Exactly, "less", but still a slur.Yes, I think it makes it less of a slur on gay people. You know me and my attitudes on gays and gay issues. I also don't think we should take everything so personally. If some one complains about a "gay call", it's not to my mind inherently offensive to gays. I can choose to take it that way, but I think then the problem is with me if you follow what I mean.
And I actually agree with you on the taking everything so personally, as I explained later in that post. I don't have a huge issue with Rham's statement, I have issues with people complaining about Palin's "Hypocrisy" in this issue.
Agree here completely.Obviously I do not know that, but that is in essence my point in a way, which is intent does matter. The word "niggar" is for me a bad one, and I do take it poorly, but at least I admit it is my failing.
Yes, it makes it less of a racial slur, and potentially not a slur at all in use. Context matters.
I agree it is a "godwin"-esque thing. I probably should've picked differently but the Chris Rock example was just the first that sprang to mind.Understood, and I disagree with jackalope in her saying that they are not comparable. I just tend to see the use of the word "niggar" as being kinda the nuclear option, it escalates the discussion to the max level. However, to continue to make my point, as your use of the example shows, context is the key. I don't like the word, I will always find that it makes me queasy in any discussion, but I am responsible for my own emotional reactions.
I agree completely, which was generally my view in regards to Palin.Great minds come together sometimes...
In your scenario, I would understand why they did not like the use of the word "gay", but if it was not being used to insult gays, I would think they where being foolish and overly PC.
I'm sure you can probably find cases of it. I don't disagree with you there. At the same time, if people went back 5 years to find something I still wouldn't expect Palin to react exactly the same to something 5 years ago and what Rham did in the recent memory. It'd still not be a black and white situation some are trying to make it so they can simultaneously trash Rush and Palin.I will give you Rush's use, though I bet I could find examples of him using it before this whole situation arose. Not positive, but I bet a could. Further, my objection to Palin's reaction is that it strikes me as trying to score cheap political points by selectively complaining about one person's use of a word that really is not unacceptable in a private meeting. I doubt there are many in Washington who have not called something or some one "retarded". My other objection is that she complained about people being PC, and then was PC.
And your main objection to her was one of my main ones as well. But, like I tell republican cohorts of mine routinely when they get mad that I'm "taking the other side".....when you make such outrageous and stupidly ludicrous points that must be corrected then you make it more important for me to disagree with your outrageous and stupidly ludicrous points than agree with the more benign one we share common ground on.
Early in the thread I was relatively negative against Palin. However when this over the top reaction to the Rush thing began it forced my hand to have to ignore Palin, as their actions to me were more obnoxious and stupid than Palin's.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.