A diarist posts a diary, it has a single word for the title and it is a hateful word that, fortunately, is not so often used in polite circles anymore. I was under the impression we, at Daily Kos as a community, at least aspired to be counted among the polite circles. Perhaps I was wrong because he's still here, doing the same thing.
Oh, he received a warning. But he doesn't remove the offending diary. He posts another diary and repeats the same word again, in the title (this time with "quote marks" which I guess makes it better somehow).
He "apologizes." He doesn't "apologize" for the hurt, anger and distress his thoughtless, carelessness use of hate language caused to people on this site. No. It's a standard issue Non-Apology Apology™, the sort Republicans have perfected. He apologizes he was "unclear."
One way to recognize a real apology, is to look for the contrition. But no, none to be found there. He posted the diary to make it clear that HE is, in fact, the aggrieved party here, as he claimed in the comments he was owed an apology. He proceeds to whine about the offense he took at being corrected at his use--in a headline--of what every user on this site should surely recognize as hateful language, inappropriate for a headline. (Oddly, we can't say "shit" in an headline, but we can use dehumanizing language, born of violence.) The diarist whines:
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.
While ignoring the substance of the vast majority of comments, he cherry picks a few that he feels vindicate him.
So, in the interests of anyone interested, I'd like to post some of the comments that I found valuable.
The diarist's
response to a longtime, LGBT kossack
BFSkinner was typical of the respect we saw him give to posters who were not "helpful":
that's the most stupid comment you've ever posted on Daily Kos.
Or this
gem:
You and the others got hysterical, didn't sit a moment and think, and now can't get over it.
Or this
gem:
Yeah, you and others were lab rats--and you failed. CS11 didn't fail. MollyClark didn't fail. We are lab rats all day every day on blogs. Over on Huffington Post you get points from others if you say things that are true and correct or insightful. We're all lab rats, if a diary were a maze, you failed this one, didn't get the cheese.
Then apparently he wants to double back to the same topic and attempts to make himself more clear, by writing full two sentences to better explain himself.
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.
No. It wouldn't have been different. And we don't want to continue this conversation.
This is bullshit. He knows exactly what he's doing. He heard what the community consensus was on this topic. It was made quite clear on his tip jar.
This is where the line between stupidity and trolling is meaningless. Whether he's unwilling or unable to interact within appropriate community standards is no longer a factor.
If his heart is somehow pure (in that he's not actually intentionally trolling), but he's too stupid or insensitive to see what he's doing, it really doesn't matter relative to his effect on the community discourse. He is adding to an environment that openly disrespects LGBT people. That is not a word that is acceptable here, except perhaps in an intelligent, thoughtful, sensitive discussion of hate speech and language. His diary presumed to be, but it was very clearly not intelligent or thoughtful or sensitive. Regardless, after first attempting to feign ignorance, which is not a plausible excuse on a site that presumes to be progressive, the diarist later admits openly that his intention was indeed to inflame.
Even if it's only by pure, obtuse stupidity he is engaging in unacceptable hate speech, and his inability to recognize it, despite a thorough taking to task by the community is unforgivable.
In case anyone's unclear, this is the origins of the word he seems so bizarrely focused on and why it is a big deal:
In the inquisition of Europe, when witches were being burned, among those sought out for burning were gay people. They were required to gather the very "bundles of sticks" (the real meaning of a faggot) with which they would be burnt. When the faggots (sticks) were running out, gay men were thrown on the fire to keep it going for the witches. Faggot came to mean gay man to force them into the closet for fear of death.
Update: Or maybe not,
other sources disagree about the origin of the word (but not the practice of burning gays at the stake).
Two men called Damian Furtch a "fucking faggot" before beating him
in the West Village of New York City nine days ago.
Many LGBT people associate this word and words like it with very real memories of being physically assaulted and bullied in their past. You know, the kind of episodes that thousands of teenagers kill themselves to escape? Like happened, again, just two weeks ago in Akron, Ohio. So, yes, we prefer not to encounter it used in a careless and flip manner. Call us hysterical and oversensitive as the diarist did, as this kossack did, but it's not just a word, it resonates of hate and violence to us. Which probably explains why it may generate a "knee jerk" response, and alas ever it will for the remainder of all our lifetimes.
john de herrera, there are two reasons you don't get to influence the "repurposing" of that word.
1. You don't control the English language. I can't imagine why in God's great, green Earth you would seek to even take this on as some sort of cause. Some sort of "social experiment" (isn't that cute?). Can we talk about the Japanese internment camps and how that might now apply to Muslims? Would that be a good "social experiment" you might like to take next? What manner of hideous discourse can you not fig leaf under the convenience of "social experiment?"
2. You are not the target of this hate speech. As far as I know, you are not gay. This seems pretty darn apparent by your total cluelessness and complete insensitivity to the feelings of LGBT posters who you have offended, inflamed and hurt.
Just stop. If a time ever comes that that particular word should be "repurposed" you don't get a say. How about you let the people who are the targets of the hate, hostility, and history of violence that it embodies take the lead on that? And in the meantime, why don't you pipe down and try listening?
And not only to the "comments you find valuable." Read the "stupid" ones too.
Update: Thank you Daily Kos, I'm glad to see this diary is at the top of the rec list, so Daily Kos can see mine is not an outlier viewpoint.
The point I wished to make was that poster's behavior is unacceptable and a substantial portion of the community agrees. If you feel his behavior was OK, then I am sorry to hear that, but not surprised, unfortunately.
But I'm not so interested in engaging the tangential issues, such as the use of this word in other venues, like Pop Songs. Because it confuses the issue of its appropriateness, I personally have always felt the LGBT community should not use that word either.
But we do recognize a difference between "in community" and "out of community" use in language. I think many straight people will never get why it's not ok for straight people to use it, anymore than we can expect Rush Limbaugh will ever understand why it's ok for blacks, but not whites, to use the N word. As users know, I often engage comments, but I think as it's a subject that has me rather fired up, I'd rather disengage than be baited into saying something in anger that I'll later to regret. I certainly feel I've had my say and spoken for more than just myself.