were relevant? Racism.
You clearly apply the collective guilt concept you've derided so much when applied to gay people to blacks. Cut it out. It's bad when someone applies the actions of a gay racist to all gays, and it's bad when you apply the votes of some black people to all of them.
ZephyrFate
Banned
D'oh okay. Thank you for throwing in a bunch of implications I never made.
dehydratedbabies
Member
Bloodbeard said:
I like that scene, and Louie, but on NPR Louis CK said that he has no idea if that story is factual, and Wikipedia claims it isn't.
Kinitari said:
I am guilty of only reading the first and last few pages of this thread. I apologize, but this thread is very long and I didn't have time to read it all. I'm a new poster, but I've lurked NeoGAF for years and I'm aware that my opinions were probably already reflected by other like-minded people in this massive community. Still, I wanted to post my opinion myself. Part of what kept me from joining NeoGAF for so long was a fear that posting was futile because my posts would always be buried. I realize that it's annoying when people don't read threads.
My post wasn't directed at anyone specific in this thread, or this thread as a whole, but to anyone who is more concerned with the fact that Kobe Bryant said "fucking faggot" on television than they are about why so many people consider a basketball player's angry outburst to be newsworthy. When I asked "Why do you care?", I was asking why Kobe Bryant saying "fucking faggot" on television is noteworthy, because I don't think anything differentiates him from the people who shout "fucking faggot" on Xbox Live. I didn't ask "who cares", though, because it's evident across the Internet who cares.
Kinitari said:
Faggot can only "dehumanize" someone if they allow it to. You're entitled to be offended by words, but I don't understand why you want to do that. You claim that it's impossible for humans to avoid being offended by certain words, but I disagree. Sentences sometimes offend me, but slang words alone do not. I think motherfucker and faggot are quite comparable, because both are frequently said in anger without regard for their meaning or intent to offend. Regardless, slang words change meaning constantly and it's futile to declare that some words are acceptable but some aren't. Censoring taboo words only increases their appeal. I support freedom of speech without compromise, but courtesy and consideration are important things for anyone engaging in free speech to utilize.
Kinitari said:
No, I don't think you are completely misguided or malicious. It is absolutely better to be kind than to be cruel, and I wholly support open and honest discussion of thoughts and ideas. As I said, instead of reading discussions about an overpaid celebrities angry outburst as if it were relevant to any of us, I'd rather read discussions about why our society worries about things like this more than the education of children and ourselves. I'd rather read about why bullying in schools actually happens, and what parents and we need to do about it.
ZephyrFate
Banned
In America, yes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked