I killed three Queers on my way to church yesterday

Or, the difficulties caused by a commom language and a different understanding

from JoeUser Forums
As some of you may know I'm English. As some of you may also know I came to the USA over a year ago, and very shortly now I'll be moving from Ohio to Virginia to begin a new job there.

My wife is American, and the degree to which we can use the same words while completely misunderstanding each other has surprised us both.

Take the word 'fag'. In England a 'fag' is a cigarette. To say 'I smoked three fags on the way to church' means 'I smoked three cigarettes' not 'I killed three homosexuals'. Such confusions have been a source of unfailing amusement to us both in the last year or so, but last night she made a very important point that I'm going to have to bear in mind constantly when I begin my new job.

Imagine you are at work and one of your co-workers were to say, casually, that he was going to 'smoke a fag' on his break. If you were a tolerant sort (and knew that Europen English had idiosyncrasies that might cause unintentional offence to Americans) you might take your co-worker aside and suggest changing the phrase to 'I'm going out to smoke a cigarette'.

But in a time when 'sensitivity' has become a politically correct watchword you might just decide that such a comment, no matter the innocence of its intention, was so offensive that the speaker ought to get his ass kicked - legally and metaphorically if not physically and actually.

Such is the hypocisy of 'liberalism' in America. One must be forever sensitive to the 'cultural needs' of gays or blacks (or to those of any other social group with wit enough to launch nuisance law-suits); but that supposed 'sensitivity' is actually a form of intolerance. Intolerance sanctioned and supported by law, an intolerance that means I cannot make use of the forms of speech which are natural to me, which means my cultural heritage must be suppressed in favor of the idiocy which insists that no speech which might in any way be offensive to anyone, for whatever reason, may be uttered.

The uber-sensitivity of supposed 'liberals' toward the tender feelings of minorities (any minority) has produced a situation which 'liberals' themselves profess to despise - a situation in which one cannot speak one's mind without fear of persecution, where an incautious slip of the tongue can ruin careers and blight lives, where anyone with a grudge and a lawyer may make a mockery of 'free-speech' and profit enormously from doing so.

Personally, I'd just as soon smoke a 'liberal' as a fag. Fags don't squeal like 'liberals' do.
misc
11,174 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent article, emp...It is funny, because I have long had a similar joke with my friends, as I've explained that, if an Englishman in America says "I'm going to put out this flaming fag", he's likely to get charged with a hate crime...lol
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Excellent article, emp...It is funny, because I have long had a similar joke with my friends, as I've explained that, if an Englishman in America says "I'm going to put out this flaming fag", he's likely to get charged with a hate crime...lol
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice article, Emperor.
What you said about fags is true. But if I may be allowed to proceed further here, where do we draw a line here? We know that Black Americans were called by the name 'nigger' in the US till the 60's at least.

Isn't 'nigger' is a derivative of the word 'negro' - black in European (Spanish). So, yes calling a black man 'nigger' is justified because he has, after all black skin. But this word was used then in a derogatory reference to the blacks(A lot of blacks did call themselves nigger too) and even today, the rare few who may use it, I am sure they do not address a colored person as a 'nigger' as a mark of respect.

"Such is the hypocisy of 'liberalism' in America. One must be forever sensitive to the 'cultural needs' of gays or blacks (or to those of any other social group with wit enough to launch nuisance law-suits); but that supposed 'sensitivity' is actually a form of intolerance."

If today you call a black guy, a nigger and expect him not to remember(on hearing that word) all the privations that his ancestors suffered on account of their race, I'd be surprised. We need to take everyone's feelings(memories??) into account too. Isn't that how we become a pluralistic and more importantly, a tolerant society?

Take care..
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

Very true....unfortunately so.


I was reading in a British paper today how you;re not allowed to say 'nit-picking' anymore because of it's connotations to slavery, and that 'brainstorming' can no longer be used because it might offend mentally challenged/retarded people.


It's PC-ness gone mad.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Gideon MacLeish:

And asking for a rubber here is not the same thing as asking for an eraser...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
And asking for a rubber here is not the same thing as asking for an eraser...


