Dear Media: In This Case, If You Mean "Faggot" Then Say "Faggot"

I'm getting a little bit of a whiff of irony from this article. An AE editor is advocating spelling out an anti-gay slur on the grounds that censoring it doesn't convey the full ugliness of it, while redacting a racial slur within the very same article. I truly do not understand the standard here. Is "the n word" inherently worse than "the f word"? Is it worse to be slurred because of one's race than because of one's sexuality? The argument here would be so much stronger if the same standard were applied to both slurs within this article.

 A very on-point quote from African American LGBT activist Mel Boozer, speaking to the 1980 Democratic National Convention:

"Would you ask me how I dare to compare the civil rights struggle with the struggle for lesbian and gay rights? I can compare them and I do compare them, because I know what it means to be called a 'nigger' and I know what it means to be called a 'faggot,' and I understand the differences in the marrow of my bones. And I can sum up that difference in one word: none."

Very interesting.

Umm, I remember in high school one day, there was this  girl who didn't really like me for some reason (but when you're in high school, who needs a reason, really?) and she was jut nailing me with insults after insult and I didn't respond. I mostly laughed because A) it agitated her so...WIN! and also B) because it was legitimately funny. But then she called me a faggot. I was what I call a "newgay" 4 years ago so I was just getting into the feel of how harsh that word could be to one who, like myself, prefers the company of other males.

The point of this isn't that she called me a faggot. I can take that, plus I would have no reason to post this here at the moment. 

THe point is, I told my friend -- best friend at the time about this and...she laughed. I mean, she really laughed. She had a "so what?" attidute about me being called a faggot in a classroom full of homophobes. (my school was very homophobic, by the way). I spent hours trying to explain to her why this could deem hurtful. She didn't understand. 

I then tried to use those pesky persuading skills our english teacher recently taught us a few years prior. I tried to explain how hurtful the word could be...so I compaire it to being called "the N word". She and I are both black, so of course we'd understand the meaning behing that particular word. 

I bet you're thinking: Deon. Point. Find it! Sorry, I tend to rant a lot. But the point is: She didn't think it was the same. She didn't think that "Faggot" held the same weight as being called "N**ger". She fought me on that. She literally wouldn't stop talking til I agreed that being called a faggot isn't nearly as bad as being called a "N**ger".

I felt--no, I feel like people don't view homosexuals as equals in teh sense where we are not allowed to be offended when called that word. You can't say "n**ger" no matter how you want to use it (people argue that there's a differece..you know, that whole: "don't be a 'n**ger, be MY nigga" saying) but no matter how you spin the word "faggot", it just doesn't hold as much weight.

I don't like it. 

Is how they are trying to use the videos that are out to claim that it was never said b/c they can't hear it or in other words selective hearing. This is a problem b/c they use the same argument as proof that they didn't use homophobic slurs either b/c there is no proof and the Dems are crying wolf.

I hope after this people can stop claiming this a post racial society and that homophobia is not a problem.

For me personally being called a gay slur compared to being called the n-word is not the same........it's close but still not the same. The two slurs bring up diff. emotions.

I would argue that while bleeping a word in mainstream media coverage does indeed give that word more power, that power is only in the form of establishing it as a hateful and offensive word that ought not be used by anyone, against anyone else.  Whether it be a racial epithet or an anti-gay slur, tossing a word about carelessly in the media, without the use of asterisks (or referring to it as "The N word," etc.) makes its usage in everyday life less shocking, and therefore less of a big deal in some bigots' people's minds.

Words do have power and yes by calling attention to them by asteriking them or the like it gives them even more significance.  Having said that I hate both words equally.  To me the "N" word is the quintessential term of hatred in the U.S. it literally oozes with all the pain, hatred and nonsense that have been heaped on black people in this country since the first slave ship arrived in Jamestown.  The quintessential antigay word is "faggot" and yet this word also has a purely benign connotation, it can also can mean a bundle of sticks.  The fact of the matter is that at the present time, it only has one meaning and that's hatred and contempt of gay men.  Everyone knows that, even Eminem who years ago feigned ignorance as to its homophobic nature.  Anyone who uses it as it was directed against Congressman Frank is using it as a weapon.  It is meant to demean and belittle an entire class of people.  Now the tricky part.  Should either word be completely banned? No.  It would be impossible. Nor should books like "The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn" be censored because Twain made frequent use of it.  The word is jarring and hurtful to our ears and I suspect that it was so even to Huckelberry Finn when he came to his great revelation that Jim and all black people are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.  As for the "F" word it also can't be censored but anyone using it or the "N" word as the tools of hatred and bigotry that they are (as they were used by these so-called "Tea-party" individuals should be landed on like a ton of bricks.

