xenogere

Give me an effing break!

Posted on Jan 28, 2007 by jason

It was only a few days ago when I talked about the frenzied twaddle flowing into the collective consciousness regarding offense taken by the overly sensitive when they hear certain words (see that post for some examples).  I discussed then a simple premise: that the words have no power lest we empower them; that the spiteful users of such words are actually weak, pathetic cretins who should be ignored rather than spotlighted; and that all the drivel regarding such words is nothing short of self-victimization and political correctness gone awry.

Now the proverbial excrement has hit the air movement device regarding a recent conversation on CNN where just such a word was used innocently as part of a conversation about that same word’s use by a hoity-toity idiot.

The word?  Faggot.

It’s use?  A newscaster said it to clarify what was being discussed.  He didn’t call anyone a faggot.  He didn’t say he knew a faggot.  He didn’t say anything that indicated it was something more than what it was: a clarification, an identification of the specific word causing a hoopla in the tabloids and throughout the out-and-too-proud gay community.  I’d say his use of it deflates its importance.  In fact, here’s the specific piece of the conversation between CNN’s Glenn Beck and a guest:

BECK: But anyway, Dave, what is the-what is the controversy? One of the guys called another guy a naughty name.

GLOVER: Yes. Basically you have Isaiah Washington, who’s one of the stars of the show, who referred to one of his co-stars during a heated argument as a derogatory term for a gay man that starts with “F”, rhymes with maggot. Did it a couple more times after that. And do you like how I did that?

BECK: Yes.

GLOVER: And?

BECK: Do you know that “The New York Times” wouldn’t even print-I mean, we can say the word. We’re having an adult conversation here. Wouldn’t even print the word “faggot.”

GLOVER: Right.

BECK: Wouldn’t print it. I find that amazing.

That, poppets, is innocent reporting.  It’s also taking a stand against thin-skinned censors who want to edit the dictionary of all terms that might be offensive to someone (which, I’ll point out, would certainly cut the length of such books to only a few pages, so maybe they’re on to something . . .).

An example comes from Pam’s House Blend who points out a similar response at AMERICAblog (a site I stopped reading some time ago due to this kind of sensationalist claptrap).  Both sites are up in arms about Beck’s actual use of the word.

Well shiver me timbers!  How dare he, as a reporter, actually say the word in a clarifying, innocent way so as to ensure the audience knew what was being discussed, and also to point out that the NYT wouldn’t even print it—as though doing so would cause the world to end.

Apparently they were the smart ones if the response to Beck is any indication.  Had they printed it, the homosexual troglodytes now screaming foul would likely have burned down their offices and dismantled their printing presses.

Let me point out, if I may, that these same gay rights advocates are the liberals who thrashed and bellowed like cattle in heat when conservatives shrilled about people insulting the president or disagreeing with the government’s policies (while under GOP rule, that is), and when conservatives stomped their feet about people speaking ill of Christians, and on and on it went.  Yes, these are the same people who complained of censorship and infringement of rights and the excessive political correctness of conservatives.

To make my point, I’ll say all of these boneheads epitomize the stereotype of hysterical faggots wanting special treatment.  They’re embarrassing.  They’re outrageous and ignorant.  They’re downright silly, laughable even, and it’s a shame they’re getting any airtime at all with this.  What with wanting to boycott CNN sponsors and wanting Beck fired and whatever other infantile idiocy they’re demonstrating, I’m thinking of climbing back in the closet so people don’t associate me with this horde of hypersensitive juveniles.

It’s precisely these kinds of reactions that invigorate and enable epithets to be more than simple words.  If they’d stop rushing into the streets each time someone used one, especially in cases like this where it’s use is completely proper, they’d find the words suddenly losing vigor . . . the life stripped right out of them.  But instead of being intelligent and strategic in their thinking, they endorse emotional panic and promote irresponsible mayhem via actions that serve only to vest in such words immutable vitality and increased odium.

Shameful.  Just shameful . . .  Unenlightened throngs writhing and squirming and shrieking in response to a simple word that only they can neuter, and what’s the result?  Now people see you can really get under the skin of Teh Gays by calling them faggots.  They’ve idolized the word in the eyes of the intolerant, they’ve strengthened its impact in the hands of the bigots, and they’ve shown themselves to be elementary-school rejects who run home and cry to their mothers every single time another kid on the playground calls them a sissy.

Whatever.

Permalink Trackback