Whoa good point.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - women and non-straights are the last publicly acceptable targets for comments that otherwise would be grounds for mass-upheaval.

Just some thoughts, in no particular order:

1. A local white speaker quoted former Mississippi Governor James Vardaman's statement that "N____r education is a threat to white supremacy" at a MLK service where two-thirds of the congregation was black. The audience, and I for that matter, felt that the use of the word in that context was not inappropriate because it was necessary to convey what the governor had said.

2. "F____t" would seem, to me, to fall into the same general category. For example, the word is used at least twice on Green Day's American Idiot album: "Well, maybe I'm the f____t America / I'm not a part of the redneck agenda" (in the title track) and in "Holiday," during the infamous "the representative from California has the floor" sequence (which begins "Sieg Hiel to the President Gasman / bombs away is your punishment..."). In the former sense, it's understood that the singer is identifying with the word; in the latter sense, it's understood that the speaker is a villain.

3. Isaiah Washington's use of the word at the Golden Globes ("I didn't call him a..."), and Glenn Beck's use of the word here, would seem to ordinarily fall under the illustrative use precedent (but see #5). If I were editing a reference volume with primary sources, for example, and one of the sources included a racial slur, I would be inclined to include it uncensored if that fit editorial guidelines without anyone accusing me, personally, of using the word. This is what is generally done in scholarly work. Go to the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, for example, and you will find scholarly essays that use a wide range of racial epithets. It's understood that use in this context is not generally offensive.

4. Likewise, in other nonscholarly "third person" contexts--if, say, a heterosexual friend of Knight's said "But he called him a f____t!"--I'm sure nobody would consider that offensive.

5. So the issue with the Golden Globes usage, and the Glenn Beck usage, is not that they use the word at all. "Third person" usage has historically not been something that gets someone in hot water. The issue with the Golden Globes usage, and the Glenn Beck usage, is that you have two people with a history of homophobia casually using the word.

6. It would be much like if you had a known white supremacist reciting the same statement described in item #1, in a speech that was not as unambiguously anti-racist.

7. I am thinking, for some reason, of an episode of The Jeffersons. George calls Tom a "honkey," and Tom responds "How would you feel if I called you a n____r?" Now, Tom is obviously not calling George a "n____r," but the context is still offensive because it's not being used in a way that shows deference to the word's offensiveness.

7a. Which is very much what Isaiah Washington and Glenn Beck were doing with "f____t."

8. On a local forum thread, I suggested that a certain nutjob who rides around in a U-Haul (which is painted with bloody fetuses), screaming at Wal-Mart stores and calling them too pro-gay, needs a theme song. So I suggested, to the tune of "Spider Man": "Fetusman, fetusman, rides around in a fetus van. Cruises State on Friday nights screaming at the sodomites, look out, here comes the fetusman!" Everybody who knows me knows that I don't use the word "sodomite," but the fetus man does. Was this just edgy humor, or am I just as bad as Glenn Beck and Isaiah Washington?

9. If I'm not, are we really criticizing the word or criticizing the context? Speaking as a heterosexual pro-gay activist with lesbian parents, I was personally more offended by the cheerful "starts with F, rhymes with maggot" description (followed by laughter) than Beck's actual use of the word, since the latter had (or should have had) implicit air quotes and the former had a "Ha ha, we'll humor those people by being politically correct" vibe to it.

Am I on the right page in any of this? I'm just kind of brainstorming at this point. I can't stand Glenn Beck and think CNN needs to can him; Isaiah Washington sounds like a raging asshole who should have done more serious penitence than a written statement; but I'm wondering if there are some new broad principles I'm supposed to be drawing from this, such as whether someone using epithets in a "third-person" sense ("Did he call him a...?") should really be described as "using the word [epithet]," without any asterisks protecting good faith, illustrative use of the word.

And I think that even good faith, illustrative use of the word should be put in the same category as good faith, illustrative use of other profanity, or of nudity. The truth is that if Beck had whipped out his genitals, even if it was for a valid illustrative reason (I can't think of one either, but work with me here), he would have been fired. If Beck had said "fuck," even if it was for a valid illustrative reason, he would have at least gotten in hot water with the network. Why are epithets not dealt with in a similar way? Why, dear reader, did I hear the N-word in a TV-G episode of The Jeffersons, under any context, if, say, Lionel saying "Fuckin' A!" or Weezy performing a breast self-examination would have generated a TV-MA rating?

Well, that was quite a ramble, and not quite as well structured as my usual posts, but if anyone wants to pick up this brainstorm from where I left off...

Cheers,

TH

Although not a gay slur...Lets not forget Rosie "Ching Chang Chong" O'Donnell (sp?)...While dishing the insult, I loved it when she squinted her eyes in an attempt to LOOK chinese. Classless.