Yes...that could lead to some incredibly embarrassing moments at the office, I would suppose....

lol
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm sure that most Americans will be understanding. But really, there is a reason for the political correctness in our society, don't you think?
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
To dharmagirl:

I can't say 'nit-picking' anymore???
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I worked with a Scottish woman once, she was telling me about her neighbour that visited her in the morning..." John knocked me up at a quarter to eight this morning". She couldn't understand why everyone was laughing, as she was usually a vey prim nd proper lady .
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

You know what is really funny?  Ever see those shirts that say "You're in America, speak English?"  Don't people realize that *you* are speaking English and we (Americans) speak American?


Being that I chat with Brits every day (and are working with a few that are getting Visas to work here) I am quite used to the sayings that seem "odd" when you think of them in American terms.  Just start the conversations over what biscuits, cookies, cake and crackers are, or what is pudding or custard.  Or, what the reaction when you call your dog a "bitch".  Not sure why people get offended by it, but they do. 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top


This is if you decide to pretend that the word "fag" is not used in America - alot.

Case in point : I was in a store, when a young man walked in the door , saw his good friend standing just inside the door, and gave him a good,
straight guy hug. The guy behind the counter said " Hey, you don't want to give anyone the wrong idea " , and the two hugging guys laughed." Well, I'm not Gay", one of them said.

The guy behind the counter then said sarcastically " We don't want to offend some fag" , not realizing that the guy standing there next to them , who talked just like them,
looked kinda like them , but was much smarter than them - ME , was a fag , in their view. I guess I left my lisp at home that day.

The next day, I called his boss, and told him the story, and that I wouldn't be spending money there anymore. A year and a half later, they went out of business, due to a
larger independent competitor down the street a bit. Managed by , you guessed it - a Gay man.

Wouldn't it be nice to not call it political correctness, but just being polite an not immature? Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

To dharmagirl:

I can't say 'nit-picking' anymore???


Not in some offices and corporations in England you can't.  I think it's bullshit, personally.  LW's right, in our effort to become more tolerant we have ultimately become less so. 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you SHOULD.


But, you are missing the point.  "Fag" isn't mean in English, unless you are truly offended by cigerettes.


What if my dog is a stud and not a bitch?


Then don't call it a bitch.  (That seems easy enough......)    Actually "dog" means male canine and "bitch" means female canine.  "Stud" is a male canine used for breeding, but not all dogs are studs. 


 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not a defender of how PC language "rules" are popularly deployed. ("personhole cover" for "manhole cover" is just silly!) But I do think we should be aware of our language choices, especially when they perpetuate stereotypes and legitimize abuse.

Take the expression, "That's so gay." I've had several people try to explain to me how this is not a homophobic expression when they aren't talking specifically about a person's sexuality. Rather, they just meant it to identify something (person, thing, or phenomenon) that is "weird, wrong, or socially unacceptable." And why is "gay" a good word for that, again? Hey, I'm not telling you not to use that expression (no PC police here), but don't kid yourself about the expression not being homophobic. Imagine saying "that's so Jew!" about a person, thing or phenomenon that isn't specifically Jewish -- and then trying to claim that your word choices aren't anti-Semitic.

As for fag, it has a pretty common usage as a synonym for cigarette not just in England but also in Canada. In Otawa I remember seeing billboards and storefronts advertiseing a chain of convenience stores called: "Fags and Mags." Using "fag" in the states to get a cigarette might rasie a few eyebrows, but all it really does is identify your anglo origins.

But how did fag come to mean both "male homosexual" and cigarette? A "faggot" is, traditionally, a bundle of sticks used to ignite or kindle a fire (etymologically linked, by the way, to fasces and fascism). The connection to cigarettes seems obvious. For the connection to homosexuality, you have to go back to a time when sexual deviants (among other sinners) were burned at the stake for their crimes/sins. To call a man a "faggot" was basically to call him no better than kindling and remind him that he was going to burn for his sins (in this life as well as the next!). In one particulaly gruesome story from the Inquisition, lesbians were deemed worse than male homosexuals and so a desginated "witch" (lesbian) would be tied first to a stake and then surrounded by male homosexuals so that before she burned to death she would suffer through their agony in the flames and possibly suffocate on the smoke from their burning flesh before she burned to death herself.

