Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Sexuality Wars - Homo vs. Queer - Check Your Political Language IQ
I have copied here a previous entry that has been updated with a reply to a comment (at the end of the text below). The blog entry starts talking about the issue of profanity and then it veers into the homo agenda vocab issues.
So far, I have been banned from making comments on 3 blogs, coincidentally, in all 3, it was because I criticized just how cheap this deluge of current swearing is! What is interesting that they are all rabid pro-homos (just a coincidence) and they think their foul minds and mouths are very enlightened.
copied from Feb.4-2005 post:
Chase Me Ladies Blog
From another cute thread where kids, I mean, men (with a very lower-case "m"), wanted to give a display they knew how to say a bunch of swear words one right after the other.
david c:
Alessandra, you misquote me (the biter bit!). I said "calling everyone a "c..." and then telling them to "f... off" has a definite sell-by date as a concept." Swearing is eternal and glorious.
True, misquoted but not miswritten. You have a major need to compensate for Sunday´s casserole*, I don´t.
Where men and women lack wisdom and other more important things, they have a diarrhea mind/mouth. They put the brown veneer over themselves in an attempt that no one will notice just how lame things are underneath.
And as if the issue of control/transgression/aggression isn´t so very, very visible.
As I said, a liberal society is quite violent and dysfunctional on its own. Talking about little sinister police state agents is just ridiculous when most aggression, violence, and mediocrity comes from liberal civilians themselves.
Ooops, but I digress, forgot I was talking to someone who can swear, but is too lame to grasp the above.
* from a comment in another recent thread, making fun of Serbs who think testicles are a gourmet food. They eat what they have not (pun intended).
Update: feb-5-2005
Comments to my criticism to swearing on Pejmanesque:
F*ckin a, Alessandra.
Posted by: Jim Dandy at February 3, 2005 02:02 PM
Jim Dandy has a diarrhea brain or maybe his brain is just located where humans have diarrhea.
Posted by: Alessandra at February 3, 2005 02:20 PM
Alessandra, my dear --
Out of curiosity, I followed the link to your site, expecting extraordinarily well-crafted discourse (given your admirable desire to refrain from swearing -- I'm reminded of the line in Malcolm X about swearing to make up for a small vocabulary). But I'm afraid that anyone who relies as much as you seem to on the slang "homo" is standing on somewhat thin ice.
Posted by Jessica
[I posted the reply below - but when I went to check if there were any more comments, my reply had disappeared. Then I tried posting it again and the system barred me. So I replied to Jessica´s blog.]
Jessica, the word homo is very much the point I make in what I am writing in my blog. But I guess this was a bit completely out of your grasp.
Maybe by censoring questions and criticisms, people like you and him can believe you have a point or know it all. I think not only is that standing on very, very thin ice, but the ice seems to be a bit brownish too.
Pro-homosexuality is insulting to my intelligence. I don´t refer to male child abuse as "man/boy love." I don´t refer to war sex slaves as "comfort women." The word "gay" has been kidnapped by homo activists for a political agenda with which I do not agree. I don´t call straight people "jollies" as I don´t call homos "gays."
Your social engineering vocab is a tad cheap.
update mar 1 2005:
Someone left this comment:
I think you missed my point. If I don't bow down to a certain political agenda, why should I use that agenda's doublespeak words (and disingenuous thoughts and attitudes) to understand and describe reality?
"Gay" or "queer" is just as ignorant.
However, I do agree that if I were trying to talk specifically to pro-homos, and I wanted to take into account the fact that they can't think critically and their brain usually functions on a 90% plus cognitive selection level, I would use their agenda words.
It is true that the minute pro-homos read a word that does not conform to their ignorant, dogmatic politics, they immediately label the author in all the ways you mentioned, at the same time that the 10% of thinking they had going shuts down completely. That would be a reason to use an ignorant pro-homo vocab if I wanted to make dense pro-homos read what I write.
I'm talking to a larger, more diverse audience here, so to each his own reading capability.
You should read the Pro-homosexual Liberalism Is a Religion discussion to learn that calling an anti-pro-homosexuality person *full of hate* is as ignorant and bigoted as you can get. Simply engaging in ad hominen attack labels with people who have different viewpoints is not a sign a intelligence. But it takes a bit of intelligence to notice that.
.
So far, I have been banned from making comments on 3 blogs, coincidentally, in all 3, it was because I criticized just how cheap this deluge of current swearing is! What is interesting that they are all rabid pro-homos (just a coincidence) and they think their foul minds and mouths are very enlightened.
little red boat - (young woman in the UK) you can see the discussion that led to the ban here
Chase Me Ladies - a blog by a UK chap, he deleted my last comments there and blocked my afterwards (see below)
Pejmanesque - a professor/lawyer´s blog that linked to another blog where a young woman tells of a date in a foul mouthed manner (Big fucking mistake. I bought a fucking mop. he made a shitty movie? this pompous, rude ass, up the ass kiss ladder to the top.). Obviously the professor must love all the swearing, because all he can mumble is, "I heard this story on the phone, and it should be read by any and all gentlemen who want to know how not to act on a date."
