"Fag"

[DeeJayH]

No. When NYC flushes, the water heads southeast...right towards Nasau and Suffolk counties. :mrgreen:

ew
too early to be reading such foulness

 

[WI Crippler]

Crippler, as long as you understand that QN is responsible only for your impressions of him, and not for your impressions of the entire gay community, then what you are saying here is fine.

But, I do get the impression from your words that somehow you think that QN should be a "better" person, not because that's what people should in general do, but because he should 'represent his community' better.

It is a natural tendency for everyone to categorize and to generalize from the specific. Categorize people as gay, straight or bisexual, and then generalize to entire communities from specific encounters with individuals who are members of those communities. But I think it is a natural tendency that ought to be resisted.

Well like I said, I used to be disgusted by it in my youth, probably due to a religous upbringing. After I left our church, my views became tempered, and eventually I got to the point where I just feel like people are making a huge deal out of something thats shouldn't be a big deal.

I came to DP with a pretty open mind, and after seeing what Jallman had posted, it made really have respect for him, and others who are like him because they realize there are ways to move our society forward in a non abrasive manner. I never even realized this voice existed in the gay community. But QN reniforced some bad stereotype IMHO. He's entitled to it, but I don't have to like it. I guess I would make a comparison that his radical view is similar in its extremism as the extreme right wingers who hate homosexuality. Whereas Jallman is more of a middle of the road guy, who is not behelden to the more extreme voice of his group, much like there are christians who are not behelden to the antics of extreme religious figures. Now the only question is, is Jallman the minority voice of his group, or is QN??

 

[jallman]

Whereas Jallman is more of a middle of the road guy, who is not behelden to the more extreme voice of his group, much like there are christians who are not behelden to the antics of extreme religious figures. Now the only question is, is Jallman the minority voice of his group, or is QN??

First, let me say I commend you for being a reasonable, thoughtful, and temperate person. You definitely have my respect based on that alone. I also think that you have given some serious consideration to this matter and that alone speaks volumes about how truly open-minded you must be.

I don't think that being open-minded and tolerant means letting good sense fall out of your head. Tolerance is only a good thing when it is tempered by good judgment. Respect for the individual must be considered in the context of respect for society at large. Also, if you are going to accept the individual liberties and personal choices of one group, it is a responsibility of that group to accept and tolerate your individual liberties and personal choices.

Any group who wants its liberties and choices accepted also must prove itself by being socially responsible. Their request for equality in society must pass the muster of achieving the respect of society. We are very fortunate to live in a society where the requirements for that respect are very few. Harm none, show respect for the law and democracy, and don't use your minority status to take advantage of society.

At one time, the shock tactics of those like QN were probably more effective than my moderation. The beginning of any civil rights struggle is usually surrounded with strife and confrontation. However, the time for such confrontation and strife ridden politics is long past. One only has to look at television and the positive portrayals of gays in the media. The fact that the public is open to talking about gay issues at all is a positive thing and, so, as gays we should be respectful in our dissertation and exchanges with the rest of society. It is important for us to keep that dialog open and positive and progressive. I just don't see being confrontational and disrespectful and intolerant as a means of doing that. When we act in such an ugly manner, we are no better off socially than when we were kept in the dark closets. It is time for us to prove that we want to be a part of society and not an enemy of it.

 

[DeeJayH]

Any group who wants its liberties and choices accepted also must prove itself by being socially responsible. Their request for equality in society must pass the muster of achieving the respect of society. We are very fortunate to live in a society where the requirements for that respect are very few. Harm none, show respect for the law and democracy, and don't use your minority status to take advantage of society.

I especially liked this paragraph

 

[QueerNation]

Re: Charades

What? No, I just find it difficult to beliee that homosexuality causes limp wrists, lisps, and a penchant for strange clothes.

I find it much more likely that gay men who are flamboyant do so out of a need to conform to people's expectations. Of course, I'm in High School, so I have a limited scope.

I think a lot of kids in high school have this image of homosexual's as being 'limp-wristed' or 'queeny' or effeminate because society has built a negative stereotype of that image. As you get older, you'll learn that while there are a lot of gay men who are effeminate, there are also a lot of straight men who are effeminate. You'll find that the genrralization you just spoke of tends to be a false stereotype. There is really a pretty small percentage of gays that 'act gay'. At least that is how it has been in my own experience. My friends have told me that they had no idea I was gay until I told them or they discovered it accidently.
To me though, it doesn't matter if someone is 'limp-wristed' or effeminate. I accept people who they are regardless of their mannerisms or outward appearance. The people I have a problem with are those who would find the need to judge others by the way they look or act. And when I see people doing that, I realize that it is just their OWN insecurity that causes them to attack others. I suspect that men, (gay and straight) who are intolerant towards guys who are effeminate are that way because they haven't fully accepted the feminine side of themselves, like Jallman for instance.

