Political Correctness: Make a Judgment

You are a nimble hunter?

Hanh?

In Mexico the word 'gabacho' is used disparagingly of white Americans. It's synonymous with the word 'gringo.'

I always thought it meant a clumsy Frenchman.

That's the origin of the word. It became a general epithet for Frenchman. It was also used in Mexico in that sense after the French occupation in the ninteenth century. The word then came to be used there towards Americans some time in the twentieth century, which is the sense in which Dys was using it.

I think Lash may have found a new term to use in reference to the French.

If this in any way associates me with Frenchies, I am bereft and distainful.

So, snood. This seemed cowardly to me. I didn't want to gum up soz's thread, so I brought your thinly veiled narrative about me to this location.

To recap, you said:

Obama is torn on gay marriage. So what? As it is, he holds the same view as probably the majority of presidential hopefuls (support of legal union but not marriage), but of that I'm not sure. The only one I know of for sure that supports gay marriage is Giuliani.

I find no fault with the way you gave your opinion thus far.

It seems that Obama is not allowed any wiggle room on the issue because he is black, and therefore somehow should "know better". I've never bought the line that blacks should support gays because our struggles are alike. Gay marriage is not at this point a foregone conclusion (no matter how rude anyone gets with those on the fence about it), but only intensely politically correct.

Although I disagree that supporting gay marriage is "only intensely politically correct." Had you stopped here, I wouldn't have opened this conversation.

This point is ironically lost on those who excoriate any who don't abjectly capitulate to 100% support of gay marriages. Some of these same people make lengthy statements about freedom of speech, talking about how they should have the use of any word they damn well want.

I do have use of any word I damn well want. As should everyone. The onus is on each person for what they say and why. You have the right to be a homophobe, and I have the right to call you on it. We've been here before... It is really mindblowing that you think reducing the civil rights of other people is a speech issue. And, you are correct in assuming that I believe people who have been discriminated against should know better than to perpetrate discrimination against others.

They will go to figurative war for the conservative blacks who "dare" to not toe the liberal democrat party line - they say that this is America at its finest - the right to think individually.

They who, snood? Why so cowardly? Everyone knows you are talking about me. Why the lame subterfuge? Are you afraid of something? When "thinking individually begins to take others' rights away, we've moved past thinking and gone to oppression.

But this - the manifest right of same sex marriage - this is too sacrosanct a concept - this is so obviously the right way to go that it is below idiotic to even think aloud about it. So sure are they of their righteousness that they become haughty in their denouncements of those, like Obama, who are still struggling with it.

...manifest right to equality under the law...

Lash, there are others (Thomas, O'Bill, timberlake to name a few) who have gone to bat for black conservatives - I admit you came to mind, but not just you. No need to call me a coward.

The timbre is much more personal than I want to get into with you again - you flame at me with such casualness (coward, homophobe) - doesn't our hardwon bit of truce mean something to you? It does to me. Do try to take the personalness out of it.

I'm asking you - can we disagree without being disagreeable?

Snood,

Remind me of the location of the heated demand to say anything they damn well please per Thomas, timberlake and Bill.

An honest truce is valuable. A fake one is not.

Disappointing.

I've never used this term and didn't know it held any meaning other than it having been in a book so no, I probably wouldn't use it.

If I did know it, I'd avoid using this expression and can think of a great deal more ways to say what I need to say rather than resort to something that makes me feel uncomfortable be that right or wrong to some.

I agree, sort of. I really cannot understand how anyone can conclude that the use of "tar baby" in the above described context had any racial intent. Of course, that's not to say that it was said without any racial over- or undertones, but there is no real proof of racial malicious intent. So why use time trying to determine if it was said with malice?

Now, I agree it was insensitive of Mr. Romney to utter "tar baby" only if he was aware of the racial connotation associated with that word. However, if ignorant of its potential to racially offend, it would seem his political aspirations have suffered a set-back as a result of his ignorant use of a word he thought racially benign. In either case, the onus was incumbent upon Mr. Romney to act diplomatically and use sensitive language- he didn't, and now he'll have to shoulder the political fallout, whatever it may be. In other words, the situation he finds himself in is his fault and his fault alone.



Well, words can be, and have been, powerful tools in the shaping of society, and it should be noted that "fussing" over words and "making make substantive improvements in the lives of…Americans" are not mutually exclusive endeavors. However, I agree that to make an effort to create hoopla over a matter such as this for political gain at the expense of common decency is morally repugnant. And it is shameful that many "Black leaders" do just that. It is detrimental to the cause(s) they purport to champion and a real sham(e).



It is also used in the United States, and it can also be used endearingly.

Great discussion, and I hope my contributions made sense and added to it.

Lash, here is the post of mine which offended you (minus only an aside to edgarblythe agreeing with his comment that people seemed to want Obama to be "flawless") I've bolded the remarks that offended you:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that Obama is not allowed any wiggle room on the issue because he is black, and therefore somehow should "know better". I've never bought the line that blacks should support gays because our struggles are alike. Gay marriage is not at this point a foregone conclusion (no matter how rude anyone gets with those on the fence about it), but only intensely politically correct. This point is ironically lost on those who excoriate any who don't abjectly capitulate to 100% support of gay marriages. Some of these same people make lengthy statements about freedom of speech, talking about how they should have the use of any word they damn well want.
They will go to figurative war for the conservative blacks who "dare" to not toe the liberal democrat party line - they say that this is America at its finest - the right to think individually.
But this - the manifest right of same sex marriage - this is too sacrosanct a concept - this is so obviously the right way to go that it is below idiotic to even think aloud about it. So sure are they of their righteousness that they become haughty in their denouncements of those, like Obama, who are still struggling with it.

And I say struggle on, Obama - answer to your own conscience and you will come to your own conclusions. You have that right.

Taken as a whole, this is the kind of "flaw" I can live with.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My intent was only to defend Obama for not having settled in his mind about gay marriage. We disagree about the amount of damage he can and will do to the cause of gay marriage, especially compared to some of the other candidates. I think his freedom to come to his own conclusions about that issue is similar to your or anyone's freedom of speech.

If I was insulting to use the example of "demanding to use any word they damn well want" in trying to defend someone I think is a decent man who is more an ally to gays in the cause of equal rights than an adversary, I apologize. I don't think I deserved to be called a coward or a homophobe, but since I first offended you, perhaps we can call it even, accept that we differ on the significance of Obama's view, and move on.

Who, in your opinion, stated that Obama is not allowed to state his preferences? Speaking for myself, I disagree with him (and with you) on the issue, and stated my disagreement because you had strongly come out in favor of his views. That's it. Political correctness had nothing to do with it. Obama's (or your) race had nothing to do with it. And curtailing Obama's (or your) freedom of speech had nothing to do with it.

I think that Lash is saying that black people should recognize the right of gays to marry because of something having to do with what they (black people) have experienced.

Does that clear up my comment about "wiggle room" any?

I just accidentally stumbled across this post and suddenly a huge light went on and I was flooded with understanding.

Was there a baritone voice, and harp music?

fiddles and banjos.....

That's not how I read the first half of her post number 2476983. But I admit it didn't help that she implied you're a homophobe in the second half of that post.

I'm okay with just saying that our opinions about the significance of Obama's stance on gay marriages differ, and I apologize if I insulted.