Monday, March 05, 2007
The Utter Failure To Get It Continues
So, we are now somewhere over 72 hours after Ann Coulter's "faggot" fallout, and once again, it seems like the people in power fail to see why we're so pissed off that she said "faggot."
A group of conservative bloggers are drafting a resolution against the fact that Ann uses such nasty terms. That's good. However, they focus solely on the fact that such negative terms draw harsh attention to their own causes, and seem to ignore the fact that casually referring to an entire group of people by the most prejudice-charged term you can use has negative repercussions.
It's not as if the Dems are blameless, either. While they seem to focus more on how Ann's phrasing is bigoted at its core, they quickly turn it into an attack on their personal character... or an opportunity for cash. Read Pam's dissection of the bluster from various sources. As much as I'm glad that these groups are paying lip service to the idea that "faggot" is so disgusting a term, they sure as hell aren't taking the opportunity to raise awareness of gay folks.
And as for Ann herself... well, here's her bullshit:
he word I used has nothing to do with sexual preference. It is a schoolyard taunt.
[...]
It isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays.
There it is, folks! Ann Coulter apparently speaks for all gay men! My God, the tranny jokes just scream for release!
So, apparently "faggot" is just a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with us gays. Then what the hell were you calling John Edwards, Ann? Were you calling him a pantywaist? Were you calling him a wuss? Were you calling with a spineless snot? Then why didn't you use those terms, instead of a term that actual gay men consider to be on par with the N-word?
So, once again, the tale of sound and fury weaves itself, and nothing is signified. Well, people may finally be starting to back away from the radioactive pile of crazy that is Ann Coulter, but otherwise, nothing changes for us "faggots."
A group of conservative bloggers are drafting a resolution against the fact that Ann uses such nasty terms. That's good. However, they focus solely on the fact that such negative terms draw harsh attention to their own causes, and seem to ignore the fact that casually referring to an entire group of people by the most prejudice-charged term you can use has negative repercussions.
It's not as if the Dems are blameless, either. While they seem to focus more on how Ann's phrasing is bigoted at its core, they quickly turn it into an attack on their personal character... or an opportunity for cash. Read Pam's dissection of the bluster from various sources. As much as I'm glad that these groups are paying lip service to the idea that "faggot" is so disgusting a term, they sure as hell aren't taking the opportunity to raise awareness of gay folks.
And as for Ann herself... well, here's her bullshit:
he word I used has nothing to do with sexual preference. It is a schoolyard taunt.
[...]
It isn't offensive to gays. It has nothing to do with gays.
There it is, folks! Ann Coulter apparently speaks for all gay men! My God, the tranny jokes just scream for release!
So, apparently "faggot" is just a schoolyard taunt that has nothing to do with us gays. Then what the hell were you calling John Edwards, Ann? Were you calling him a pantywaist? Were you calling him a wuss? Were you calling with a spineless snot? Then why didn't you use those terms, instead of a term that actual gay men consider to be on par with the N-word?
So, once again, the tale of sound and fury weaves itself, and nothing is signified. Well, people may finally be starting to back away from the radioactive pile of crazy that is Ann Coulter, but otherwise, nothing changes for us "faggots."