But so, by PC logic, does this mean we should stop using the term "fag" for cigarettes? Some say yes. I say no. It would be like banning the word "rope" from our polite civil discourse because ropes have been used to put people in bondage and to lynch people. Both uses of the word "fag" may have origins in the idea of kindling, but that doesn't make them culturally linked. Plus, well, I am dubious that you really can police language this way. About the only thing you accomplish by trying to make some words taboo is ensuring that they become charged (and therefore used) signifiers.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
To liveletlive:

You're such a PC-fascist pussy that you actually called the damned company?? Has no one heard of the word 'dignity'? Has no one heard of being certain enough of who you are that the very idea of some crass form of publicly-dictated 'protection' of the ego is an insult?

Listen to me, you moral incompetent. I find the notion of such spineless 'sensitivity' morally abhorrent. Do you go through life expecting the world to take a personal interest in the current state of your 'emotional well-being'? Do you spend your days bitching because the world doesn't come crawling to your feet begging to be made over in your image?

Were you offended, poor boy?

Who made you the center of the universe and said your needs had to be pandered to at every turn? Grow up, you self-centred, cowardly brat. If all you face in life by way of difficulty is some self-perceived insult to your sexual orientation you will have escaped lightly.

It's my profound hope that you face some real difficulties in life, and face them soon, because as a consequence there might be some slim hope of your becoming an adult.

Your homosexuality does not disgust me. But your effete self-indulgence does.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
To WiseFawn:

I'm sure that most Americans will be understanding. But really, there is a reason for the political correctness in our society, don't you think?


Certainly there is a reason for it. And the reason is this. There has developed in America a particular idea, the idea that for every wrong there is a redress. In itself this is a peculiarly childish idea, on a par with the idea that life must be fair. In case you hadn't noticed, life is not fair and never has been.

Since the world and life refuse to bow to such childish nonsense, this idea has been translated into the twin concepts of the law-suit and compensation. From them come the idea (an idea to which Americans are particularly prone) that there can be enshrined in law some 'protection' for the individual who feels that life in some way has not lived up to his expectations, that he has been treated 'unfairly', and can properly expect to be compensated for that unfairness.

It is this idea, and this expectation, that makes America the most litigous society on earth.

Political correctness is only the latest, the most crass, the most intrusive, and the most reprehensible form which this idea has taken. The post by 'liveletlive' is a case in point.

This miserable puppy presumes that because his feelings were offended he has the right to interfere in the livelihood of another. Who knows what the intervention of this pathetic brat brought about in the life of the counter-man in question? But because this detestable child felt his sexual orientation to be impugned, he also felt that he had the right to make an intervention in the life of another that may have had catastrophic consequences for that life. Because his feelings were hurt. Poor, poor soul.

As a child I suffered untold agonies because of the fact of a physical deformity. All my life, I have had to face the unwarranted curiosity, the prejudice, and sometimes the outright hate, of those who find physical deformity repellant, or grotesque, or are in some other way disturbed by what is different and strange.

Now, as an adult, I find the notion of some politically correct deformation of language intended to protect my 'feelings' in this matter grossly insulting.

I neither want nor need your protection. I neither want nor need your 'affirmative action'. I do not doubt that I will succeed in my chosen field of employment, and the notion that I can only do so because someone else (quite possibly better qualified and more deserving) might have to step aside because of some government enforced quota incenses me beyond measure.

What I have, I have because I have earned it in fair competition with others. What I intend to have in the future, I will have because I will have earned it in fair competition with others. What I have, I have suffered and sacrificed for and it is mine, truly and properly earned. It is no man's gift to me and if it were I could take no pride in it.

'liveletlive', that pious infant, argues (though no doubt unknowingly) for a concept of the civil:

Wouldn't it be nice to not call it political correctness, but just being polite an not immature?


He fails to understand that the civil applies only to adults, and that a cardinal principle of adulthood is the acceptance that pain, and the incivility of the ignorant, is a natural and unavoidable part of life. As do 'liberals' such as yourself, WiseFawn.

