Oh my F**king Gawd!!!!!!!!!!

If I were to paint a powerful picture of a gay man being kicked in by a group of skinheads, would you suggest I didn't post that on this forum?

After all, it might well be interpreted by some as being a celebration of this activity, even if my intention is quite different. It might be said that displaying this kind of image normalises the activity, making it seem acceptable. If you're of a predisposition to do this kind of thing, seeing this image might reinforce your notion that it's a good thing to do and encourage you in your homophobia. Should I therefore not display this picture?

That's the logical endpoint of your argument.

 

No it's not. It's the logical endpoint of your simplification of my argument.

There's no direct analogy. Your painting isn't inherently suggesting anything. It's entirely subjective and open to interpretation. The word 'faggot' is defined in the dictionary as a derogatory term for a homosexual. There's far less ambiguity in its use, and there's no likelihood that it's being used as a powerful condemnation of prejudice, as the painting would be in your example. But ultimately, if you need to fall back on such abstract analogies in order to defend the use of a homophobic word as an insult, I'd say your argument's pretty weak.

Let me be clear there though - I agree with you in regards to the evolution of language. I don't find any word inherently offensive. It's all about context, and my argument is that by associating the word faggot with a statement of strong derision, you're reinforcing the belief that homosexuality is socially unacceptable. If you were, for example, reclaiming the word faggot by using it in a friendly and jocular manner, then it'd be a different matter. I'd be quite happy calling a liberal friend a fucking faggot, for example. In that context, you could reasonably claim that the word was being reclaimed. Using it to describe the BNP though strongly reinforces the notion that being a faggot is abhorrent. Context is everything.

 

You seem to think pictures are open to interpretation but words are not. The picture analogy is a subtle but important one. Despite what the dictionary tells you, words are arbitrary symbols just like pictures are. A dictionary definition reflects current usage, it does not dictate meaning. I can use a word in an unusual context and it will throw its meaning into relief and shift interpretation of the word. You're suggesting I shouldn't do this with certain words - this is just like telling a painter not to use certain imagery: it is removing one of his creative tools, because of the cultural value you (or the dictionary) currently attaches to it. How do you imagine words will evolve unless we are free to use them however we want?

Any suggestion that people are not free to use words as they wish is an intrusion upon freedom of expression. This limitation of the cultural symbols available for us to play with is an imposition of a single interpretation of meaning. And that's a slippery slope, at the bottom of which is a kind of cultural fascism.

 

No, yet again you are misrepresenting my argument. Of course words are open to interpretation - where the context allows ambiguity. If you use the word 'faggot' to describe a fascist, it's pretty clear that it's being used as an insult. No room for interpretation there. Given that the word means 'homosexual', there's a direct connection between using it to insult someone, and the notion that homosexuality is abhorrent. You seem to ignore the fact that I've been quite happy to accept that there are plenty of other situations in which the use of the word would be entirely appropriate. To follow your analogy for a moment, would you hang your painting in a BNP meeting?

Showmet, this is just bullshit. I've not once suggested the word ,faggot should be censored or excised from your vocabulary, and I really object to your continued insistence on casting my argument in that false light. Please, I respect your opinion, so it'd be nice if you could debate my actual position, rather than some caricature of my position.

Again, you're falsely representing my position. I've not suggested any form of censorship other than self-censorship, which you presumably practice every day. It's called tact and discretion.

Again, I've never suggested limiting anyone's freedom - this is your obsession and something that you appear to have fixated on, despite the fact that it's a view I don't actually subscribe to. You think that the suggestion you should practice tact and discretion is an intrusion on your personal freedom? That's ludicrous. If I was suggesting that the word 'faggot' should be outlawed, you'd have a case.

Let me give you another example. Do you think it'd be acceptable to walk up to a black child and call them a fucking cock sucking coon? I should hope not. You'd hopefully expect me to practice a bit of tact and discretion. But by your definition, that would then be a limitation placed on my personal freedom of expression.

No it's not. It's an uphill slope at the top of which lies consideration and compassion. Again, you insist on seeing this debate in the light of someone attempting to impose restrictions on your use of language, which is simply not the case. There's a world of difference between suggesting you have an awareness of social context and actually banning a word. I'm suggesting the former. If I was suggesting the latter, I'd be entirely in agreement with your argument.