When knowing when to use certain hateful words, I always use my "To Kill A Mockingbird" standard. I just ask myself, "Does the context of what I am saying warrant the use of the hateful word?" If the answer is yes, then it would be wrong to not use the word since that lessens the power of my point.

Some people are so fanatical about banning hateful words they are willing to ban brilliant works of art like the books To Kill A Mockingbird and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Anyone who does this is a moron and should be treated like a moron. Not only are you censoring importnat books, but you are also taking power away from your quest to fight bigotry.

I agree with FakeName's first post. It is not only ironic but hypocritical of AfterElton to allow the full spelling of the word faggot but not the word nigger. The reasoning for this double standard is just appalling. The GLBT and ally readers of AfterElton can apparently deal with seeing every letter of the hateful word faggot spelled out, but AfterElton readers who are black, white, yellow, red, or any color of the rainbow are not smart and mature enough to see every single letter of the word nigger spelled out. Unbelievable!

I have only ever asked straight people for equality. Just treat me the same way as everyone else, and I am happy. Yet, how can I expect equality from the straights out there when the gays at AfterElton refuse to treat hateful epithets the same. Somehow the letters f-a-g-g-o-t are perfectly fine to appear on AfterElton's pages, but the letters n-i-g-g-e-r are so toxic that AfterElton refuses to allow them to all be typed out.

I wish AfterElton would treat its queer readers with the same respect as its black readers. Either both words are too vile to ever appear on this site, or both are acceptable in the proper context. After all, if we cannot expect equality at AfterElton, we sure as heck cannot expect it from straight society in general.

I've always felt sorry for the letter N. It didn't do anything wrong.

here is my damn question and of course, i know the answer...but then again, i don't.

whether you say the N word, the F word or whatever freaking word, i always wonder exactly how slurs are supposed to get these people's points across.

i mean, i can call a woman a bitch all i want, but really....what does that achieve?

i know it's ignorance and hatred combined, but ugh....i feel like "do they really think these adult people are gonna break down and cry or something by calling them these slurs?"

very sad to me. i'm all about having different opinions, but geez. how do these people expect to be taken seriously?

both nigger and faggot are disgusting words. they're hateful. one is not worse than the other. when someone says faggot or nigger, they're basically calling you something less than human. they're trying to break you down. make you weak, etc

whether afterelton uses it or not won't change the facts. it doesn't bother me if they censor the words or not. i know what the words are. i hate the words.

damn, i was gonna make another point and now i forgot it. ugh. anyways, so sick of the hate. :-/

 

 

we have even gotten to this point. If you don't print the words how can I explain to my children what is wrong with them. If you don't print the words used aren't we allowing the people spouting hate to use them but than to some extent protect them. To hear their hateful words and to see them in print may be uncomfortable but it is what they said and we need to deal with it accordingly.

What really bothers me is how dangerous politics has become. We have always had people who have no problem spouting hate and lies but it seems that the number of people in the general public who either ignore, allow or even accept it, is growing.

I have always had a disdain for politics and politicians. I do not trust the government because I don't trust us. Recently my disdain has turned to fear. I am not usually a pessimist but the popularity of people like Palin and O'Reilly and Fox news in general frightens me. I have an uncle and a neighbor who are very nice ordinary people but they no longer read the local paper because they believe they are full of lies. The only  source of news they trust is FOX.

I don't know if it is right or wrong but I believe that not printing the words is the same thing as hiding our heads in the sand.

Back when I was editing my own publication in Southern California, I was reporting on an incident that had some youths shouting both nigger/faggot at a gay black couple. I interviewed them and asked them how they felt about it. The older of the two said it brought back memories he'd rather not remember, the younger of the two (by at least a decade) said he felt that it was just a word to him that others use when they want to show that they believe would hurt them. He said something along the lines of "If I allow words to hurt me then I give them the power over me, If I ignore them then I retain my own identity"

Words only have power to control us if we let them. Some words are used to insult others, how many times have you called someone a "bitch" or "bastard" or "m*therf*ck*r", or been called one. When used they are trying to tear someone down. If the subject of the insult allows it to affect them then those trying to diminish win. The trick is to ignore the words. 