But you may be right in some cases about the mannerisms, I am sure that there are many gay guys that 'act gay' to feel part of a group, or to be a part of their subculture. SO WHAT?!? They are entitled to do that if they choose, in fact I kind of like to see people who are flamboyant because I can see the reaction to them and can pick my friends based on how they react. For instance, if I'm with a person who would say something negative towards someone who is effeminate, I know that this person is very insecure and probably would stab their own friend in the back, so it acts as a social 'filter' that separates those who tolerant from those who are intolerant.

I see straight guys do the same thing when comparing notes about who's had the most ***** or the fastest car. The difference to me, is that when I see the machismo BS, I get sick to my stomach because I see such a blatant 'pose'.

 

[Stace]

Re: Charades

I think a lot of kids in high school have this image of homosexual's as being 'limp-wristed' or 'queeny' or effeminate because society has built a negative stereotype of that image. As you get older, you'll learn that while there are a lot of gay men who are effeminate, there are also a lot of straight men who are effeminate. You'll find that the genrralization you just spoke of tends to be a false stereotype. There is really a pretty small percentage of gays that 'act gay'. At least that is how it has been in my own experience. My friends have told me that they had no idea I was gay until I told them or they discovered it accidently.
To me though, it doesn't matter if someone is 'limp-wristed' or effeminate. I accept people who they are regardless of their mannerisms or outward appearance. The people I have a problem with are those who would find the need to judge others by the way they look or act. And when I see people doing that, I realize that it is just their OWN insecurity that causes them to attack others. I suspect that men, (gay and straight) who are intolerant towards guys who are effeminate are that way because they haven't fully accepted the feminine side of themselves, like Jallman for instance.

But you may be right in some cases about the mannerisms, I am sure that there are many gay guys that 'act gay' to feel part of a group, or to be a part of their subculture. SO WHAT?!? They are entitled to do that if they choose, in fact I kind of like to see people who are flamboyant because I can see the reaction to them and can pick my friends based on how they react. For instance, if I'm with a person who would say something negative towards someone who is effeminate, I know that this person is very insecure and probably would stab their own friend in the back, so it acts as a social 'filter' that separates those who tolerant from those who are intolerant.

I see straight guys do the same thing when comparing notes about who's had the most ***** or the fastest car. The difference to me, is that when I see the machismo BS, I get sick to my stomach because I see such a blatant 'pose'.

You do realize that by "Picking [your] friends based on how they react" to others, you yourself are being intolerant and are judging them?

If a person doesn't like a guy that acts feminine, that doesn't automatically mean that they are intolerant. It could be something as simple as they just don't care for that particular trait. For example, I'm not overly fond of real girly girls. You know, the ones that get all dressed up EVERY day, that go get their nails done every week and freak out if one breaks, etc. I'm not intolerant of them, I don't automatically think less of them because of how they are, but I have very few friends that fall into this category because I just don't identify with them; I don't have much in common with them.

Anyway, you keep harping on about how you don't like people who judge, and yet, here you are judging them yourself. I know that I'm not the only one that sees the hypocrisy in that.

 

[QueerNation]

To wonder is counter-productive? What kind of crap is that? A simpleton is the person that can’t understand why people wonder, because wonder is to be filled with admiration, amazement, or awe…but you think that is simple. Haha. :lol: The most simple answer tends to be the correct answer… But this seems to allude you. Pourqoui?



If you don’t have an imagination, this would all make sense. But you do have an imagination…thus people’s confusion over such simple concepts that you are unable to comprehend. It is really sad...

Is there something of substance you have to say or are you merely resorting to name-calling? You asked why gays were flamboyant, I think that such a baiting question doesn't deserve a serious answer.

I have the ability to recognize when trees are indeed full. Full of S.H.I.T. That is your tree. The Poopy one... Obviously, you don’t have the capacity to understand degrees. Oh well… I sometimes ponder, do you really think this way, or is it a game...But really, who cares? Can't waste too much more time on your ridiculous nature. :2razz:

Again, I'm not paid to listen to such hysterics. Why is it necessary for you to bring excrement into the conversation? I find it very telling that you would resort to such juvenile behavior.

I am sorry that you are a hypocrite and that you are unable to understand that it is you that is judging others and that I am merely reflecting this upon you. :2razz: You have issues…and you are boring me. You are now free to frolic in the fields of joy and relish in the splendor of the grass…

I'd really like to debate this, however you're school-yard behavior now is really not worthy of any further consideration.