1. A local white speaker quoted former Mississippi Governor James Vardaman's statement that "N____r education is a threat to white supremacy" at a MLK service where two-thirds of the congregation was black. The audience, and I for that matter, felt that the use of the word in that context was not inappropriate because it was necessary to convey what the governor had said.

That made me think... If the supremacy of a race relies on the oppression and forced ignorance of others, that race must not be too supreme.

mel did go to rehab

So if someone sent you to rehab to make you stop using derogatory names like Fundies about fundamental Christians whose worldview and life practices you do not accept and have no intention of quietly tolerating would it change you? Could it change you? Right. Rehab for something like this is a joke.

yes, that it is. its just an attempt to garner sympathy so maybe people dont hate you as much.

TH, not to detract from the potency of your extremely well-thought-out comment, but your fetusman song made me laugh out loud at work. Thanks a lot. ;)

I think the lines between bigotry, descriptiveness, and satire are very difficult to find. I feel like I have a pretty good intuitive grasp of them -- but I'm a privileged white het, so I can't say with certainty that I do. Indeed, that's the whole difficult in defining obscenity law (a task at which courts have failed miserably -- Justice Stewart's infamous "I know it when I see it" line springs to mind). Communication is a complex process involving at least three separate and distinct actions/occurrences. The occurrence of an idea and its intended meaning and/or effect, the communication of that idea (whether objectively speaking it conveys the actual intent/meaning well or does not), and the reception of that communicated idea. At any of these three points (or others) the communication or idea can be changed and modified. Someone may mean something in a perfectly benign sense and may indeed be quite innocent -- but a poorly-placed word here or there can ruin a person's reputation. If someone mis-hears the communicator, or if the communicator is physically unable to pronounce a word properly (whether due to a speech impediment or a cough or a sneeze), the communication can go awry.

Thus it may in fact be very appropriate to consider the speaker's background. Glenn Beck could go on TV tomorrow and announce that he will begin calling white people "n*****s" to rob the word of its power (well, he couldn't, because he'd be censored, but assuming the FCC took a day off). People would be outraged, and rightly so. But let's say Aaron McGruder was interviewed on CNN and made the same announcement. It's quite plausible to me that people would consider the possibility that it might be a good idea.

Contrary to popular (ignorant) opinion, the reason for the differential action is not because Beck is white and McGruder is black. It's because Beck has a history of being less than friendly to people who stand up for black people's rights, and McGruder has a history of actually giving a crap about black people. By the same token, if Clarence Thomas made the same proposal on television, there would be major backlash.

I don't think a speaker's history is irrelevant. I think it's fair to tell people that if we're going to trust their motivations and believe that they aren't bigots, they have to prove themselves first. Thus, if Isaiah Washington says the word "f****t" while he is under an air of controversy, it makes sense for there to be backlash. If John Stewart says it, I think most people are pretty comfortable believing that he's trying to help, rather than hinder, the gay rights movement.

I think this actual shows how far the gay/lesbian movement has progressed in just the past few years. I remember when hearing the word fag on TV or in conversation was pretty common and no one really thought twice about using that word, both towards gay and straight people. Now, it's become politically incorrect to say in just a period of maybe 5 or 6 years. So kudos to organizations like gladd for making that happen.

Tom, for a while I thought f_____t meant feminist. It's such a bad word these days after all.

Donna, agreed, which is why I get annoyed with men who describe themselves as "pro-feminist" but refuse to describe themselves as feminists. There are some who do it for good reason, but a greater number, in my experience, are uncommitted chickenshits.

Cheers,

TH

To be quiet honest here, I understand the implications of the "F" word, but the CNN reporter was only saying it to relay what the Grey's Anatomy actor said. Therefore, maybe we should not give him such a hard time about it. He was not calling someone the F word, he was just repeating what was said. So for example, if I tell a friend that someone called her a bitch, that doesn't imply that I'm calling her a bitch, and same goes here.

fucking finally, a person with the nerve to actually make this point...
personally, i have little to no problem with the word, "fag" but absolutely believe in the power and the violence of the word, "faggot".. One day, me and da boyz will own the word faggot and will use our own power behind it. Acceptable on CNN, absolutely not.... Every other station has bleeped out Isiah Washington's statements from the Golden Globes.. Why is that asshole Glen Beck allowed, even encouraged to say it? (watch the footage closely)
Because unfortunately it is way too comfortable and socially acceptable to say that word out loud. Does that mean I don't puke a little bit or that my ears don't burn or that I don't see daggers in my eyes when those sounds form that word?
Can we just see it on the same level as the N Bomb? (nothing anyone should ever say out loud) It's really that simple.
I tried watching a Seinfeld episode the other night and once Kramer flew into the house, the show become unwatchable. I expected a racist insane sort of paragraph to come escaping. Realized that this level of hate and ignorance is really difficult to get over, and nor should we...
Thank you Sami for putting this out there...
Love you always,
yo oldest and #1 homo
Sean