 

and a lot of examination on this discussion, I can safely say that I disagree with Ed's opinion and Michael's reasoning.  All of my arguments are already spelled out nicely above.  But, thanks for bringing it up anyway.

Like guns, at the wrong hands with the wrong intentions, they can be harmful and hurtful. There are many more words  being used with the same effect beside the two words that we are debating here. As individuals we have more freedom in using anywords with our own discretions. However, as a media like AfterElton that is part of an entity of a business corporation, there needs to be discretion and control when publishing of an editorial piece. The responsibilities are different between media like AfterElton.com versus individuals making a comment.

I remember having a conversation when I was in high school with a friend who said that profanity was terrible, horrible, awful, and that if she wanted to express her anger, rather than shout "Fuck" or "Shit" she would shout "Red Car" so as not to offend anyone. I thought that was fine, but argued that the words, in and of themselves, were not profane, but that the anger, hatred or bigotry behind them was. If everyone agreed that "Red Car" was an expression of anger, then that expression would itself become profane. Right? So, to me it was no less offensive if she shouted "Purple Cat" to someone rather than the "N" word if the intent and emotion behind her words were just as hateful.

I live in the South, and personally find the "N" word offensive in no small part because of the history of hate and oppression condensed into those two syllables.  I have dear friends, however, who frequently use it as a greeting and term of affection: "Wassup niggah" or "Nigger, please" These friends happen to be African American, and in context the term is not hateful or offensive to either party. We've had this conversation, and they agreed that if I used those phrases (as a Caucasian) it would be odd, but not offensive to them because they know me, and would know that the intent of the words was harmless. (They also said, of course, that it would be hilarious, because I'm so extremely white). They had a harder time deciding if they would be offended if they didn't know me, but the words were said without malice. It's a tougher call.

The "F" word is similar to me. I was called "fag" before I even knew what that meant, but it was clear to me that the kids using that word intended me to feel lesser than they, to feel threatened, and to feel ashamed.  And like the "N" word among Afican Americans, I have heard it used by gay people in an affectionate way, and so in that context does not seem profane. That said, calling someone a "faggot" because you intend to demean them is offensive and profane and I wouldn't do it.

I like the post above in which the young man said that he could determine what importance to give what someone else said and retain his own power and identity. That works when the language is shared in a direct context like that, or as in the case of my friends talking to each other or to me. But I think in a media editorial context, it makes sense to censor both the "N" word and the "F" word in cases where the emotion behind them is hateful, because the degree of familiarity is less (or non-existent), and thus the potential for offense is higher.

Great topic to start a dreary Monday morning!

What I saw in most of the coverages was a passing mention of the anti-gay slur, but when it turned to discussion time, emphasis was put on the N-word. In an interview with a presidential historian on NBC, she even went so far as to mention "racial slurs like those" when talking about both incidents.

 

The sad part is that, as much as we may deem "faggot" as offensive as "nigger", that's just not how it works at the moment. Social consensus rules on the usage rules for words, and we're still at a point where homophobia is far more tolerated than racism; the prejudices are not put at equal footing on the social backlash scale.

 

I personally find the redacting of slurs at all idiotic, and I resent the media invention of this little rule. Considering how "nigger" gets thrown around in BET and colloquial hip hop culture (now even some Hispanics use it), saying that there aren't grey parts on this word while there are for "faggot" seems silly.

What I take from the redacting of slurs is media interventionism on potential emotional reactions. And why should emotional reactions be mitigated? Those who said the words deserve the full reaction. The visceral reaction of hearing those slurs is essential to mobilizing outrage against the perpetrators.

I have always said that I find it very offensive when articles on this site use the words 'faggot' or 'queer' to describe gay people. Just because the people writing those articles themselves are gay, does not make it right. In the same way that black people using the word 'nigger' to describe themselves is wrong too. The added problem I have with this article is that there is blatantly a double standard here between 'faggot' and 'nigger'. It doesn't matter if you are gay and you feel it is ok to say 'faggot' but because you are not black you won't say 'nigger', the fact of the matter is that by asterisking one or the other out you are saying that one is worse than the other. That is why I think there are quite a few people on here that are disagreeing with the article. Either asterisk both of them out or neither of them. 

this only shows how racism and bigotry is at the core  of the attempts  of thr right wing to torpedo anything the obama administration tries to do...the weak minded are so easily brainwashed...the coverage on msnbc referred to the use of the f-word in mentioning the slur against barney frank

I think that in the news media when they are reporting on situations like this they should say exactly the words the protestors said--it shows exactly where these people are coming from, how they think and how reprehensible they really are.