 

Well I was referring to your explicit statement that "Nazi faggot" was "offensive" (your word) and the clear implication, as I saw it, that it should not be used in such a context.

Interesting question There is a notion called "hate speech" which as far as I'm aware, falling short of incitement, is not illegal in this country. But morally it's a grey area. Clearly using racist abuse in a racist context would come under this umbrella term. No I don't think that's acceptable. But should it actually be banned? Should someone be forbidden from expressing his opinion that a person is a cock sucking coon? If it's not associated with any other threatening behaviour, crime, or incitement to crime, it's just words. I don't think we should ban words. (In practice of course this insult will usually be associated with threatening behaviour, but it's that which is the problem, not the words.) So while I might not think it's an acceptable thing to do and wouldn't do it myself, I would have to think long and hard before suggesting that a person does not have a right to express this opinion using these words.

(Yes I am aware you aren't advocating the banning of words, I am just debating aloud the concept of hate speech which some suggest should itself be a crime - I think it is already in the States.)

There is a world of difference between using such a term in a racist context and using it in a context where it becomes divorced from its original meaning. If they used the term "cock sucking coon" to refer, say, to a member of the BNP then it is much less of a grey area. It's still clearly an offensive, racist term, to be used with care if at all, but it's not being used in a racist context. Its new context gives it new meaning. And, regarding the BNP's stance on race, I think it might actually be a most efficacious insult.

I would suggest that the original use of the term "Nazi faggot" in this thread did have an awareness of social context and was actually quite a creative use of the term. That's just my dilettante interpretation of course, with which you are free to disagree. Given my commitment to the principle of freedom of speech, I object to any suggestion that the word should simply not be used. If you're not after all suggesting that Smartie shouldn't have used the word then there's no problem here.

 

I have to keep re-reading this, either you are so emotionaly involved in this argument, showmet, that your brain has given up rationalising your argument, or, well, find myself struggling with the words........

Victory under any circumstances !?

Or, Dok, someones turn to wind you up.............. ???

 

That's not really adding anything constructive in my opinion... just seems like you are trying to get this debate personal... when it clearly isn't

 

OOOOOOOOOps

 

I have stayed out of thos so far and am gonna keep it simple cos reading some of the statements is making my head hurts....

Basically I think Showmet (as I have said before) that "freedom of expression doesn't make it alright"....You seem to be implying that people should have the right to say anything, at any point, about anything...and that is bullshit...People should be allowed to say what they want as long as it is not backed up by violence or actions...that is bullshit too...

Think about what you are saying..your argument is not valid, especially for someone who is a free thinking liberal...I am a big believer in freedom of speech, and your right to express an opinion but there has to be limits...If words have no real power then explain Adolf Hitler and the whole Nazi movement's rise??

 

Why in your opinion is it bullshit and why is it not valid in the context of 21st century Britain, not 20th century european conflict.

 

Sides taken, the line is drawn, dadadada !

 

Sorry but the war is a major factor in today's society..If you cannot see why what happened ONLY 60 YEARS AGO!!!! as having a major impact on todays society then I think you need to have a serious think...21st century Britain is how it is largely because of the war...The Nazi party was formed using words, people were whipped into mass hysteria and we all know what happened next...If you need me to explain to you why this must not be allowed to happen again in 21st century Britain then I worry about you...(over simplified I know but your quote is so naive)

Why is bullshit.....FFS!!! People cannot go around saying what they like regardless.....The world is a fucked up place as it is without having more people adding to this by using detrimental, hate fuelled language in everyday usage..The analogy to the war was used as a demonstration as to what can happen if people are allowed to continue saying anything regardless of the consequences...

Do you think 40 million people dead is an acceptable loss for people to be able to say discrimatory statements because it is there right to???

Claire you started this debate by moaning about the BNP putting a leaflet through your letterbox...Well its their fucking right too!!!!

It comes down to an individual’s right to self expression versus society’s right to censor the individual for the benefit of the whole

 

I asked my question because I wanted you to expand your points. I wasn't disagreeing or stating an opinion...