 

[QueerNation]

Re: Charades

You do realize that by "Picking [your] friends based on how they react" to others, you yourself are being intolerant and are judging them?

Perhaps I'm judging them, but I'm not being intolerant in the LEAST. I said I would use that judgment to choose whether or not I would befriend them. I didn't say I would stop them from being disrespectful of effeminate men, they can say whatever they want. If I choose not to befriend someone because they are a BIGOT, that does not make me a bigot, it makes me a good judge of character.

If a person doesn't like a guy that acts feminine, that doesn't automatically mean that they are intolerant. It could be something as simple as they just don't care for that particular trait. For example, I'm not overly fond of real girly girls. You know, the ones that get all dressed up EVERY day, that go get their nails done every week and freak out if one breaks, etc. I'm not intolerant of them, I don't automatically think less of them because of how they are, but I have very few friends that fall into this category because I just don't identify with them; I don't have much in common with them.

I don't care what you choose to call it, it is PREJUDICE. Because it is prejudging a person based upon outward appearance or mannerisms. I try not to lower myself to that level.

Anyway, you keep harping on about how you don't like people who judge, and yet, here you are judging them yourself. I know that I'm not the only one that sees the hypocrisy in that.

Nope. Hypocrisy would be if I judged someone who was flamboyant and was flamboyant myself.

 

[QueerNation]

Well like I said, I used to be disgusted by it in my youth, probably due to a religous upbringing. After I left our church, my views became tempered, and eventually I got to the point where I just feel like people are making a huge deal out of something thats shouldn't be a big deal.

I came to DP with a pretty open mind, and after seeing what Jallman had posted, it made really have respect for him, and others who are like him because they realize there are ways to move our society forward in a non abrasive manner. I never even realized this voice existed in the gay community. But QN reniforced some bad stereotype IMHO. He's entitled to it, but I don't have to like it. I guess I would make a comparison that his radical view is similar in its extremism as the extreme right wingers who hate homosexuality. Whereas Jallman is more of a middle of the road guy, who is not behelden to the more extreme voice of his group, much like there are christians who are not behelden to the antics of extreme religious figures. Now the only question is, is Jallman the minority voice of his group, or is QN??

Easy does it! One step at a time. Just think, now you are more tolerant of 'good fags'. Within no time, you'll see 2 men kissing and holding hands and you won't think twice about it. I think we're making some progress!!

I think what you're starting to learn is that there IS NO 'voice' of the homosexual. We are people just like you. So to suggest anything else is like me saying 'Well, WI Crippler seems like a nice guy and reasonable, but 'colinpowell' is intolerant, I wonder what the true voice of (insert category) "Military', "Heterosexual', "White Male', "Black Male'.

Does that help illustrate the way I feel about people who are judgmental?

;->)

 

[jallman]

Re: Charades

Perhaps I'm judging them, but I'm not being intolerant in the LEAST. I said I would use that judgment to choose whether or not I would befriend them. I didn't say I would stop them from being disrespectful of effeminate men, they can say whatever they want. If I choose not to befriend someone because they are a BIGOT, that does not make me a bigot, it makes me a good judge of character.

I don't care what you choose to call it, it is PREJUDICE. Because it is prejudging a person based upon outward appearance or mannerisms. I try not to lower myself to that level.



Nope. Hypocrisy would be if I judged someone who was flamboyant and was flamboyant myself.

You truly have no clue when it comes to your own predisposition to judge and express intolerance to anyone who falls outside your box (or little pink triangle, as it were).

Let me ask you a question and I am asking with all seriousness...Do you actually hang out with anyone who thinks differently from you (i.e. conservatives, straight couples with kids, Christians) or do you surround yourself with this comfortable shell of intolerant heterophobes?

 

[talloulou]

There is a time and place for everything. Once you have kids that really sinks in. Some people never get this time and place thing and that makes them much harder to tolerate whether their homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[jallman]

Easy does it! One step at a time. Just think, now you are more tolerant of 'good fags'. Within no time, you'll see 2 men kissing and holding hands and you won't think twice about it. I think we're making some progress!!

I think what you're starting to learn is that there IS NO 'voice' of the homosexual. We are people just like you. So to suggest anything else is like me saying 'Well, WI Crippler seems like a nice guy and reasonable, but 'colinpowell' is intolerant, I wonder what the true voice of (insert category) "Military', "Heterosexual', "White Male', "Black Male'.