The whole business about not being able to say or spell the word nigger is total insanity. So, it's not okay to say, "The word nigger is an offensive racial slur."? We have to tip toe around it by calling it the "n" word, and spelling it like this: ni**er. Faggot is an offensive word, so is spic, so is cunt, so are MANY other words. The holocaust was a horrific event in history, should we refer to it as the holoc@*st because we don't want to offend Jews? Even if we are saying that it was horrific? Seriously, the utter insanity and stupidity around this whole thing boggles my mind. It's a WORD, people! It's language. Should we remove every offensive word from every language that currently exists? And who gets to say which words stay and which words go? I'm with Twinkeeper above, I disagree with the AE editorial stance on continuing the "N" word ridiculousness.

I always find it funny when articles describe sex acts as "vulgar" or "disgusting". There are certain sexual acts that the majority of people will find vulgar (and I'm sure you can guess) but, come on, teabagging? It makes me wonder what these people do behind closed doors when they think relatively tame sex-acts are vulgar. I bet they have some exciting sex lives!

This is ignoring the factual inaccuracies of the article as well (it's not just a gay sex act).

pain & lead to murder & genocide, then we should probably add the words

ORGANIZED RELIGION.

Caused more wars & death than anything else in history.

Words are just words, until they are used to fuel hatred.

"nigger" does not get thrown around BET and colloguial hip hop culture, and some Hispanics can use it b/c they are black too. In Jay Z's hit song he was not saying "nigger what, nigger who"

There is a diff. between saying "nigger" and "nigga" Why else do you think they were calling him a "nigger" and not a "nigga"............it's b/c the Klan with or without their hoods know that there is a diff. between the 2 b/c one has more venom behind it than the other one.

...then say "Faggot." If you meant nigger, then say nigger.

Wow, the sky didn't collapse, lightning didn't strike, no one died when I typed those words. 

My rule is clear: until "faggot" becomes unspeakable, I will hold no word unspeakable. But I use it only when relevant.

For example, my partner and I were at 86th and Central Park West a few years ago when this enormous black guy (he must have been 6'5" and built like a brick shithouse) passed us and muttered "faggot" before turning the corner. We stood there silently for a moment or two, then my partner took off down 86th to catch up with this guy. He tapped him on the shoulder. The guy turned around with this "wha'?" expression on his face. 

My partner didn't mince words. "What would you think if you were standing on the street and I walked by and muttered, 'nigger'?" The guy crossed his massive arms (he could have broken my partner in two if he'd wanted) but didn't say anything. My partner continued: "'The Man' loves words like nigger and faggot, because while you and I are busy calling each other names, he's making more money. He gets to keep his power because we're too preoccupied or stigmatized to grab some for ourselves. So why don't the faggots and the niggers focus on getting our share of the pie, and helping each other do it, instead falling into the white man's trap?"

The guy's face stayed stone still for about three seconds, and then he relaxed and said, " Hey, you're right. I'm really sorry, I didn't think about it that way."

He got it. And using straight, bold, direct language helped, in my opinion. If my partner had pussyfooted around with "Would you like it if I used the n-word?", he would have removed the emotional power of the word to make a point. 

Gawker got it right.

Ed, Dennis, and Michael: Not so much.

"No proof has been made to verify Frank's claim." -- There's so much wrong with that sentence!   

You don't "make" proof, you find it.  And they used the passive voice, which to me sounds like they're trying to claim there was no proof because no one wants to take responsibility for finding out what really happened -- "if it isn't found, it doesn't exist" sort of rationale.  Aren't they journalists?  Don't they know how to investigate, follow a lead, find facts?

What makes me nearly ill is the thought of how many people get their "news" from sites like that.  :(

So I get to be insulted twice as mcuh.

It's funny how idiots always claim something that happened never happened when there's, you know, video footage of it. Then they play the "Isolated incident" card. Sure, it's not like your entire movement is at its heart largely homophobic and racist at all!