Tell me, please - what monetary valuation might you place (as proper compensation) upon the fact of being born with a deformity that has caused me to be subjected to humiliation, to physical violence, to a sense of psychological inadequacy that has taken me most of my life to overcome? That has denied me employment in a field where I am manifestly qualified to be employed, in which I excel?

Whatever figure you as a 'liberal' might place upon that fact, I tell you now that (if I were concerned for such things) it could never be enough. No amount of money could compensate me for what I have suffered at the hands of the ignorant and prejudiced.

And it could not compensate me because success, on my terms, is the sweetest of all imaginable compensations. It could not compensate me because I, as an adult, understand that life is not fair, is not subject to law courts and judicial decisions, is not a matter in which 'feelings' determine what is just.

I thank my God every day that I was born as I am. I would not be who I am today without my deformity. I am one who does not now, and never will, need the attentions of some politically correct gestapo to defend my sense of self from the attentions of others. I am one who succeeds, to the extent that I have succeeded, because I have come to terms with my fate as a human being and expect no mercy from the universe. I am one who can tolerate, without the need to resort to law, the natural failings of others. I am one who, unlike you and that foolish creature 'liveletlive', is not a victim.

To refer again to your statement:
I'm sure that most Americans will be understanding. But really, there is a reason for the political correctness in our society, don't you think?


I've no doubt that most Americans, to the degree that they recognise and appreciate that the British speak a different language, will be understanding. I've met with little but tolerance, understanding, and courtesy, since I've been here (which is one reason why I love Americans). I've also no doubt that were I to be forced into the company of a 'liberal' I would be greeted with nothing but intolerance, bigotry, and hate. And you, WiseFawn, are a perfect example of those Americans with whom I would not wish to associate, precisely because in their 'liberality' they are parsimonious of any kind of charity.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gay meant happy long before it meant homosexual. I like to piss off people in Christian chats by making the pronouncement that I am fairly certain that everyone in heaven will be gay...people are so myopic with their adjusted definitions that I have been denounced as Satan's spawn a number of times.

(of course, it also pisses them off that I READ the blog rather than thump it and can answer many of their misconceptions...but that's a different blog entirely).
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
he he he . . . I'm totally gay.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
To karmagirl:

I never understood, before I came here, how precisely the English are divided from America by our common linguistic roots. You are entirely right. We speak languages that sound that same but are fundamentally different. We use the same words, and mean utterly different things. This is only a problem when one moves from one side of the ocean to the other.

One of the things I love about America, and Americans, is how different you are (presuming that you are American) from anything I've known before. That difference energizes me, makes me more aware of life than I have ever been before.

I love Americans for their straightforward honesty, for their belief in hard work as its own reward, for their unfeigned patriotism, for their unity in the face of malevolent hostility, for their unthinking courtesy, and for their generosity. I have lived in only one tiny, provincial American town. But I have found America there. And I have fallen in love.

Americans are a great people, a great Nation, and a great State. I would not choose to live anywhere else but here.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Texas Wahine:

Me too. And incidentlly, what is a 'Wahine' and what is its connection with Texas?
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Little_Whip.

You are the one person I can trust to understand me, and defend me, against all others. That's why I married you.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Texas Wahine:

Me too. And incidentlly, what is a 'Wahine' and what is its connection with Texas?


It's the Hawaiian word for girl or woman. I'm sure I'm totally bastardizing it when I use it the way I have, but basically I'm Texas Girl. I have spent all my life up until the past year or so in Texas and I have some fierce Texas pride. I live in Hawaii now (and for the next couple years) on my husband's military orders, and the culture here is very neat and I wanted to add a bit of that too. Plus I really suck at coming up with screen names (my high school screen name: Alternachick . . . everyone really did think I was gay). Did that make any sense?

Btw . . . your last comment to little whip was heart-melting. That's insightful #2.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top

One of the things I love about America, and Americans, is how different you are (presuming that you are American) from anything I've known before. That difference energizes me, makes me more aware of life than I have ever been before.


