I think this is a rather skewed take on the use of bigoted language.
Yes the equanimity and strength of which you speak should be more common than it is. But the idea that it would represent the majority is miles past idealistic into "starry-eyed." Fact of the matter is that many people, most people, are going to be insulted, outraged, …
I think this is a rather skewed take on the use of bigoted language.
Yes the equanimity and strength of which you speak should be more common than it is. But the idea that it would represent the majority is miles past idealistic into "starry-eyed." Fact of the matter is that many people, most people, are going to be insulted, outraged, angered, or hurt by these words, and not because they're weak or thin-skinned.
I am still offended to the core by "queer," even though gay people and the gender-trash use it with some perverse pride, calling it reclaimed, and fooling nobody. It is just the latest form of confrontational belligerence and I don't care how many people say so, anyone who applied it to me was invited to leave my house and never come back.
My boss at one job told me how when he first started at the company decades before there were rules against making hostile workplaces he would be referred to by the N-word, in front of his coworkers and those he managed. and even after all that time he was clearly in pain over the memory. And even though I had never used to word outside of referring to it abhorrence I felt the need to apologize to him.
Yes using the word, or "queer" or any of the other vocabulary of bigotry says more about the speaker than the hearer, it is still intended to hurt and hurt it does. To say that people should be able to rise above reaction is to ignore too much. To expect too much.
"Fact of the matter is that many people, most people, are going to be insulted, outraged, angered, or hurt by these words, and not because they're weak or thin-skinned."
I don't see any reason to say this is a fact. Attitudes to many words have changed over time. Being insulted isn't necessarily about being weak or thin-skinned. It's about internalising somebody else's feelings about you. There are times when this is a good thing to do, as in when somebody you trust gives you feedback. And times when it's not, as in when a stranger is throwing a tantrum.
I understand why you're offended by the word "queer." And I don't think you're weak in the least for feeling that way. I think its usage today is an interesting reflection of how the broader aims of the LGBT community have shifted from being accepted to being subversive at all costs (I know this latter element has always existed within the LGBT community, but it seems much more mainstream lately).
But yeah, I'm not talking about "rising above." I'm talking about truly acknowledging where the reaction is coming from. It's not the sound waves being carried to your ear that hurt. It's what happens when they reach your brain. I advocate for changing the internal reaction to the word because it's the only way people can free themselves form the pain of these words.
You say that this change is difficult. And you're right. But expecting racists and homophobes and other bigots to stop using these words when they still provoke that reaction? That's far more of a stretch.
Bigotry is common. When people use these words it may just be a matter of them telling you who they are. In some ways it's good that they've let you know.
When aimed at someone as purposeful insult and contempt it is another issue in my opinion. I never forgave my uncle for the incident I mentioned. In that case it was not so much what he said, but how he said it.
The magic of magic words is not just the word, but how it is used.
You mention the Q word. As a child I learned the word as meaning, out of the ordinary, peculiar or strange. I don't know when its dominant use became a slur aimed at homosexuals. Something new during my lifetime or something I was just unaware of in a time of innocence. One of a number of words ruined by how it became used.
"Was the N word (origin) ever benign like that?" Yes, the borrowed word 'niger' has ancient origins meaning 'dark' or 'night' and continues to have benign or official use today. It is a major river and even a country in Africa. It is recognized internationally as a color, even appearing on children's crayons. This legitimate word appears with a single g (not gg). My apologies if you are asking only about the etymology of the far more recent "gg" variety.
In my recollection the Q as noun has always been a slur; in Commonwealth English it was often no more than (as an adjective) meaning something like "odd." Growing up, "queer" was easily one of the two or three most vile slurs there was.
Then at some point it became a badge of identification, about the time when being gay ceased to be remarkable or noteworthy, and those radical gays who saw their specialness slipping away were obviously seeking a way to go back to being offensive.
There has always been a strong imperative to tell heterosexuals how much we hated them (except I didn't) and to offend them as much as possible, which is what pride parades were always about.
Some people tell me that for not accepting "queer" I am demonstrating "internalized homophobia," but then that's the same thing they told me for not accepting pantomimed sex on pride parade floats.
I was thinking in terms of the use of the word in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" where it had, to the best of my understanding, no sexual connotations, or even in the song "Send in the Clowns".
I had not considered generalized hate, but I guess that would explain the parades essentially giving heterosexuals the finger which is clearly not about seeking acceptance.
What is the ratio of politicized (in a caustic way) vs. non-political homosexuals (just living your life as you see fit)?
Perhaps it is too difficult for it to not be an identity in the face of open hostility. Now making me wonder if it applies to all of the identities in today's politicize everything world where demonization and insult are so common.
I pretty much exited the gay community in 1996 and ceased any activism at the same time. I had my post-breakup fling with gay bars in 1994-5 and after I abruptly got tired of that and left for the last time I eventually stopped caring. For gay activists there was no uglier word than assimilation and the cause that mattered most to me, same-sex marriage, was openly scorned as a "str8" institution while promiscuity was our birthright.
It ain't me, babe.
I have no idea what it's like now. I have the impression that the specialness has gone out of the enclave culture. But the "trans" BS has taken over; gay magazines and sites are now all about "trans." I have the impression that gay culture is a lot more mainstreamed now but I have been away from it for a long time and now geographically remote from it.
Personally, I don't "identify" with being gay, while a lot of activist gays identify with nothing else. If you read their profiles on, say, Medium they are just recitations of their "queer" credentials, with no mention of hobbies or interests. I can't imagine anyone other than Trump supporters I want less to do with.
