LGBT Politically Correct Police

And who draws the line as to what constitutes an excess? You I suppose?

Everyone who makes a public statement is attempting to change minds and influence opinions. We certainly hear a lot from you on this topic, given the number of identical threads you've created. Might this be considered an excess as well?

This is the language that a large chunk of the LGBT community uses already when talking to one-another. It's only suddenly that a very vocal fringe of the LGBT community has decided to make a fuss about it.

So for a minority(of a minority) to start creating regulations regarding slang/language usage is ludicrous. It comes at a bad time too, particularly when the LGBT community is now being recognized for policing the speech of Americans.

It certainly should not be the fringe of a minority.

I find it hard to believe that happens in real life but who knows. Like I said before, if someone's calling me *** it's friendly/jokingly(as in, they know better), so I don't feel the need to correct them. Or it's someone I'm not too familiar with or maybe even never met before. If they're calling me *** instead of my name or even just "Hey, you" if they don't know my name, chances are they probably want to fight on the issue.

Oh my gosh, it's getting to the point where it's not socially acceptable to degrade entire groups publicly anymore. Let me look around and check that this is still America.

The only people who find it degrading is this small fringe. The rest of us don't care.


Exactly.

It's essentially the scenario with RuPaul but instead of "Ok" his response is "I got to say *** a few decades ago and no one cared so suck it up #watchmyshow #ispeakforeveryone".

One of the big issues here is it comes at a bad time when the LGBT community is being recognized for being overly politically correct, this simply adds fire to right-wing arguments about gays trying to change the mindset of Americans.

We've made the news for the incidents on HGTV, Duck Dynasty, Mozzilla Firefox, Cupid, and now this. I hate to tell you but the HGTV, Duck Dynasty, and Mozilla Firefox incidents was not good publicity for LGBT efforts, it sparked some backlash.

Who cares if people don't believe in same-sex marriage, who cares if people use certain language who cares. It's not like they are pointing a gun to your head.

The days of legislature inhibiting LGBT civil equality is around the corner. But this PC policing on any level needs to just stop.

How dare you relate back to the OP.

That being said, when people get called out on something they may not see a problem with it's usually met with resistance. For example, if someone used "gay" in place of some other negative word and I was the kind of person to correct that, I'd imagine I'd have to wade through the "oh everyone else does it" argument among a handful of potential others. Of course with a random person at the end of the day I'm likely to get the "OK" response. Your hashtags tell me that I don't need to try and explain the difference between RuPaul and a random person to you, though.

While I don't agree with Bacon cause he tends to take the duncurr attitude to extremes at times(sometimes you should curr about things), I also can't say those that talk about context aren't right.
It's true that the same word doesn't always have the same meaning.
A black guy calls his black friend ***, not cause he hates black people..he's black too.
You say to a friend "you're gay" not to offend him, but to imply you're poking fun at his masculinity(even though manly gay exist, but it's only a joke).
Etc, I didn't sleep enough so examples will have to suffice.
Language and culture make a difference. I'm not a native english speaker and wasn't even aware *** was a slur until I read it in a post some time ago, I thought it was just short for transexual. If I said x is *** I wasn't trying to offend them, just didn't know it was offensive. So yeah..context matters when it comes to language.

This is so true. Frequenting both italian and english forums I've noticed this quite a lot.

I only have one complaint against "the LGBT community" (aside from the fact that they get a community title and nobody else does). It's not that they have an abnormal genetic code, that their sexual preferences differ from my own, or even that they were compelled to have their bodies surgically altered. The problem I have is that an obviously fair portion of that community is comprised of a bunch of intolerant hypocrites.

You see, if I harbor any feelings of disapproval for a group of people other than "my own," we would be apt to call that discrimination.


We would aptly call this "reverse-discrimination." ((He's not like me, therefore his opinion is irrelevant.)) So, basically, it's okay for the LGBT community to openly discriminate against anyone who doesn't identify with their cause, but it's disgusting, appalling, and incorrect if the roles are reversed.

I have here a disappointing truth of the world for you to consider: People are mean. People are ***. You will never escape it, and no legislation will ever control it. If you want to continue striving towards complete equality, then by all means do so. You have my full support.

But before you get back out there, first realize that when you say things like "You don't understand because you're not LGBT!", you're just making anyone who doesn't unjustly hate you learn to hate you instead for the very real reason that you're prejudiced.

Obviously there are more groups than skin color/geneder/sexuality, but his point was that occupying a majority group in those three particular categories can make "name calling" a bit difficult.

I don't see how saying you don't understand is discrimination at all? It's not a group disapproving of another group to say things effect everyone differently.

Take Gay vs. Straight name calling for example. If someone called a typical straight male 15 and up gay in an attempt to insult him, he could be insulted for a whole number of reasons. He could take it as an insult to his masculinity, or his straight identity.

Attempt to call a gay person gay in an insulting manner, and it will strike different chords. Perhaps he'd take it as an insult to him as a human being, or his gay identity may feel devalued.

A gay person can't feel the insult to his straight identity just like a straight person couldn't feel the insult to his gay identity, because those combinations don't exist. You could ask each other for an explanation on how it feels, but you'd never 100% truly feel how the other felt.

Pointing out that all people have different thresholds of understanding on any given topic is not discrimination. That's just life.

I always thought *** meant transvestite, synonymous with drag queens and such. When did this change?

As far as I know it has always been a derogatory term for transsexuals, or at least I've never seen it actively used for anything else.

