I was given a warning about my last diary, which I titled "Fag."
I apologize for not being more clear. I could've fleshed out the thinking in posting it.
I do want to re-visit things--not to incite--but simply to offer up more food for thought for anyone who cares to consider such.
I honestly did wonder what others thought, and honestly did want to read such thought. Then a phone call came through, and I didn't get back to the computer until some had already statred HRing the thing. Then, as the discourse wore on, I, being human, began to take offense at the insensitivity of those who did not offer up a considered reply. I'm not saying I've never been guilty of the same, it's just the way it played out.
So, in the interests of anyone interested, I'd like to post some of the comments that I found valuable.
Assuming you are just naive . . . (14+ / 0-)
"Fag" in the modern U.S.A. is hate speech . . . but it has been adopted, because of its intended negativity . . . to become a generic term of disapproval. Similar linguistic changes have affected a number of other minority-related epithets you could think of.
Quite a few people (especially young people) use it in a generic way, not INTENDING it to be hateful to gay people, but that doesn't mean it isn't hateful to gay people.
I have had longish discussions with high schoolers on this subject, and even most of those who initially thought it was no problem eventually came to see that it is essentially never appropriate to use it and is generally hostile and nasty, regardless of user intent.
Final: Do not use it and call your friends out for using it.
(Complicating note: Dan Savage and other out gay people sometimes use it among themselves, a way of taking the power out of the word, co-opting it. This also has precedent for other hate speech. Still doesn't make it OK for the rest of us to use it.)
by CS11 on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 06:41:06 PM PDT
I don't undertand all the negativity towards john (1+ / 0-)
He should not have used that word as the title of his diary. That just seemed like a petty way to provoke readers and get attention. I would have included in the title some more information about what the diary is actually about -- a consideration of semantics, which is not offensive at all. This diary is not bigoted, the diarist has no problems with gay people. Come on, what is the problem?
Okay, that word is very charged often used for hate speech, but does that mean we can't even talk about how it's used in other contexts? Btw, did you know that the word "faggot" also means a bundle of sticks and twigs? In bygone days, the church used to burn people, including so-called sodomites, with faggots. Maybe that's how the word evolved into how it's used today? I am just interested in the evolution of the English language; there is no ill-intent here at all. The LGBT community has my full respect and sympathy for all the suffering and persecution it went through throughout the ages.
And as for people who wonder why we would want to redefine such a hurtful word in the first place, I must point out that we have actively re-appropriated words in the past. The word "queer" has been stripped of all its hurtful connotations, at least in the academic community. Such acts of semantic redefinition are often empowering, not offensive.
To John: rename your diary, but there is nothing wrong in the point you raised.
All art is political. Politics is an art. www.freeversepress.com
by mollyclark on Mon Apr 04, 2011 at 07:45:45 PM PDT
HUGS! HUGS! HUGS! (0+ / 0-)
I think this is great. Minorly, majorly. I'd say more if I could, but just -- I'm watching The Wire on DVD now. Almost through the first season. I'm hooked. Have to watch it with subtitles on to figure out what they're saying. But "nigga" I get. And "fuck" and "motherfucker" and God knows what else. Dicks and pricks. And those are real people talking real, getting real. It's not idealized at all. You check it out over on IMDB (I did last night) and it gets rated 9.7 out of 10. I've never seen anything rated so high there. Point is, it's black people saying nigga all the time. They're turning that word and owning that word and defusing that word and taking away its power over them every time they say it, which is all the time. It's like speech as white corpuscles attacking disease. Health happens, and you can watch, and you can delight. Like the scene where Bunk and McNulty are investigating a murder crime scene and the whole scene is a fantasia on fuck. It's the only dialog. Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. You catch on and it goes on, and on, and something just blossoms, what a treat to see.
In short, thank you john de herrera. I love what you're doing here. At least what I think you're doing, what do I know? Hugs.
Also, yes, I know what you mean about being unsure of its usage -- when I was growing up it (SoCal) I seem to recall it in about the same territory as ratfink. But I was reading British novels then too and it wasn't a simple definition. Didn't know how to answer your poll, I think I need another option.
by thatvisionthing on Tue Apr 05, 2011 at 05:30:26 PM PDT
To defuse it, to take away its power to hurt (0+ / 0-)
What would be the point in "repurposing" such an ugly word? And what kind of person would spend any time thinking about it? I am so glad John wrote this diary, I think he's doing a great thing. Everyone here HRing John is hurt by the word. What if he's showing that you can pop the blister and let the pus out? Heal? It's a word. Someone made it mean something. Others can change that, by using more words. I left a comment above about "nigga" in The Wire. Flip it and own it. Master it or set it free.
Ultimately, the diary was posted out of the desire to hear what others thought, and the idea: could we "repurpose" the word? If I had simply said, "Can we shift the meaning of a hurtful word?" or such, perhaps the reaction would've been different.
That said, can we agree to this? Life is complex, we think things and test them, we can change our minds, no one's perfect.