Does that help illustrate the way I feel about people who are judgmental?

;->)

But when you assume a representative role within and for any group, you do become the "voice" of that group. The way you portray yourself is a reflection of not only homosexuals (as you are one), but a reflection of whites (if you are one), Americans, people from Arizona, non Christians, liberals...any category that you self-identify with. Further, your connection with homosexuals comes to the fore because you announce that gay rights advocacy is your mission. That alone creates a responsibility for you to accurately portray the "voice" of a people.

I must assert, though, that you are failing miserably.

 

[QueerNation]

Re: Charades

You truly have no clue when it comes to your own predisposition to judge and express intolerance to anyone who falls outside your box (or little pink triangle, as it were).

Let me ask you a question and I am asking with all seriousness...Do you actually hang out with anyone who thinks differently from you (i.e. conservatives, straight couples with kids, Christians) or do you surround yourself with this comfortable shell of intolerant heterophobes?

I think you're prejudging me, you clearly know nothing about me and have admitted your own prejudice towards homosexuals who don't meet your 'good fag' criteria.

Most of my friends are straight, and a lot of my friends are what you might consider 'freaks', (not that it is any of your concern). I react against intolerance, and I specifically don't have time for people who judge others because they may behave 'effeminately' or look non-traditionally. Your hatred for the gay community and modern counter-culture lifestyle is very apparent. You often use words like 'freakshow', 'shock tactics' which makes you sound to me like someone's grandmother.

 

[QueerNation]

But when you assume a representative role within and for any group, you do become the "voice" of that group. The way you portray yourself is a reflection of not only homosexuals (as you are one), but a reflection of whites (if you are one), Americans, people from Arizona, non Christians, liberals...any category that you self-identify with. Further, your connection with homosexuals comes to the fore because you announce that gay rights advocacy is your mission. That alone creates a responsibility for you to accurately portray the "voice" of a people.

I must assert, though, that you are failing miserably.

And then again, perhaps it would be best for you to judge your OWN 'voice' instead of those voices of others. You obviously have a lot of contempt for the community that you like to pretend that you represent. I've got news for you: you are not a voice for anyone or anything except 'Jallman'. I realize that you like to BELIEVE that you are the voice of the 'Obedient Homosexual', I would have to agree. But your tone almost seems to glorify the bullying mentality that picks on the 'sissy'. I think that this 'entitlement' you seem to think you have that allows you to judge others is a very ugly character flaw, and whether or not it is due to your religious convictions or from being spoiled as a child I am not sure, but it is nontheless disturbing.

 

[Flea]

Originally Posted by Queer Nation
Nope. Hypocrisy would be if I judged someone who was flamboyant and was flamboyant myself.

Nope. Hypocrisy is when you tell others not to judge and then you yourself judge anything, anytime, anywhere and for any reason.

I actually think that you don’t understand what the term “Hypocrisy” means. That is not an insult, just an observation.

hyp•o•crite - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Queer Nation, from the onset, you have been judging others and dismissing any person that disagrees with you. You are using people’s words to make these judgments, but it seems clear that you are misunderstanding what many people are saying, instead, you are opting to negatively label them and hold yourself superior to their way of thinking. People have also been using your words to make judgments about you. And the overwhelming opinion is that you are a hypocrite, making judgments about people that you say shouldn’t judge as well as to insult or blow-off others that you can’t come to terms with and this supports people’s existing opinions as a correct evaluation.

If you feel that you have been incorrectly assessed by the majority, then perhaps you have been incorrectly assessing others as well.

To think anything else would be to simply reinforce what you portray in many people’s view.

 

[jallman]

And then again, perhaps it would be best for you to judge your OWN 'voice' instead of those voices of others. You obviously have a lot of contempt for the community that you like to pretend that you represent. I've got news for you: you are not a voice for anyone or anything except 'Jallman'. I realize that you like to BELIEVE that you are the voice of the 'Obedient Homosexual', I would have to agree. But your tone almost seems to glorify the bullying mentality that picks on the 'sissy'. I think that this 'entitlement' you seem to think you have that allows you to judge others is a very ugly character flaw, and whether or not it is due to your religious convictions or from being spoiled as a child I am not sure, but it is nontheless disturbing.

It is obvious that polite discourse is beyond you and that you have no intention except to inflame and insult even when the laurel branch is offered to you. You are nothing more than proof positive that some "sissies" (your word, not mine) deserve to be beaten down as an example that the rest of us wish to be responsible and respectable members of society. If we have to disown a few freaks as a sign of good faith, so be it. I hope you are the first to go.

