The $%*! frustration thread

[Radical_Dreamer]

Statements like these show that you have absolutely no perspective when it comes to global affairs, much less on health care. I could go on, but I have no interest in igniting this debate in the Frustration thread again. Move it to the health care thread should your frustration continue, plz, kthnx.

No, please go on. I want you to explain to me why a country that put men on the moon is incapable of having a modern health care system. We have fantastic hospitals and brilliant doctors; please explain to me why we can't increase the access our citizens have to these resources while simultaneously reducing the percentage of our GDP spent on health care. The Europeans have found a way to manage, and they haven't even put a man on the moon. And while you're at it, explain to me how the health care policy of the United States is a global issue. There's some interesting ground there, I'd love to hear some insight on the topic.

As for me, my frustration is morons who insist that I stop using the word "gay" in the pejorative sense(i.e., Square-Enix is gay for what they did to Crimson Echoes).

Despite the fact that I frequently have to explain that I am not against homosexuality, but am just using a modern colloquialism for the word "bad," I still have people beeping me on Skype about using the word "gay" in my status(specifically, "My DS is acting gay").

Now, given the recent elevation of the "homosexual debate," if I may use that jargon, maybe I should stop. But I'm not going to change my entire manner of speech overnight to suit some j-hole I met once on Skype and got their contact from it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If there is one of us with a lack of perspective, it's you. You seem to labor under the delusion that it is a fault in others when they point out that you are a self entitled little bigot. This is not the case. The fact that you are a self entitled little bigot is a fault, and it lies entirely within you. The people who point this fault out to you are not morons. They are your friends, and better friends than you deserve, because they have the sincerity to let you know when you are in the wrong.

When you use "gay" as pejorative, you are explicitly linking homosexuals with whatever acts you find fault with. You are asserting, for example, that shutting down fan projects is the specific act of homosexuals and the malfunction is a specific act of homosexuals. This is bigotry, plain and simple, and it is bigots like you who are responsible for creating a social (and as a result of that, legal) atmosphere that is hostile to homosexuals.

So, to tie this back into the topic of our misunderstandings, why the fuck do you think that a self entitled little bigot like yourself deserves to live in a country that put men on the moon?

[Mr Bekkler]

Statements like these show that you have absolutely no perspective when it comes to global affairs, much less on health care. I could go on, but I have no interest in igniting this debate in the Frustration thread again. Move it to the health care thread should your frustration continue, plz, kthnx.

No, please go on. I want you to explain to me why a country that put men on the moon is incapable of having a modern health care system. We have fantastic hospitals and brilliant doctors; please explain to me why we can't increase the access our citizens have to these resources while simultaneously reducing the percentage of our GDP spent on health care. The Europeans have found a way to manage, and they haven't even put a man on the moon. And while you're at it, explain to me how the health care policy of the United States is a global issue. There's some interesting ground there, I'd love to hear some insight on the topic.

As for me, my frustration is morons who insist that I stop using the word "gay" in the pejorative sense(i.e., Square-Enix is gay for what they did to Crimson Echoes).

Despite the fact that I frequently have to explain that I am not against homosexuality, but am just using a modern colloquialism for the word "bad," I still have people beeping me on Skype about using the word "gay" in my status(specifically, "My DS is acting gay").

Now, given the recent elevation of the "homosexual debate," if I may use that jargon, maybe I should stop. But I'm not going to change my entire manner of speech overnight to suit some j-hole I met once on Skype and got their contact from it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. If there is one of us with a lack of perspective, it's you. You seem to labor under the delusion that it is a fault in others when they point out that you are a self entitled little bigot. This is not the case. The fact that you are a self entitled little bigot is a fault, and it lies entirely within you. The people who point this fault out to you are not morons. They are your friends, and better friends than you deserve, because they have the sincerity to let you know when you are in the wrong.

When you use "gay" as pejorative, you are explicitly linking homosexuals with whatever acts you find fault with. You are asserting, for example, that shutting down fan projects is the specific act of homosexuals and the malfunction is a specific act of homosexuals. This is bigotry, plain and simple, and it is bigots like you who are responsible for creating a social (and as a result of that, legal) atmosphere that is hostile to homosexuals.

So, to tie this back into the topic of our misunderstandings, why the fuck do you think that a self entitled little bigot like yourself deserves to live in a country that put men on the moon?

[Truthordeal]

Oh, dear me. You are right, RD. I am a completely bad person because I engage in one act of "bigotry." Very well, then I suppose I should go cast myself in the river and die. The world would be one bigot less, then, wouldn't it?