Yep, I'm American (family has been here basically since the Mayflower came over).  I never realized how different "American English" was from "English English" until I started talking with Brits on a daily basis.  Not only do we have different meanings for the same words, but some of them we pronounce differently (and that can also happen by region) and we spell a few differently, too (like color versus colour).  And, then we have a bunch of bastardized words that we have decided are OK along the way like "ain't". 


I am glad that you are enjoying your new life in America.  I also honestly hope that you and Little_whip make it big with your move and that you receive what you have been working so hard for.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the record, my middle name is Gaye, and id like to know when homosexuals took out a copyright on that word as well as "fag."


Yeah, those pesky queers -- taking all the good words!

Seriously, though, like many terms for the identity/phenomenon/whatever, it was originally a term of derision. Queer, fag, and gay are all derogatory epithets that have been (dubiously) re-appropriated as "terms of empowerment." A parallel is the popularization of "niggah" from "nigger," taking back (as it were) a term of denigration for group empowerment. Hence the confusing social practice whereby I can call my boyfriend a "crazy fag" and he accepts it as a term of endearment, but if a complete and presumably straight stranger does the same he tends to get insulted. Surprise: the meaning of words is significantly contingent on the context of their utterance (a fact the PC language debates rarely take into account on either side). Buy that if you will or question it as a practice. Nonetheless, it is fairly common for minority groups to do this sort of discursive re-claiming.

But back to your question. The derogatory term "gay" comes from turn of the century music halls where, particularly in England, the chorus was made up entirely of men who often played women's roles. The chorus in a music hall is supposed to keep things upbeat and happy, so they were often refered to as "The Gaities." The connection of theater and homosexuals is a long standing tradition, apparently, because gaities (or just gay) became a way to name a flamboyant, effeminate, potentially cross-dressing man. So, yes, the earlier meaning of "gay" meant "happy, light hearted, etc." But, thanks to a practice of the theater, that was transformed into another meaning -- i.e. homosexual. The "homosexual" meaning of this word didn't replace the "happy" meaning of this word -- our language is full of our playful and concurrent ossilations between multiple meanings for words (e.g. "dough" can mean both a baking material and money; "dope" can mean stupid, drugs, or information; etc.).


Whatever figure you as a 'liberal' might place upon that fact, I tell you now that (if I were concerned for such things) it could never be enough. No amount of money could compensate me for what I have suffered at the hands of the ignorant and prejudiced.

And it could not compensate me because success, on my terms, is the sweetest of all imaginable compensations. It could not compensate me because I, as an adult, understand that life is not fair, is not subject to law courts and judicial decisions, is not a matter in which 'feelings' determine what is just.


Look, I tend to agree that PC -- particularly as it has been popularized on the left and right -- is problematic, especially (but not only) at the level of language. Policing language is devilishly difficult. Language is fluid and prone to change -- it is ripe for play and manipulation. But it also isn't harmless. But it also isn't the equivalent of an AK47. Maybe the best PC language debates can do is make us aware of the harms of language, if only so we can choose our weapons more carefully.

But see, I think there is also a difference between choosing from a position of subordination to fight the good fight, do the best you can, and say fuck-you to any and all "handouts." It's quite another thing to condone a similar attitude from a position of power and have (currently) able-bodied guys in power say, oh, something like: "Shut up you whiney cripple fuck! I'm taking a page from the playbook of the great Transylvanian voivode, Vlad Dracul, and suggesting we burn all of you in a big bon fire." I'd rather have corrective measures for systemic and institutional prejudice (such as Affirmative Action or the Americans with Disabilities Act) and decline to take advantage of them, than not to have them available as options and let such prejudice (and ignorance) remain the unquestioned coin of the realm.

I agree that life is unfair and that no amount of legislation can fix this unfairness. No law suit can really provide sufficient compensation, either. And yes, we have a problem with so-called "frivolous" law suits in this country. We also have a serious problem with "entitlement issues." But I don't think the answer is to, well, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We live in a flawed and imperfect world where all attempts to answer problems are doomed to be similarly flawed and imperfect. That dosn't mean we should give up trying to answer those problems.