I agree with the literal meaning of what you said. However, based on history, I suspect you are using that literal meaning as a cover for other meanings.
So let me get this straight "no homo" is offensive
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
I agree with the literal meaning of what you said. However, based on history, I suspect you are using that literal meaning as a cover for other meanings.
OK fine let us use a common example.
African American. Are you kidding me? The vast majority, hell I'd say 95%, of people that use that to describe themselves have as much current connection to Africa as I do. They are American and that's it. Now don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being African. I actually think that is kind of cool. But I am supposed to call you an African American when you, your parents, their parents and their parents were all born in America? Sorry but no. The only way I can see someone claiming that title is if they actually have dual citizenship. Then by all means. But that is not how it is used. It is used to replace the word black.
As far as I am concerned the classifications of asian, black, pacific islander, white, hispanic, native american and all others based on skin tone can be completely removed from American society. The sooner the better.
That is one of my major problems with political correctness. It tries to force classifications on society for things that truly do not matter. The sooner we stop carring about those classifications the better. By not caring I mean it having no bearing on our decision making/though process.
I agree with what you said.
However, what you are saying seems to fail to take into account the treatments of being treated as outsiders in your own country, over a feature that is plainly visible. If you really want to remove terms like "African American" from the lexicon, don't look to the people who adopt it in response to differential treatment. Look to the people who engage in differential treatment.
They should both be looked at. A victim of racism who acts in a way that reinforces that divide is still reinforcing that divide.
No sniffs.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Exactly. People are just looking for things to get their panties in a twist over. Relax folks relax.
I don't agree with slurs like Kobe's F-bomb last year. Obviously that was bad and deserved the outrage. But this one, "no homo?" Seriously?! Come on people.
Again, victim-blaming. Responding to a divide that already exists is not necessarily reinforcing it.
It is not victim blaming. Get over that worn out phrase already.
By indentifying yourself in a way that seperates you from others you are reinforcing that divide.
DutchJazzer
Banned
because sooner or later all terms would denigrate other groups.
Accurate is accurate, regardless of wear or denial.
By choosing a name for a separation forced upon you by others, as opposed to accepting the name of the oppressors, you are working against the divide.
The denigration comes from a terms use in history in culture, and often can be reversed. For example, many people wear the terms "geek" and "nerd" as prideful nowadays.
At any rate, this does not explain why you want to use terms that are hurtful today.
MoreFeasts
Member
I am not sure that "no homo" is hurtful to homos generally. Can some of the board's homosexuals way in on this?