....

Of course I'm joking; I'm not so stupid as to leave the world in the hands of you humorless bastards.

If you don't like my manner of speaking, and if you don't like my way of thinking, then that's your prerogative. I don't like that you don't like me, but I suppose it cannot be helped. Scold me all you want, call me names and use ad hominem if it makes you feel better. But DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE tell me what I can and cannot say!

Now, as for how I deserve to live in America...I don't. I don't deserve it anymore than my Czech friend deserves to be excluded from living in it. Same as you, J, FW or any other American Compendiumite or any American in general, there is nothing that makes me different from anyone who wasn't born here.

The difference is, while you weep and scream and tear through the world, I'll laugh and play and occasionally allow myself a slip of the tongue. I reel in my language if someone takes particular offense to it, but not once have I ever tried to make anyone feel bad over how they spoke, and I was hoping that you people, the self-proclaimed paramount of tolerance, would show the same consideration. For all I care, you can take your self-appointed self-righteous attitude and shove it up your ass. I have no use for it.

---

On the matter of health care, I took offense to your labeling of American health care as a "third world" system. Have you been to a third world country, RD? I haven't, but I belong to a church that has made several mission trips to them in the past. These are places where ritual healings that would make Christian Scientists blush are the norm and where they have about as much medical expertise as a plague doctor of Medieval times.

We have the same problem, you and I, and the same goal in mind. We have different methods to reach that goal, but I don't hate you for that. What I dislike is your blatant distortion of the problem. I figured you either did this out of ignorance, or you did it willfully. I chose the former because I figured it was a general misunderstanding.

Either way, to make a statement like that, you DO lack perspective.

[Mr Bekkler]

I'm frustrated that this argument is the most entertaining topic that's active right now.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Oh, dear me. You are right, RD. I am a completely bad person because I engage in one act of "bigotry." Very well, then I suppose I should go cast myself in the river and die. The world would be one bigot less, then, wouldn't it?

....

Of course I'm joking; I'm not so stupid as to leave the world in the hands of you humorless bastards.

I'm not sure why you think I'm humorless. It's true that I don't find casual bigotry entertaining, but if you can only get chuckles by debasing "the other", then I think that leaves you with the more stunted sense of humor. I find it odd that you put the word bigotry in scare quotes. How would you describe demonizing a group of people for things that have nothing to do with them? Because that's what you're doing, whether you want to admit it or not.

I've never said you should cast yourself in a river, or in any way kill yourself. I'd much rather you be a better person than a corpse.

If you don't like my manner of speaking, and if you don't like my way of thinking, then that's your prerogative. I don't like that you don't like me, but I suppose it cannot be helped. Scold me all you want, call me names and use ad hominem if it makes you feel better. But DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE tell me what I can and cannot say!

I never once asserted that you being a bigot was the reason that your casual degradation of homosexuals was improper, nor do I think that I have called you a bigot unfairly. And I certainly did not tell you what you can or cannot say. You have every right to let the world know your opinion on any topic you want. This does not mean, however, that people are bound to not judge you based on your words and deeds. I have called you a bigot because you engage in bigotry. Shall I call you illiterate, or did you simply chose not to read my post?

Now, as for how I deserve to live in America...I don't. I don't deserve it anymore than my Czech friend deserves to be excluded from living in it. Same as you, J, FW or any other American Compendiumite or any American in general, there is nothing that makes me different from anyone who wasn't born here.

The difference is, while you weep and scream and tear through the world, I'll laugh and play and occasionally allow myself a slip of the tongue. I reel in my language if someone takes particular offense to it, but not once have I ever tried to make anyone feel bad over how they spoke, and I was hoping that you people, the self-proclaimed paramount of tolerance, would show the same consideration. For all I care, you can take your self-appointed self-righteous attitude and shove it up your ass. I have no use for it.

You are entirely able to speak your mind here. Your speech is tolerated. It is not censored, it is not removed, but it is certainly not endorsed. While I have never described myself as a paramount of tolerance, tolerance is exactly what I am showing your speech. I have never disallowed you to say anything, here or elsewhere.

It's odd that you use this to get on your moral high horse. You've never tried to make anyone feel bad over how they speak. Well good for you. You just happily contribute to making people feel bad about the category of people they are attracted to. I'm not sure why you think that makes you superior. There is clearly some part of you that recognizes that this casual bigotry is not a good thing, or else you wouldn't reel it in when called on it. What I am forced to conclude is that you knowingly use your speech to make people feel bad about things that they cannot control, and then you get offended when you are made to feel bad about your entirely voluntary actions. I fail to see the equivalence here.

