Guest dog14787 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 You sucked at dodgeball didn't you? Nawww, actually not, mainly because I can catch anything that comes near me, but I sucked at soccer and volley ball This thread kinda sucks, now that you mention it...
dave mcbride Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Er...I was addressing a poster's words, who demanded material punishment while at the same time wrapping himself in the 1st Amendment. Gotcha.
thebandit27 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I think people are missing the point of why the socially-aware consider the comment a big deal. It's the connotation that the word "fag" has. It's on the same level as any other slur. The use of "fag" is seen as indicative of an inborn hatred (read: bigotry) towards homosexuals. I'm not sitting here saying that I haven't ever uttered the word...I have. I don't use it anymore, just like I don't use racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. A slur is a slur, regardless of what group it is, because it is seen as a word inspired by hate for a group of people with a different lifestyle, culture, or ethnicity from your own. Calling a black person the "n-word" is seen the same way. It's putting a decidedly negative connotation on someone's skin color. That's what the word means--a derogatory term for black people, born from hate, and delivered in hate. "Fag" is the same way, it's a derogatory term for gay people, and--like it or not--inspired by hate. Just because other people use the word in a manner that may not be hateful, that doesn't make it an acceptable word. Now I understand that people are legally allowed to say whatever they choose, and that's fine, but don't pretend like your employer can't fire you from your job if what you say reflects poorly on the organization. That's called accountability, and everyone--including Larry Johnson--should be held accountable for how they portray the organization that they represent. Using hate-based words reflects poorly on the organizational ethics of the Chiefs (I'm sure they have some gay fans, probably all teams do), and they are right to punish him however they like. Same goes for the NFL, what he says represents them as well, and I'm pretty sure they don't want to be seen as a group that condones any type of slurs. Hope that all makes sense.
Guest dog14787 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I think people are missing the point of why the socially-aware consider the comment a big deal. It's the connotation that the word "fag" has. It's on the same level as any other slur. The use of "fag" is seen as indicative of an inborn hatred (read: bigotry) towards homosexuals. I'm not sitting here saying that I haven't ever uttered the word...I have. I don't use it anymore, just like I don't use racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. A slur is a slur, regardless of what group it is, because it is seen as a word inspired by hate for a group of people with a different lifestyle, culture, or ethnicity from your own. Calling a black person the "n-word" is seen the same way. It's putting a decidedly negative connotation on someone's skin color. That's what the word means--a derogatory term for black people, born from hate, and delivered in hate. "Fag" is the same way, it's a derogatory term for gay people, and--like it or not--inspired by hate. Just because other people use the word in a manner that may not be hateful, that doesn't make it an acceptable word. Now I understand that people are legally allowed to say whatever they choose, and that's fine, but don't pretend like your employer can't fire you from your job if what you say reflects poorly on the organization. That's called accountability, and everyone--including Larry Johnson--should be held accountable for how they portray the organization that they represent. Using hate-based words reflects poorly on the organizational ethics of the Chiefs (I'm sure they have some gay fans, probably all teams do), and they are right to punish him however they like. Same goes for the NFL, what he says represents them as well, and I'm pretty sure they don't want to be seen as a group that condones any type of slurs. Hope that all makes sense. Makes perfect sense...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I blame this mockery of a thread on Perez Hilton., the ACLU, and Bill Belicheck. Not necessarily in that order.
PushthePile Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 I think people are missing the point of why the socially-aware consider the comment a big deal. It's the connotation that the word "fag" has. It's on the same level as any other slur. The use of "fag" is seen as indicative of an inborn hatred (read: bigotry) towards homosexuals. I'm not sitting here saying that I haven't ever uttered the word...I have. I don't use it anymore, just like I don't use racial, ethnic, or religious slurs. A slur is a slur, regardless of what group it is, because it is seen as a word inspired by hate for a group of people with a different lifestyle, culture, or ethnicity from your own. Calling a black person the "n-word" is seen the same way. It's putting a decidedly negative connotation on someone's skin color. That's what the word means--a derogatory term for black people, born from hate, and delivered in hate. "Fag" is the same way, it's a derogatory term for gay people, and--like it or not--inspired by hate. Just because other people use the word in a manner that may not be hateful, that doesn't make it an acceptable word. Now I understand that people are legally allowed to say whatever they choose, and that's fine, but don't pretend like your employer can't fire you from your job if what you say reflects poorly on the organization. That's called accountability, and everyone--including Larry Johnson--should be held accountable for how they portray the organization that they represent. Using hate-based words reflects poorly on the organizational ethics of the Chiefs (I'm sure they have some gay fans, probably all teams do), and they are right to punish him however they like. Same goes for the NFL, what he says represents them as well, and I'm pretty sure they don't want to be seen as a group that condones any type of slurs. Hope that all makes sense. The problem I have isn't the fact that the Chiefs and the NFL are looking to punish a player for using a hateful term, it's the complete hypocrisy of when to serve punishment. The message that is being sent is that assault, violence towards women, and other heinous crimes are less offensive then ignorance and insensitive remarks. Larry Johnson like many of his peers have comitted far worse acts that have been conveniantly swept under the rug. Abuse and violence okay but using the word fag not okay.