Maybe it varies regionally then?

Probably but that can probably be said for this whole thread...

I have to question Bacons statement that the vast majority of the lgbt community is perfectly ok with ***/***/etc (pardon my language if it offends) being thrown around. Growing up for me *** was thrown around as more of a general insult, on the same level as butt head and what not, rather than specifically referring to gay people. Most kids in my age group probably didn't know it was even used that that way (potentially even what being gay meant at the time, I didn't learn till my early teens and had an awkward moment where I asked my parents what a [insert slur for lesbian here that starts with a D] was while watching Rat Race), evidenced by seeing it used less and less as I grew up. So I'm more or less desensitized to it, it means little to me, probably little to anyone else in my area really.

As a leader in a relatively large lgbt guild however I have to say that one of the main reasons people give for having wanted to join us is specifically because they want to be in a group where they can be open and not have to worry about being called *** and what not. I'm not afraid to play both ends of this and point out that it is partly because people with issues with that are of course more likely to seek out such a group but at the same time many of these people are by no means fragile. We've only ever had a couple people come in who thought it was ok and if it really was the vast majority I'd see those words in my chat more than once or twice a month barring times when my friend Tai is online.

More likely it's what you said, regional, people like to think of lgbt as a single community but that's kinda like saying all pilots are the same, or all tech workers, all cooks. Whats completely acceptable to bacon and his community could be the complete opposite to someone else. I probably haven't articulated this as well as someone else could, but I also wasn't planning this many keystrokes when I opened the tread for some reason so take of it what you will.

Nah, that makes perfect sense. Trying to incorporate all regional cultures into one definitive culture will bring about problems like these. Better to get them out in the open rather than everybody holding it in and resenting one another for it.

No, it's actually a valid argumentum ad hominem argument: his credibility and ability and respond to the argument is being called into question on the basis of his person. Not all ad hominem arguments are invalid.

No, we wouldn't call this discrimination. Again, calling into question the credibility of a speaker is not the same thing as arbitrarily dismissing the words of that speaker.

If I had simply wanted to insult, I promise; I'm more than capable of leveling an unbroken string of insults for several solid minutes.

Hey, speaking of context, you do realize that the news media almost exclusively reports unpleasant things, right? I see the point you are very poorly repeating for the 80th time, but it falls on deaf ears when good news gets nothing like equal time with misery and awfulness and commentary on both.

Also on the subject of context, I find it curious that this stops being about a drag queen with a decades-long history of being a provocateur and trouble-maker whenever it becomes inconvenient to remember his own history. Again, valid ad hominem argument, but let's ignore that because it sort of makes our flimsy justifications look better.

Or is everyone else completely unaware that RuPaul has problems with pretty much everyone, starting with other gay or black men and moving on from there?

I wish the LGBT police would give me an answer on what flooring was used through most of the house in American Horror Story: Coven.

Is this the third gay fascism thread ?

This week? Probably.

Apparently this gay mafia is bigger than I first thought.

Got to keep the masses in line somehow. While looking fabulous doing so!

Looking fabulous is half the battle !

I"m going to start a show called "Straight eye for the gay guy"

It will be about everything expect fashion advice.

Politically correctness doesn't accomplish much. It just ensures that no one gets their "feelings" hurt. If you want a real and honest discussion don't use PC words say it the way it really is.

Poorly repeating or one that you are simply oblivious to? I'm not quite sure.

Move to a city with a significant LGBT population and it's used quite often. The LGBT in this thread are from rural cities, and don't have much experience dealing with a larger LGBT population. They can probably count the number of LGBT they've interacted with one hand.

How can one who comes from an abysmal LGBT population and limited experience dealing with LGBT start dictating what is politically correct and what is not? I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.

The attitudes portrayed by the LGBT in this thread are absolutely horrific and paint this whiny bitchy-queen attitude and that we are this hyper-sensitive bunch.

One thing that I'm starting to think when reading these LGBT member posts, is if the majority are heterophobic. Dictating political correctness and what is an appropriate opinion on marriage and language, is simply a defense mechanism. If you are afraid of getting your feelings hurt or getting insulted 24/7 you are ultimately segregating yourself and really cannot function with heterosexuals, or maybe a limited few.

Heterophobia is a very real phenomena in the LGBT population, in which some cannot function properly with heterosexuals. They can only function properly with other gays, lesbians, transgenders etc. The moment they leave that group they immediately become hostile and/or defensive.

Now the conversation has peaked my interest. Is that really a thing, or are they just so afraid of being ridiculed all the time?

This is pathetic. You can't justify any of this horsheshit so you resort to the assumption that we're country rubes (as usual) or hate straight people. At least the latter is a new one. All that's left is to cry to a mod to nuke the thread and the cycle can then begin again anew.

(I know that's not what you mean but look, Jessica Lange :O)

Heterophobia is not hatred of straight people whatsoever. Rather it encompasses the psychological definition of phobia, fear.

Yes a very real thing. You see these gays who cannot function outside of other gays etc... The minute they step outside of their homosexual bubble they become restless and hostile, so to accommodate they establish these social doctrines.

You need look no farther than other minority groups to see a similar phenomena.

I can't find a good picture of the interior, but it looks like a white birch at first glance. Not an LGBTer, but I hope that helps.

Oh? What is it then? A fear of non-homogeneous mixtures?

You make a fine anti-LGBT apologist, Bacon. I hope the establishment rewards you well.