His choice of the word "gentlemen" shows just how clueless he is on the subject of manners. Even more if having a diarrhea mouth is his idea of a lady. It´s people who question the swearing that he objects to. And censors. Is that a prescription for a crude, shoddy gent or what?
copied from Feb.4-2005 post:
Chase Me Ladies Blog
From another cute thread where kids, I mean, men (with a very lower-case "m"), wanted to give a display they knew how to say a bunch of swear words one right after the other.
david c:
Alessandra, you misquote me (the biter bit!). I said "calling everyone a "c..." and then telling them to "f... off" has a definite sell-by date as a concept." Swearing is eternal and glorious.
True, misquoted but not miswritten. You have a major need to compensate for Sunday´s casserole*, I don´t.
Where men and women lack wisdom and other more important things, they have a diarrhea mind/mouth. They put the brown veneer over themselves in an attempt that no one will notice just how lame things are underneath.
And as if the issue of control/transgression/aggression isn´t so very, very visible.
As I said, a liberal society is quite violent and dysfunctional on its own. Talking about little sinister police state agents is just ridiculous when most aggression, violence, and mediocrity comes from liberal civilians themselves.
Ooops, but I digress, forgot I was talking to someone who can swear, but is too lame to grasp the above.
* from a comment in another recent thread, making fun of Serbs who think testicles are a gourmet food. They eat what they have not (pun intended).
Update: feb-5-2005
Comments to my criticism to swearing on Pejmanesque:
F*ckin a, Alessandra.
Posted by: Jim Dandy at February 3, 2005 02:02 PM
Jim Dandy has a diarrhea brain or maybe his brain is just located where humans have diarrhea.
Posted by: Alessandra at February 3, 2005 02:20 PM
Alessandra, my dear --
Out of curiosity, I followed the link to your site, expecting extraordinarily well-crafted discourse (given your admirable desire to refrain from swearing -- I'm reminded of the line in Malcolm X about swearing to make up for a small vocabulary). But I'm afraid that anyone who relies as much as you seem to on the slang "homo" is standing on somewhat thin ice.
Posted by Jessica
[I posted the reply below - but when I went to check if there were any more comments, my reply had disappeared. Then I tried posting it again and the system barred me. So I replied to Jessica´s blog.]
Jessica, the word homo is very much the point I make in what I am writing in my blog. But I guess this was a bit completely out of your grasp.
Maybe by censoring questions and criticisms, people like you and him can believe you have a point or know it all. I think not only is that standing on very, very thin ice, but the ice seems to be a bit brownish too.
Pro-homosexuality is insulting to my intelligence. I don´t refer to male child abuse as "man/boy love." I don´t refer to war sex slaves as "comfort women." The word "gay" has been kidnapped by homo activists for a political agenda with which I do not agree. I don´t call straight people "jollies" as I don´t call homos "gays."
Your social engineering vocab is a tad cheap.
update mar 1 2005:
Someone left this comment:
Dear Alessandra, Maybe you should use the proper term "Queer" instead of "homo." By using the the term "Queer" you will give the impression that you are an enlightened and educated individual. The spewing of "homo" in every article that you write, gives out the impression of an ignorant self righteous hateful individual. I'm sure you are a good god fearing Christian.
I think you missed my point. If I don't bow down to a certain political agenda, why should I use that agenda's doublespeak words (and disingenuous thoughts and attitudes) to understand and describe reality?
"Gay" or "queer" is just as ignorant.
However, I do agree that if I were trying to talk specifically to pro-homos, and I wanted to take into account the fact that they can't think critically and their brain usually functions on a 90% plus cognitive selection level, I would use their agenda words.
It is true that the minute pro-homos read a word that does not conform to their ignorant, dogmatic politics, they immediately label the author in all the ways you mentioned, at the same time that the 10% of thinking they had going shuts down completely. That would be a reason to use an ignorant pro-homo vocab if I wanted to make dense pro-homos read what I write.
I'm talking to a larger, more diverse audience here, so to each his own reading capability.
You should read the Pro-homosexual Liberalism Is a Religion discussion to learn that calling an anti-pro-homosexuality person *full of hate* is as ignorant and bigoted as you can get. Simply engaging in ad hominen attack labels with people who have different viewpoints is not a sign a intelligence. But it takes a bit of intelligence to notice that.
.
Comments:
You stuck your head above the parapet and got shot at. You chose a contentious subject and added a 'right to reply' (that you believed you had).
