If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

[Kulindahr]

Re: If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

Is it a term of contempt if the one it's addressed at doesn't consider it as such and doesn't get offended? And I feel pity for you if that's the kind of shitty hellhole you live in, but where I've been, straight people laugh at it and some actually love it. Or I wouldn't be using it. PS - you ignored my question. Are you actually out?

Ah! Now you've contradicted your position that a term mean just one thing, period.

I ignored your question because I figured that if you haven't bothered checking out my blog to find out about me, you weren't really serious.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow. How insensitive.

Yet Rolyo and others continue to give off that very message.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

Yeah, I notice he's being awfully aggressive in this thread. I wonder what nerve has been hit.

The same nerve Fred Phelps and Michelle Bachmann and Pat Robertson hit.

 

[Rolyo85]

'Breeder' is derogative and on the same level as 'faggot' and 'nigger' for me. And I don't like being called any of the three. You are a very hateful and angst-ridden individual, sorry.

You are forgiven.

And no, it's not. You can't equate derogatory terms directed at minorities with derogatory terms directed at the majority. Society and culture just don't work this way.

But keep trying to paint me as heterophobic. It's incredibly funny.

 

[Rolyo85]

Re: If you ever say you are "straight acting" that is a copout

Ah! Now you've contradicted your position that a term mean just one thing, period.

I ignored your question because I figured that if you haven't bothered checking out my blog to find out about me, you weren't really serious.
Yet Rolyo and others continue to give off that very message.

Yeah, keep painting us as villains. I am waiting for you to use the term "evil".

I have never claimed a term means only one thing. Maybe you should finally read the topic now that you're such an energetic contributor here, eh?

And no, I have not read your blog. I don't feel like I should chase information about you all over the internet when we have a message board to convey it. I will assume you are closeted and proceed accordingly.

 

[youfiad]

I was thinking about this topic at work again, because it seems so clear in my mind. However, I think that the "Straight acting" self-descriptor is evident for some. And if it's not, try to look at it like this; as those who actively use the term see it.

Let's say we were on a forum where there were a lot of lesbians. Let's say that they also used the term "straight-acting" instead of "feminine". Women don't always identify themselves as feminine, yet they blend in fine with heterosexual culture. For example, I was talking to a girl who had dread locks, loves heavy metal, sports, etc.. In my mind, nothing about her struck me as gay, and she isn't gay. In fact, she's getting married to a guy soon. Let's say for the sake of argument she were a lesbian in the forum searching for other "straight acting" but not looking for "feminine". In this case using feminine as a synonym would be silly.

The exact same thing goes for men. You may not see it that way, but that's perfectly fine. You don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to use the word.

I know this isn't really going to help the situation; people already have their minds made up on the topic.

 

[Callum]

You are forgiven.

And no, it's not. You can't equate derogatory terms directed at minorities with derogatory terms directed at the majority. Society and culture just don't work this way.

But keep trying to paint me as heterophobic. It's incredibly funny.

You're joking? By that reasoning, racism only works on the minority. Religious hatred only works on the minority, too. Please enrol in a formal logic course. It will do wonders.

 

[Rolyo85]

You're joking? By that reasoning, racism only works on the minority. Religious hatred only works on the minority, too. Please enrol in a formal logic course. It will do wonders.

Yes, they do. Both imply oppression. You can't oppress the majority. You can hate it on a racial or religious basis but it just doesn't care.

And I repeat - I am yet to meet a straight person who's offended by the term "breeder" (if they've even heard it). It's ALWAYS gay guys who get outraged.

 

[Callum]

I was thinking about this topic at work again, because it seems so clear in my mind. However, I think that the "Straight acting" self-descriptor is evident for some. And if it's not, try to look at it like this; as those who actively use the term see it.

Let's say we were on a forum where there were a lot of lesbians. Let's say that they also used the term "straight-acting" instead of "feminine". Women don't always identify themselves as feminine, yet they blend in fine with heterosexual culture. For example, I was talking to a girl who had dread locks, loves heavy metal, sports, etc.. In my mind, nothing about her struck me as gay, and she isn't gay. In fact, she's getting married to a guy soon. Let's say for the sake of argument she were a lesbian in the forum searching for other "straight acting" but not looking for "feminine". In this case using feminine as a synonym would be silly.

The exact same thing goes for men. You may not see it that way, but that's perfectly fine. You don't have to. Nobody is forcing you to use the word.

I know this isn't really going to help the situation; people already have their minds made up on the topic.

Pretty much, this.

I identify as 'straight-acting' simply because I do not perpetuate or indulge in activities that are stereotypically viewed as 'gay' or tied to LGBT culture. I do not use the label out of self-loathing or being in the closet (which I am not), and I also do not use it due to fearfulness/hatred of LGBT culture. It's not a badge I wear with honour. The key here is 'acting'. I don't 'act' like the commonly seen gay stereotype.

Yes, they do. Both imply oppression. You can't oppress the majority. You can hate it on a racial or religious basis but it just doesn't care.

And I repeat - I am yet to meet a straight person who's offended by the term "breeder" (if they've even heard it). It's ALWAYS gay guys who get outraged.

