Albertans accused of red-neck & anti-gay

[Hawk]

So what you're saying is that either you'll beat them to death or you'll demean them by calling them queer.

Thanks for the clarification. 

Of course, the option of 'neither' would never occur to you.

Oh, so your already resorting to putting words in my mouth... well, congrats, it took you exactly 1 post longer than most socialists I have chatted with

I support neither, but I will not accept something I do not agree with. Anyone that does, is a brainwashed fool.

I won't beat them, that was merely an example of how intent is more important than wording. If you couldn't grasp that you should consider getting out of politics entirely.

Your only intent is to demean them.  Your previous statement prooves that.

So says you, which means I must be on the right track

I say that you are. 

And your attitude towards them is very disrespectful, in fact almost criminal, as evidenced by your first quote.

So I guess if you knew all and were the grand master of the world I would feel pretty bad right now. But since you aren't, I guess you proved my point. It is relative. Thanks buddy

[newbie]

Again, the above quote is indicative and illustrative of why this thread was initiated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why, because I myself admit I am a redneck and anti-gay? You seem to think that is a bad thing, I think of it as healthy and productive =)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually no. It is an opinion, and one that is shared by many Albertans that I've come into contact with. But it is this type of thinking (right or wrong) that has branded Alberta as being narrow-minded and intolerant (red neck and anti-gay). And hey, if it works for you, great. I'm just responding to the title of the thread, and am not entirely sure if the stereo-types are out moded.

[Redneck Yokel]

Hawk is correct on his point about intent of a word. Just because it is often socially accepted as derogatory, that does not mean that every individual who uses such terms intends for it to be so in that particular instance.

*some* of them call themselves that.

That does not make it right to disrepect the whole group by you yourself using that word

Just as you say that not all people of those races/sexual preferences use those terms for themselves, we may say that not all people on the outside who use those terms use them in a demeaning sense. Words are neutral. It is HOW we use them that matters.

[Black Dog]

Just because it is often socially accepted as derogatory, that does not mean that every individual who uses such terms intends for it to be so in that particular instance.

Here's my idea: Hawk should try calling a black person a "nigger" and then see if he can explain it was not his "intent" to be demeaning before his head hits the concrete.

Just as you say that not all people of those races/sexual preferences use those terms for themselves, we may say that not all people on the outside who use those terms use them in a demeaning sense. Words are neutral. It is HOW we use them that matters.

I think its pretty clear from Hawk's posts that he's not using "queer" in the same way a gay person would, but he is intending to be demeaning. It's not uncommon for traditionally marginalized groups to co-opt the terminology of opporession as means of "re-claiming" the word for themselves. That's not to say such reclamation removes all associations from the word. In other words, it's not a license for use of the word.

[takeanumber]

Here's my idea: Hawk should try calling a black person a "nigger" and then see if he can explain it was not his "intent" to be demeaning before his head hits the concrete.

Agreed.

Let him try to defend it.

I think its pretty clear from Hawk's posts that he's not using "queer" in the same way a gay person would, but he is intending to be demeaning. It's not uncommon for traditionally marginalized groups to co-opt the terminology of opporession as means of "re-claiming" the word for themselves. That's not to say such reclamation removes all associations from the word. In other words, it's not a license for use of the word.

I'm glad that Newbie and myself arn't the only ones who can see through it.

[Argus]

Just because it is often socially accepted as derogatory, that does not mean that every individual who uses such terms intends for it to be so in that particular instance.

Here's my idea: Hawk should try calling a black person a "nigger" and then see if he can explain it was not his "intent" to be demeaning before his head hits the concrete.

Uhm, so you're saying that Black people are inherently violent and when insulted will immediately go into attack-dog mode?

How racist of you!

[Argus]

The thread was about 'rednecks' and 'anti-gay', and you and argus have demonstrated that you're both certainly anti-gay.

Now we're onto tying respect for homosexuals into respect for society. 

I know it's difficult to keep up, but do try.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think you can really show that anyone who ever used the term "fag" is anti gay. Not that a complete lack of evidence ever stopped you from leaping to wild, dumbass conclusions.

[crazymf]

I give up. You guys are right, I'm a redneck. And I call queers queers. You guys weren't even happy when I tried to walk some middle ground here, so why should I bother.

Not only that, you guys don't seem to have a sense of humor.

Hey, you know why the queer Indian went to town last Saturday night?

Why, to blow a few bucks of course.

Ok don't laugh, no sense of humor remember??

[takeanumber]

Your sense of humour: making fun of minorities.

[crazymf]

I make fun of everyone equally, even myself. I am not a racist or a bigot.

Rednecks like me have this quality.

Maybe you learned something today.

[Black Dog]

Uhm, so you're saying that Black people are inherently violent and when insulted will immediately go into attack-dog mode?

How racist of you!

Thanks for the valuable cointribution.

I make fun of everyone equally, even myself. I am not a racist or a bigot.

Rednecks like me have this quality.