Guest dog14787 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 The problem I have isn't the fact that the Chiefs and the NFL are looking to punish a player for using a hateful term, it's the complete hypocrisy of when to serve punishment. The message that is being sent is that assault, violence towards women, and other heinous crimes are less offensive then ignorance and insensitive remarks. Larry Johnson like many of his peers have comitted far worse acts that have been conveniantly swept under the rug. Abuse and violence okay but using the word fag not okay. What makes you think someones past history doesn't play a part in the situation and outcome. So because something as you say was swept under the rug, everything gets swept under the rug, what kind of logic is that? I mean your dad was in law enforcement and I'm sure he has seen criminals go in and be charged for far less crimes then he knows they committed, but because of the law,or on some technicality the criminal gets away with some of his crimes just not all of them. So you get him when you can for whatever reason you can and that's just the way it goes sometimes.
PushthePile Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 What makes you think someones past history doesn't play a part in the situation and outcome. So because something as you say was swept under the rug, everything gets swept under the rug, what kind of logic is that? I mean your dad was in law enforcement and I'm sure he has seen criminals go in and be charged for far less crimes then he knows they committed, but because of the law,or on some technicality the criminal gets away with some of his crimes just not all of them. So you get him when you can for whatever reason you can and that's just the way it goes sometimes. Not buying it buddy. Larry Johnson has had multiple arrests regarding women. I don't think him being punished for using the word fag has anything to do with them. http://nflcrimes.blogspot.com/ This is what is being swept under the rug. Larry Johnson saying fag is what we are talking about, though.
IHFO Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Not buying it buddy. Larry Johnson has had multiple arrests regarding women. I don't think him being punished for using the word fag has anything to do with them. http://nflcrimes.blogspot.com/ This is what is being swept under the rug. Larry Johnson saying fag is what we are talking about, though. i agree..his past actions regarding women is not realted to this new offense, JMO
WellDressed Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Fans in KC are petitioning to bench Johnson for using "fag" and generally being a PIA--the urgency of the benching is that he's about to become the team's all-time leading rusher passing Priest Holmes. Seems foolish but at least some fans are trying to hold their team accountable. Too bad more fans like this aren't in Buffalo petitioning to remove a double-murdering woman-beater from the Wall. A friend of mine went to a game this season and was floored to see OJ's name still up. He mocked every fan around him for that blight, and of course, no one had anything to say. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4622503 Waiting for the hollow "It's for what he did on the field" arguments. Everything but the Girl.
Mr. WEO Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Agreed. It's scary that people think that someone has to be punished for speaking. Do people realize it's almost fascist? Really. Why aren't they petitioning to dump him becuase he sucks? Those rubes in Kansas.....
thebandit27 Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 The problem I have isn't the fact that the Chiefs and the NFL are looking to punish a player for using a hateful term, it's the complete hypocrisy of when to serve punishment. The message that is being sent is that assault, violence towards women, and other heinous crimes are less offensive then ignorance and insensitive remarks. Larry Johnson like many of his peers have comitted far worse acts that have been conveniantly swept under the rug. Abuse and violence okay but using the word fag not okay. Gotcha. I totally agree. As a stand-alone incident, Johnson's moronic comments are plenty punishable, but in comparison to the Leonard Littles, Michael Vicks, Brandon Marshalls, etc., it's not even close. Great point.
KD in CA Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Who was against the Dixie Chicks and boycotted them for their unpatriotic stance and thinks LJ should be left alone? Anyone? Funny, I was thinking the opposite. Most people (rightly) supported the Dixie Chicks yet seem to have little sympathy for Johnson. It is pathetic that people would get this worked up over the word 'fag'. Or any word.
OrangeJuiceSimpson Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 lol south park doing an episode on the word "fag" Ha, I honestly think they did it because of LJ. They write those episodes 3 or 4 days before they air.
Meark Posted November 5, 2009 Posted November 5, 2009 Its America, he can say fag if he wants. Its America, you can be offended if you want. Now stop interfering with each others lives. Excellent post..
Tcali Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Fans in KC are petitioning to bench Johnson for using "fag" and generally being a PIA--the urgency of the benching is that he's about to become the team's all-time leading rusher passing Priest Holmes. Seems foolish but at least some fans are trying to hold their team accountable. Too bad more fans like this aren't in Buffalo petitioning to remove a double-murdering woman-beater from the Wall. A friend of mine went to a game this season and was floored to see OJ's name still up. He mocked every fan around him for that blight, and of course, no one had anything to say. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4622503 Waiting for the hollow "It's for what he did on the field" arguments. remember when 'fag' was just a term for being a sissy ...and had nothing to do with homosexuality?
jack_spikes Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Fans in KC are petitioning to bench Johnson for using "fag" and generally being a PIA--the urgency of the benching is that he's about to become the team's all-time leading rusher passing Priest Holmes. Seems foolish but at least some fans are trying to hold their team accountable. Too bad more fans like this aren't in Buffalo petitioning to remove a double-murdering woman-beater from the Wall. A friend of mine went to a game this season and was floored to see OJ's name still up. He mocked every fan around him for that blight, and of course, no one had anything to say. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4622503 Waiting for the hollow "It's for what he did on the field" arguments. If he'd have just said fruitcake instead of fag. A fag is slang for cigarette isn't it, in that Van Morrison song?
John Adams Posted November 6, 2009 Author Posted November 6, 2009 remember when 'fag' was just a term for being a sissy ...and had nothing to do with homosexuality? I do indeed and I often use it in that context with people I know.
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted November 6, 2009 Posted November 6, 2009 Agreed. It's scary that people think that someone has to be punished for speaking. Do people realize it's almost fascist? Your employer wouldn't punish you for repeatedly publicly making an ass out of yourself? Most jobs expect their employees to conduct themselves in a certain manner. It's not "facist", it's simply common sense.
Recommended Posts