I commented on someone's blog recently about his stupid and careless behaviour and immediately got labelled "hate mail" (see here). It wasn't hate mail and I think/hope I made it clear. But I think it's fair to say I was upset that what I thought were reasonable comments, that I made in good faith (albeit with some swearing in them, sorry, gotta cut down on that), were received and interpreted so wide of the mark.
I do think though that choice of language (e.g. homo's), choice of target (e.g. the protected sanctity of liberality), and timing (e.g. in the white heat of a post!), have a lot to do with the replies you receive.
I think I might blog on the subject, using you as an example (if you don't mind, and if you do mind I won't, ok?).
I commented on someone's blog recently about his stupid and careless behaviour and immediately got labelled "hate mail" (see here). It wasn't hate mail and I think/hope I made it clear. But I think it's fair to say I was upset that what I thought were reasonable comments, that I made in good faith (albeit with some swearing in them, sorry, gotta cut down on that), were received and interpreted so wide of the mark.
I do think though that choice of language (e.g. homo's), choice of target (e.g. the protected sanctity of liberality), and timing (e.g. in the white heat of a post!), have a lot to do with the replies you receive.
I think I might blog on the subject, using you as an example (if you don't mind, and if you do mind I won't, ok?).
Hi,
"I do think though that choice of language (e.g. homo's), choice of target (e.g. the protected sanctity of liberality), and timing (e.g. in the white heat of a post!), have a lot to do with the replies you receive."
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. And "protected sanctity of liberality" - that's perfectly articulating what I'm criticizing.
And thanks for asking if I would mind if you blogged on it, it's so rare that someone displays this kind of courtesy. So, you hereby have my permission :-), specially since you don't seem like you are going to flame me :-)
"I do think though that choice of language (e.g. homo's), choice of target (e.g. the protected sanctity of liberality), and timing (e.g. in the white heat of a post!), have a lot to do with the replies you receive."
Yes, I think you hit the nail on the head. And "protected sanctity of liberality" - that's perfectly articulating what I'm criticizing.
And thanks for asking if I would mind if you blogged on it, it's so rare that someone displays this kind of courtesy. So, you hereby have my permission :-), specially since you don't seem like you are going to flame me :-)
"Pro-homosexuality is insulting to my intelligence. I don´t refer to male child abuse as "man/boy love." I don´t refer to war sex slaves as "comfort women." The word "gay" has been kidnapped by homo activists for a political agenda with which I do not agree. I don´t call straight people "jollies" as I don´t call homos 'gays.'"
I think you, like so many people, including my dear grandmother, are seriously uninformed when it comes to understanding when the usage of the word "gay" came about as a description of homosexual men. During the 1800s and early 1900s, 'gay' was merely used to decribe a state of happiness. However, during the late 1800s 'gay' was sometimes used to describe prostitutes and their usually 'colorful' fashion sense. One theory is that 'gay' came into use to describe homosexual men because of the rise in numbers of male prostitutes during the 1900s and their usually 'colorful' fashion sense.
That being said many gay men from the during the 1920's and 30's rejected the term 'gay' because of its rather demeaning/feminized usage. Many gay middle class men of the time preferred the term 'queer' since it only cannoted that one was different from the average person. Queer was appropriated sometime later by straights as a slanderous term only to be re-appropriated by gays sometime in the late 80's as an all inclusive/academic term. Also, arguably, to blunt the ugly use of the snarled "queer" epithet hurled by straights.
mmm-kay? you should at least be clear about why a word is used before you deign its usage.
Oh and by the way I visit a lot of sites and read the comments. I can always tell its the one and same alessandra by the mere fact that you keep writing 'ad hominen' its AD HOMINEM dear.
Post a Comment
I think you, like so many people, including my dear grandmother, are seriously uninformed when it comes to understanding when the usage of the word "gay" came about as a description of homosexual men. During the 1800s and early 1900s, 'gay' was merely used to decribe a state of happiness. However, during the late 1800s 'gay' was sometimes used to describe prostitutes and their usually 'colorful' fashion sense. One theory is that 'gay' came into use to describe homosexual men because of the rise in numbers of male prostitutes during the 1900s and their usually 'colorful' fashion sense.
That being said many gay men from the during the 1920's and 30's rejected the term 'gay' because of its rather demeaning/feminized usage. Many gay middle class men of the time preferred the term 'queer' since it only cannoted that one was different from the average person. Queer was appropriated sometime later by straights as a slanderous term only to be re-appropriated by gays sometime in the late 80's as an all inclusive/academic term. Also, arguably, to blunt the ugly use of the snarled "queer" epithet hurled by straights.
mmm-kay? you should at least be clear about why a word is used before you deign its usage.
Oh and by the way I visit a lot of sites and read the comments. I can always tell its the one and same alessandra by the mere fact that you keep writing 'ad hominen' its AD HOMINEM dear.
# posted by 
: 7:37 PM
: 7:37 PM