Maybe you learned something today.

Whatever. I'm sure you'll be talking next about how some of your best friends are queer.

[crazymf]

Holy crap, I never thought of that!!

Can I have your address. I gotta tell my best friends you called them queers.

Ok, enough fun. You guys are too serious. This is mostly moot anyway because I don't hear any gays piping up for this thread.

[crazymf]

Hey!

New twist on this one. I can't find a quote, but I heard on the news yesterday that a couple of guys, who are NOT gay, either got married or want to, to take advantage of the tax and other benefits that marriage offers.

Not my thing, but what next????

More power to them I guess. I could see hetero women doing this in droves.

Where does that leave things?

[SirSpanky]

That leaves things in bad shape. The courts need to squash this thing somehow, before it gets ridiculous.

[kimmy]

Hey!

New twist on this one. I can't find a quote, but I heard on the news yesterday that a couple of guys, who are NOT gay, either got married or want to, to take advantage of the tax and other benefits that marriage offers.

Not my thing, but what next????

More power to them I guess. I could see hetero women doing this in droves.

Where does that leave things?

If it's true, it wouldn't exactly be surprising. August1991 speculated right from the start that people might do this.

(shrug)

Men and women sometimes get married for reasons that aren't pure of motive too. Staying in Canada or getting cheaper car insurance, for instance.

I was at a wedding once where two very successful young professionals were married. The bride gave a speech where she said "Someone asked me what 'marriage' means to me. I thought about that, and I think to me, marriage means..." She took a dramatic pause, then said "Tax shelter." Everybody laughed. She was kidding, of course.

Something else that August posed in these debates was, if homosexual relationships can now receive all the financial considerations that used to be reserved for heterosexual marriages, what about a situation where (for instance) elderly sisters live together and care for each other. What's the difference between that and a lesbian couple? Does it just come down to sexual relations? And if so, what happened to the old rostrum about the state not belonging in peoples' bedrooms?

-k

[crazymf]

So we can re-do this debate and take 'gay' out?

Same sex marriage without the homosexual thing.

So same sex marriage is not about being gay, but the gay people merely benefit?

How can two people 'love, honor and cherish, til death do us part', merely for tax purposes?

I have to think about it a bit more.

[Black Dog]

New twist on this one. I can't find a quote, but I heard on the news yesterday that a couple of guys, who are NOT gay, either got married or want to, to take advantage of the tax and other benefits that marriage offers.

Not my thing, but what next????

More power to them I guess. I could see hetero women doing this in droves.

Where does that leave things?

Whatever floats their boat, I suppose.

How can two people 'love, honor and cherish, til death do us part', merely for tax purposes?

People marry for stupid and selfish reasons all the time: for money or status, out of fear of dying alone etc etc.

The whole institution of marriage was never the hallowed bond it is regarded as by some. Hell, its an institution rooted in ownership of women. If it's no longer sacred, that' sonly because it never was.

[crazymf]

Hell, its an institution rooted in ownership of women.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!

You had some redneck in you after all! Atta boy!! Good for you.

We'll get you straightened out one day, there is hope.

[Black Dog]

Hell, its an institution rooted in ownership of women.

I KNEW IT!!!!!!!

You had some redneck in you after all! Atta boy!! Good for you.

We'll get you straightened out one day, there is hope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is not an endorsement, numbskull.

[Mad_Michael]

I don't know how 'out-dated' these stereotypes are. I just met - yet another - young gay Albertan who's moved to Toronto and calls himself a 'refugee'.

[crazymf]

That is not an endorsement, numbskull.

Ordinarily I'd take exception to that. However, you made the statement and can't take it back so this is just sour grapes.

Keep it up and we may make you an honorary redneck Albertan.

[Black Dog]

That is not an endorsement, numbskull.

Ordinarily I'd take exception to that. However, you made the statement and can't take it back so this is just sour grapes.

Keep it up and we may make you an honorary redneck Albertan.

Are you in Grade Two? I'm asking because I can't imagine anyone with a level of education beyond the level of "Hooked on Phonics" could interperet a declarative statement of fact (is. "(marriage) is an institution rooted in ownership of women." as an endorsement of that fact.

Grow up.

[crazymf]

I am grown up, with a sense of humor. If I'd have known I could get under your skin so easily, I might have started sooner. Go back and simply laugh at my statement. That's the appropriate response. If you can't, your loss.

Btw. Getting mad is a definite redneck response. You're getting very close now...hehe.

[Argus]

I don't know how 'out-dated' these stereotypes are.  I just met - yet another - young gay Albertan who's moved to Toronto and calls himself a 'refugee'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, he'd certainly fit in in Toronto, then.

[Black Dog]

I am grown up, with a sense of humor. If I'd have known I could get under your skin so easily, I might have started sooner. Go back and simply laugh at my statement. That's the appropriate response. If you can't, your loss

Thing about a sense of humour is that it enables on eto laugh at things that are funny. You're not funny. I can laugh, just not with you.