 

Fair enough ... so not all speech should be allowed. Whose speech do you choose to ban? People who say things which are offensive? Hateful? Unpalatable? Who decides what is offensive and hateful? You? What makes you think you are right?

Unless you allow alternative viewpoints to be expressed you risk tyranny. This must include ALL alternative viewpoints. Are you conceited enough to believe you can decide who is right and who is wrong, who can and can't say certain things? Do you truly want a government which believes it has the right to decide who can and can't express their views?

 

I am not saying I should choose who can say what, I am not saying the Government can say who can say what...Of course i do not want a Government that decides what we can say..You are inferring that I said that which I clearly did not, I never even mentioned a Government deciding maybe it is you who is so conceited that you put your own interpretation of people's words to be gospel...Basically there has to be limits, No I do not know who decides and better men than me have come up with debated this...All I am saying is that people cannot be allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want with no exceptions as we have seen the consequences of this in our past...

Under German law you are not allowed to spout nazi or far right propaganda...So taking your statement from your last post I am sure they would be very surprised to learn they are risking tyranny...Germany as far as I am aware is a fully functioning succesful democracy.....

 

Your rant was basic, I wanted you to expand on it... what's naive about that?

no, and your point is?

Did I ever say they couldn't?... I just said it pissed me off.

Koolaid, I don't really have a clue why you let rip at me there :&

 

We do have incitement to hatred laws and with these I would largely agree, if people are involved in encouraging criminal behaviour. But why not let fascists and bigots and other wankers expose their thoughts clearly to the light of day, to the light of rational debate? By banning certain kinds of speech you risk driving these ideas underground and lending them the power of subversion.

Let the BNP say whatever hateful crap they want to so we can refute and rebutt it in public.

 

Similarly, racism is clasified as abusing someone using derogatory remarks regarding their colour, creed, or race.


You call someone a ****** because they're black and you're a racist. What if you called some a white maggot? Youre still a racist but it's not a big deal because people see racism as only a black thing.

That's one thing that pisses me off.

 

It's offensive because it's used as a derisory statement, thus linking homosexuality to abhorrence. That does not mean that I believe the word to be inherently offensive. I've lost count of how many times I've said this now.

So you're already accepting the principle that their should be limits on our self-expression. This seriously undermines your argument, because you're essentially saying that censorship is acceptable, so long as it's on your terms.

But don't you see, we're actually in agreement here? As you point out, I'm not advocating the banning of words. I'm advising self-censorship of particular words in a particular context. This is nothing more than we already practice on a day to day basis.

I agree. But the whole point is that it's not divorced from its original meaning. The only reason the word faggot is currently considered to be an insult is because it relates to homosexuality.

I strongly disagree. I think it was a casual, off-the-cuff remark used with no awareness of social context whatsoever. You only have to look at the infantile attitude that Smartie subsequently adopted as proof of that. It's not even as though I kicked off about it - I politely pointed out that the use of the word faggot in that context might not be exactly top banana, and he threw a hissy fit. That doesn't really demonstrate much of an 'awareness of social context/ In reality, what you're defending is the casual and ignorant use of language in a way that shows no consideration for the wider social context. In short, you're arguing in favour of ignorance, and dressing it up as a defence of an ephemeral intellectual concept. In fairness, I don't believe this is intentional, but I think you're confusing your own use and understanding of language with the way language is used by others.

I'm not suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to use the word. I'm suggesting he should practice tact and discretion, and adopt a degree of self-censorship on the basis of the social context surrounding the word.

 

now now mr doc.. there is no need to slurr my good name by suggesting that i behave in an infantile manner...
your experience of homophobia is obviously dramatically different to mine.. i have had gay friends since i first met a homosexual.. and never once have i seen them be a victim of homophobia.. im not saying that it doesn't exist.. but im merely saying that the degree of homophobia that we build into our own realities is completely dependent on experience... there for.. its not myfault that i use certain words in a way that you disagree with.. no more than its your fault that you disagree with them... what i would suggest however is that you let those how are meant to be insulted by such things say so themselves; if at all they are offended, rather than you dictating what people should or should not find offensive.

to claim that the use of certain words in such a flippent context WILL incite some kind of anti-social behaviour is foolish