Yeah, uh...I'll back away from your insanity and recommend an Oxford Dictionary on the way out.

 

[youfiad]

You're joking? By that reasoning, racism only works on the minority. Religious hatred only works on the minority, too. Please enrol in a formal logic course. It will do wonders.

Actually. You're both right. Depends who you ask. if you ask a sociologist, Rolyo85 will get the gold medal. I was forced to sit through hours and hours of lectures in my undergraduate listening to sociologists talk about social justice. Suffice it to say that I find the explanations and reasoning a little lackluster.

 

[Rolyo85]

Pretty much, this.

I identify as 'straight-acting' simply because I do not perpetuate or indulge in activities that are stereotypically viewed as 'gay' or tied to LGBT culture. I do not use the label out of self-loathing or being in the closet (which I am not), and I also do not use it due to fearfulness/hatred of LGBT culture. It's not a badge I wear with honour. The key here is 'acting'. I don't 'act' like the commonly seen gay stereotype.

Yeah, uh...I'll back away from your insanity and recommend an Oxford Dictionary on the way out.

Language isn't only what's in the dictionary, it's also common use. If someone told you about a person you didn't know and said they were a racist, would it even cross your mind that they might be a white-hating Asian? No. You'd immediately think of a white guy hating black people. Because that's what the term is used for culturally. So yeah - TECHNICALLY you can be racist to anyone but that's not in any way comparable racism.

 

[Rolyo85]

Actually. You're both right. Depends who you ask. if you ask a sociologist, Rolyo85 will get the gold medal. I was forced to sit through hours and hours of lectures in my undergraduate listening to sociologists talk about social justice. Suffice it to say that I find the explanations and reasoning a little lackluster.

Why? You think the majority and minority are on the same level and everything they do is comparable? That no action changes meaning based on whether it's a member of a majority or minority doing it?

 

[borg69unimatrix]

Nice! Except why would he park his carcass on a marble slab when there's a comfy chair right behind? Those are the sort of probing, penetrating questions I hope to tackle...

Lex

Oh Lex... that's the pedestal your fans put you on.

 

[Callum]

Actually. You're both right. Depends who you ask. if you ask a sociologist, Rolyo85 will get the gold medal. I was forced to sit through hours and hours of lectures in my undergraduate listening to sociologists talk about social justice. Suffice it to say that I find the explanations and reasoning a little lackluster.

Sociology is wishy-washy nonsense, like most fields in the arts/humanities. If two black men drive up to my buddy walking down the road, kidnap him, torture him for two weeks, and then murder him, simply for the reason that he's white --- that is racism (and obviously a hate crime).

 

[youfiad]

Language isn't only what's in the dictionary, it's also common use. If someone told you about a person you didn't know and said they were a racist, would it even cross your mind that they might be a white-hating Asian? No. You'd immediately think of a white guy hating black people. Because that's what the term is used for culturally. So yeah - TECHNICALLY you can be racist to anyone but that's not in any way comparable racism.

Then why are we even having the straight-acting discussion? Common use. Can we drop it now??

 

[Taz]

Language isn't only what's in the dictionary, it's also common use. If someone told you about a person you didn't know and said they were a racist, would it even cross your mind that they might be a white-hating Asian? No. You'd immediately think of a white guy hating black people. Because that's what the term is used for culturally. So yeah - TECHNICALLY you can be racist to anyone but that's not in any way comparable racism.

Ridiculous. To suggest that racism only denotes whites hating blacks is just ignorant, and yet more evidence of you insisting the world only exists through your view point.

You are not the only person on the planet, and your culture is not the only culture on the planet. and your definitions are not the absolute truths you say them to be.

 

[Rolyo85]

Sociology is wishy-washy nonsense, like most fields in the arts/humanities. If two black men drive up to my buddy walking down the road, kidnap him, torture him for two weeks, and then murder him, simply for the reason that he's white --- that is racism (and obviously a hate crime).

Ooooh ok. We don't believe in sociology. Gotcha. I think we've reached the point where I think your position is laughable and you put me on ignore, don't you agree?

 

[Rolyo85]

Then why are we even having the straight-acting discussion? Common use. Can we drop it now??

Because - and you'd know that if you'd read the thread - the problem isn't with what the term means but what ELSE comes with it. We all know what it means, we aren't saying it doesn't mean that. We're saying it means a lot more IN ADDITION.

 

[Rolyo85]

Ridiculous. To suggest that racism only denotes whites hating blacks is just ignorant, and yet more evidence of you insisting the world only exists through your view point.

You are not the only person on the planet, and your culture is not the only culture on the planet. and your definitions are not the absolute truths you say them to be.

When was the last time you didn't think of a white person when you heard the word "racist" again? It can be used for any race-based hate. Doesn't mean that the effect on the group in question is the same.

 

[youfiad]

Because - and you'd know that if you'd read the thread - the problem isn't with what the term means but what ELSE comes with it. We all know what it means, we aren't saying it doesn't mean that. We're saying it means a lot more IN ADDITION.

It does?? News flash to me. Since I'm too lazy to go through 11 pages, can you please enlighten me? Anyone?

 

[Kabluey]

Note to self:
Good work avoiding "Crazy Acting"