 

[QueerNation]

Nope. Hypocrisy is when you tell others not to judge and then you yourself judge anything, anytime, anywhere and for any reason.

I actually think that you don’t understand what the term “Hypocrisy” means. That is not an insult, just an observation.

hyp•o•crite - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hip-uh-krit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Queer Nation, from the onset, you have been judging others and dismissing any person that disagrees with you. You are using people’s words to make these judgments, but it seems clear that you are misunderstanding what many people are saying, instead, you are opting to negatively label them and hold yourself superior to their way of thinking. People have also been using your words to make judgments about you. And the overwhelming opinion is that you are a hypocrite, making judgments about people that you say shouldn’t judge as well as to insult or blow-off others that you can’t come to terms with and this supports people’s existing opinions as a correct evaluation.

If you feel that you have been incorrectly assessed by the majority, then perhaps you have been incorrectly assessing others as well.

To think anything else would be to simply reinforce what you portray in many people’s view.

You like to call me 'intolerant', yet you haven't given even a SINGLE example of intolerant behavior that I am supposedly guilty of. Perhaps if this 'intolerance' is so clearly evident, you can provide at least a QUOTATION? How about it?

Sounds like you're just looking for someone to pin all of your hatred on.

 

[DeeJayH]

You like to call me 'intolerant', yet you haven't given even a SINGLE example of intolerant behavior that I am supposedly guilty of. Perhaps if this 'intolerance' is so clearly evident, you can provide at least a QUOTATION? How about it?

Sounds like you're just looking for someone to pin all of your hatred on.

pick a post
any post
any post of yours will do :2wave:

 

[QueerNation]

It is obvious that polite discourse is beyond you and that you have no intention except to inflame and insult even when the laurel branch is offered to you. You are nothing more than proof positive that some "sissies" (your word, not mine) deserve to be beaten down as an example that the rest of us wish to be responsible and respectable members of society. If we have to disown a few freaks as a sign of good faith, so be it. I hope you are the first to go.

At least I was able to get at the heart of your problem what appears to be a very blatant hatred of 'sissies' -- which was YOUR word to refresh your memory -- you said I was like a 'sissy boy'. All you've done is a blatant attempt to vilify homosexuals that are different then you.

 

[QueerNation]

pick a post
any post
any post of yours will do :2wave:

Can you at least provide a QUOTE?? Didn't think so. You people think you have the right to treat people less than human if they are effeminate. I'm telling you that is INTOLERANT. If you don't like that fact, I suggest you move to another planet. Hating based on the way someone looks or acts is STILL HATRED and it is still intolerant. It doesn't matter how you say it.

 

[QueerNation]

It is obvious that polite discourse is beyond you and that you have no intention except to inflame and insult even when the laurel branch is offered to you. You are nothing more than proof positive that some "sissies" (your word, not mine) deserve to be beaten down as an example that the rest of us wish to be responsible and respectable members of society. If we have to disown a few freaks as a sign of good faith, so be it. I hope you are the first to go.

I think it's very sad for a person who calls himself 'gay' to make excuses for people who beat others. In this post, you've basically said that if they are 'sissy', they deserve to be 'beaten down'. I guess I kind of knew you were really like that from the first word I saw you write in this forum. Thank you for at least confirming my initial thoughts.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

At least I was able to get at the heart of your problem what appears to be a very blatant hatred of 'sissies' -- which was YOUR word to refresh your memory -- you said I was like a 'sissy boy'. All you've done is a blatant attempt to vilify homosexuals that are different then you.

Just as an aside. Jallman's 'sissy-boy' comment was not meant to denegrate effeminate gays. Sissy-boy was the username of a poster, since banned, that created problems, here. I wasn't posting when he was here, but from what I've heard, his militant, intolerant, gay agenda, negatively affected those who were more moderate (as extremists tend to do). Jallman's comments were not meant to be directed towards gays in general.

 

[Felicity]

'sissy boy'. .

You said it prior to jallman.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/489886-post339.html

 

[QueerNation]

Just as an aside. Jallman's 'sissy-boy' comment was not meant to denegrate effeminate gays. Sissy-boy was the username of a poster, since banned, that created problems, here. I wasn't posting when he was here, but from what I've heard, his militant, intolerant, gay agenda, negatively affected those who were more moderate (as extremists tend to do). Jallman's comments were not meant to be directed towards gays in general.

That's an awfully convenient way of dismissing Jallman's true hatred for anyone who is not 'macho' enough for his type of 'obedient fag' status.

 

[QueerNation]

You said it prior to jallman.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/489886-post339.html

Wrong thread.

Try again next time?

:rofl