That's one of the problems with identity politics. Instead of being in a subset of the whole bringing peace and harmony to all, it results in hate, discontent and turmoil. Another is that they are essentially NPCs marching in lockstep with tribal dictates.
I think this is a rather skewed take on the use of bigoted language.
Yes the equanimity and strength of which you speak should be more common than it is. But the idea that it would represent the majority is miles past idealistic into "starry-eyed." Fact of the matter is that many people, most people, are going to be insulted, outraged, angered, or hurt by these words, and not because they're weak or thin-skinned.
I am still offended to the core by "queer," even though gay people and the gender-trash use it with some perverse pride, calling it reclaimed, and fooling nobody. It is just the latest form of confrontational belligerence and I don't care how many people say so, anyone who applied it to me was invited to leave my house and never come back.
My boss at one job told me how when he first started at the company decades before there were rules against making hostile workplaces he would be referred to by the N-word, in front of his coworkers and those he managed. and even after all that time he was clearly in pain over the memory. And even though I had never used to word outside of referring to it abhorrence I felt the need to apologize to him.
Yes using the word, or "queer" or any of the other vocabulary of bigotry says more about the speaker than the hearer, it is still intended to hurt and hurt it does. To say that people should be able to rise above reaction is to ignore too much. To expect too much.
"Fact of the matter is that many people, most people, are going to be insulted, outraged, angered, or hurt by these words, and not because they're weak or thin-skinned."
I don't see any reason to say this is a fact. Attitudes to many words have changed over time. Being insulted isn't necessarily about being weak or thin-skinned. It's about internalising somebody else's feelings about you. There are times when this is a good thing to do, as in when somebody you trust gives you feedback. And times when it's not, as in when a stranger is throwing a tantrum.
I understand why you're offended by the word "queer." And I don't think you're weak in the least for feeling that way. I think its usage today is an interesting reflection of how the broader aims of the LGBT community have shifted from being accepted to being subversive at all costs (I know this latter element has always existed within the LGBT community, but it seems much more mainstream lately).
But yeah, I'm not talking about "rising above." I'm talking about truly acknowledging where the reaction is coming from. It's not the sound waves being carried to your ear that hurt. It's what happens when they reach your brain. I advocate for changing the internal reaction to the word because it's the only way people can free themselves form the pain of these words.
You say that this change is difficult. And you're right. But expecting racists and homophobes and other bigots to stop using these words when they still provoke that reaction? That's far more of a stretch.
Bigotry is common. When people use these words it may just be a matter of them telling you who they are. In some ways it's good that they've let you know.
When aimed at someone as purposeful insult and contempt it is another issue in my opinion. I never forgave my uncle for the incident I mentioned. In that case it was not so much what he said, but how he said it.
The magic of magic words is not just the word, but how it is used.
You mention the Q word. As a child I learned the word as meaning, out of the ordinary, peculiar or strange. I don't know when its dominant use became a slur aimed at homosexuals. Something new during my lifetime or something I was just unaware of in a time of innocence. One of a number of words ruined by how it became used.
Was the N word (origin) ever benign like that?
"Was the N word (origin) ever benign like that?" Yes, the borrowed word 'niger' has ancient origins meaning 'dark' or 'night' and continues to have benign or official use today. It is a major river and even a country in Africa. It is recognized internationally as a color, even appearing on children's crayons. This legitimate word appears with a single g (not gg). My apologies if you are asking only about the etymology of the far more recent "gg" variety.
In my recollection the Q as noun has always been a slur; in Commonwealth English it was often no more than (as an adjective) meaning something like "odd." Growing up, "queer" was easily one of the two or three most vile slurs there was.
Then at some point it became a badge of identification, about the time when being gay ceased to be remarkable or noteworthy, and those radical gays who saw their specialness slipping away were obviously seeking a way to go back to being offensive.
There has always been a strong imperative to tell heterosexuals how much we hated them (except I didn't) and to offend them as much as possible, which is what pride parades were always about.
Some people tell me that for not accepting "queer" I am demonstrating "internalized homophobia," but then that's the same thing they told me for not accepting pantomimed sex on pride parade floats.
I was thinking in terms of the use of the word in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" where it had, to the best of my understanding, no sexual connotations, or even in the song "Send in the Clowns".
I had not considered generalized hate, but I guess that would explain the parades essentially giving heterosexuals the finger which is clearly not about seeking acceptance.
What is the ratio of politicized (in a caustic way) vs. non-political homosexuals (just living your life as you see fit)?
Perhaps it is too difficult for it to not be an identity in the face of open hostility. Now making me wonder if it applies to all of the identities in today's politicize everything world where demonization and insult are so common.
I pretty much exited the gay community in 1996 and ceased any activism at the same time. I had my post-breakup fling with gay bars in 1994-5 and after I abruptly got tired of that and left for the last time I eventually stopped caring. For gay activists there was no uglier word than assimilation and the cause that mattered most to me, same-sex marriage, was openly scorned as a "str8" institution while promiscuity was our birthright.
It ain't me, babe.
I have no idea what it's like now. I have the impression that the specialness has gone out of the enclave culture. But the "trans" BS has taken over; gay magazines and sites are now all about "trans." I have the impression that gay culture is a lot more mainstreamed now but I have been away from it for a long time and now geographically remote from it.
Personally, I don't "identify" with being gay, while a lot of activist gays identify with nothing else. If you read their profiles on, say, Medium they are just recitations of their "queer" credentials, with no mention of hobbies or interests. I can't imagine anyone other than Trump supporters I want less to do with.
That's one of the problems with identity politics. Instead of being in a subset of the whole bringing peace and harmony to all, it results in hate, discontent and turmoil. Another is that they are essentially NPCs marching in lockstep with tribal dictates.