In a diary yesterday discussing the anti-vaccine movement, a commenter used the phrase “fucking goatdamned Christers” to refer to . . . well, I think it’s pretty obvious who he was referring to. Another respondent threatened to HR his comment, and proceeded to compare this phrase to a long list of what he felt were equivalent racial and religious epithets that were truly insulting and HRable. I took exception, and I think the distinction is worth exploring. As members of DK community with a vested interest in the answer, I seek your opinions.
I had not seen the term “Christer” before, but I immediately knew exactly who the commenter was referring to – those among us who wear their specific religious beliefs on their sleeves, who filter every aspect of their worldview through their religion, and who judge those who disagree with them as morally corrupt. Often their opinions are profoundly un-Christian – as in antithetical to the teachings of Christ (think Roy Moore or Bryan Fischer here). But the term might equally apply to the extremely religious, however well-meaning their intentions.
I have often seen the suffix “-er” applied to those who advocate a position, often to excess, as in “anti-vaxxer” or “forced-birther.” I consider such a sobriquet as more descriptive than derogatory. Yes, perhaps pejorative, but not insulting. On the contrary, I can’t imagine that anyone who might be included in the “Christer” population would object to being characterized as “pro-Christ,” as the term implies.
Since religion and politics have become intertwined in American culture as never before, I believe this issue merits consideration here. I certainly agree that the phrase is indelicate, coarse, irreverent, even in-your-face confrontational, but HRable? Equivalent to the “N” word? IMHO, no.
How about you? I am curious. If the consensus is against me, if others find the phrase “fucking goatdamned Christers” truly offensive, I will apologize and swear never to smile at the horror of it again.
7:34 PM PT: I had intentionally avoided including a link to the original thread, but if anyone wants to see the comment thread in context, here it is (http://www.dailykos.com/...).
9:16 PM PT: First, I want to thank all the commenters for their excellent comments, inputs and ideas. This was EXACTLY the discussion I hoped to begin, and while the issue is far from settled, I think the issues have been thoroughly aired. I learned a great deal from listening to many thoughtful comments, I hope others did too.
Second, I want to apologize profusely to the original commenter, who likely wants nothing more than to put this issue behind her/him. I want to point out again, as many commenters already did, that s/he apologized for the intemperate language almost immediately, and was NOT HR'd by anyone. This diary was purely my attempt to leverage the comment into a discussion of what is and is not acceptable behavior, both here on DK and more generally in our everyday intercourse.
Finally, I want to say categorically that, although the poll results currently support my contention that the original comment was not derogatory, I fully recognize that many people found it offensive, and for that I do indeed apologize for perpetuating any hard feelings that I might have inadvertently stirred up. I certainly recognize that language is often used as a weapon and that we must always see our words from the perspective of those who may not agree with us, but who are always worthy of respect.
Peace.