EmperorofIceCream EmperorofIceCream

I killed three Queers on my way to church yesterday

▼

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
11,175 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Texas Wahine:

It made perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation (and the insightful).
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Bungy32:

Words can hurt, certainly. Some words spoken in certain situations can hurt atrociously - words of final rejection from a cherished lover, words that shame and humiliate, that condemn.

But so what? Pain is part of life. Learning to deal with it is part of growing up. Attempting to avoid that pain is pointless, because it's endemic to life. Attempting to legislate away the occurrence of such pain is an exercise in futility. And nothing in life is harmless.

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.


If I'm going to suffer disadvantage because of a deformed left arm I'd rather have its source open, honest, and in front of my face. That way I get to decide on an appropriate response. What I detest is 1) the irreducible nonsense that says occasions of offence in civil discourse can be legislated away; 2) the improper arrogance that compels me to adhere to laws that, while they are presented as protection of my sensibilities, confine what I can say in ways that assault my freedom of speech; 3) the hypocrisy that states 'that those who are protected in this way may, at any time, use the language they are protected from to assualt others'. Why is it Ok for a nigger to call me 'honky' at the same time that it's not OK for me to call him a nigger?

The 'corrective measures' you refer to correct nothing. They provide only an opportunity to make a great deal of money easily and rapidly while doing nothing to address the question of what constitutes an adult response to the general incivilities of life.

Whining for cash because your boss calls you a lazy crippled fuck (or whatever) is not an adult response. Cracking him in the mouth and then living with consequences of that act would be. It would be intemperate and possibly foolish - but it would be an appropriate adult response.

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.


We should answer them not with blanket legislation that cannot and does not address the context of any particular occasion of offence but as individuals of character, and without expecting every wrong we experience in life to have a redress.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Cracking him in the mouth and then living with consequences of that act would be.


And what would reasonable consequences of that act be? Instead of a "frivolous" lawsuit using "blanket legislation" about discrimination, you (the puncher) would have to face a criminal case of battery or aggravated assault and who knows what sort of civil case for damages -- cases potentially brought against you as the person who escalated from a verbal exchange to one of physical violence. And what's the legal answer to that? Decriminalize battery and aggravated assault?

Conversely, what if you can't punch the guy (for whatever reason)? Does might make right? Does he get to just abuse you? Is your inability to crack him in the mouth an indication of your lack of character? By your model, you can't pursue legal means to challenge his verbal abuse. For some reason you can't punch him (he's really big, you're a paraplegic, whatever). I guess you could quit, but in this economy that could have serious implications for your life. You could fight back verbally, but what if this is what he wants -- either because he's in to that or he's looking for you to provide a reason for him to fire you? Or I suppose you could just put up with it. See, in this case, I would want some sort of legal recourse as an option -- maybe not the first option I would take, but an option.

We should answer them not with blanket legislation that cannot and does not address the context of any particular occasion of offence but as individuals of character, and without expecting every wrong we experience in life to have a redress.


I agree with you that blanket legislation is woefully unprepared to deal with context or the very fluid nature of "offense." At the same time, letting individuals duke it out seems problematic. Sounds a bit like you want to join with Zell Miller in calling for a return to dueling. "Sir, you are an individual of no character impugning my character. Pistols at dawn, sir!"

I want to believe that there is a role for legislation in dealing with some of these more insidious issues of systemic discrimination. Perhaps there also needs to be some legislation that reviews and seeks to restrict "frivolous" law suits. It is true that some people have used laws to make money, as you say. But I don't think there is any evidence that such use of the law is the rule.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Bungy32:

Now that you mention it, I've often thought that duelling was by far the more elegant way to settle such disputes between individuals, rather than resorting to the services of filthy parasites such as lawyers, whose entire livelihood depends upon the miseries suffered by others.

As for cracking someone in the mouth - I stated such an act would be intemperate and possibly foolish, and would certainly carry with it regretable consequences. It still holds more appeal for me than resorting to law in order to seek 'compensation' that can't compensate, or a 'redress' that actually adds to the problem I originally commented on - the notion that only certain forms of speech are legally permitted.