Your attitude is extremely childish. You have this odd notion that anyone who actually cares about making this world a better place is a complete stiff, someone without humor or joy. This is not the case. I'm filled with joy and awe at the beauty and splendor the world has to offer, and that is why it enrages me when such joy is unjustly denied to my fellow human beings. Neither your selfishness nor your carelessness are virtues and I strongly doubt that you've got the chops to make an ethical defense of your hedonism. Prove me wrong here; I'd love to hear it.

On the matter of health care, I took offense to your labeling of American health care as a "third world" system. Have you been to a third world country, RD? I haven't, but I belong to a church that has made several mission trips to them in the past. These are places where ritual healings that would make Christian Scientists blush are the norm and where they have about as much medical expertise as a plague doctor of Medieval times.

To my knowledge, the United States is the only 1st world country that does not provide health care for its citizens. This is what I mean when I say that the US has a 3rd world health care system. If I have erred in this description, this is where the error lies.

We have the same problem, you and I, and the same goal in mind. We have different methods to reach that goal, but I don't hate you for that. What I dislike is your blatant distortion of the problem. I figured you either did this out of ignorance, or you did it willfully. I chose the former because I figured it was a general misunderstanding.

Do we have the same goals? I'm not convinced. On topics relevant to this post, I want an end to homophobia, and a modern health care system in the wealthiest nation in the world. You clearly don't want an end to homophobia, and you have not indicated whether or not you want a modern health care system in the US. I want this world to be better than it is. I'm not sure that you do:

The difference is, while you weep and scream and tear through the world, I'll laugh and play and occasionally allow myself a slip of the tongue.

This is the statement of a carefree hedonist. This is not an indication that you have any true desire to make the world a better place. I see a problem, and if it is beyond my power to fix it, then the least I do is try to draw attention to it. You don't seem concerned at all with fixing problems. Indeed, when presented with a problem (for example, homophobia) you become defensive, and perform all sorts of contortions to somehow assert that the problem doesn't exist, and those pointing it out are the ones with some larger problem.

Either way, to make a statement like that, you DO lack perspective.

We put a man on the moon. Don't tell me we can't do here on Earth what those who have never left this rock have been doing for 60 years.

[FaustWolf]

...ask yourself why we still have a 3rd world health care system.

I feel the biggest difference between health care and the moon landing is that the moon landing was not the product of a free market, but rather a concerted, one-track minded, centralized effort. Markets just can't provide certain things efficiently. Imagine if we treated national defense like we do the national health care system: who would subscribe to the Compendium Justice Militia vs. the GameFAQs Bad Boys Militia vs. the...Riot Grrls Militia, for protection from...anti...game...forces?

The national defense analogy may be more appropriate here than the moon landing analogy in terms of economics, at least. There was simply no market for travel to the moon (and the market for space travel is probably still dismally tiny, I suspect). On the other hand I could very easily see a market model for national defense: pay a premium to your choice militia, who pools the risk of attack on all its buyers.

As for the language issue, I imagine Truthordeal is tackling his frustration from a libertarian perspective. I had a libertarian prof who adamantly refused to wear his seatbelt on the sheer principle of personal freedom, so lacking a deeper familiarity with the worldview, I'll approach this through the anecdote of my prof's resistance against seatbelts and how he felt they constrained his freedom.

Truth, would you say most libertarians agree with the principle: "I have a right to swing my fist, but that right stops at your nose." ? The prof's decision not to wear a seatbelt and your decision to employ the word "gay" to describe things that you feel negative about are different in this regard -- though I have to assume my prof didn't have any family or close friends; and that people can be scraped off the road for free, for sheer sake of argument.

If my prof doesn't wear a seatbelt and he gets smushed under his car in a rollover accident, the injury of his decision applies only to him. His risk, his injury. Everything's internalized to himself.

When you attach the word "gay" to negative concepts, on the other hand, an externality is created -- it may be very small in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, but it still contributes to a larger environment full of negative attitudes toward homosexuals. The action is yours, but the possible harm from that action is externalized to people who are not you.

To give some additional perspective on my position here (which actually helps you, Truth, because I seem to be on a theoretical fringe when it comes to porn), these are the grounds on which I feel it's also possible to attack the porn industry as it currently operates. Everyone involved in producing the material I've highlighted recently in the Sexism thread is doing so of their own volition, but their choices shape the sexuality of children and even adults who watch it. If women and men who do not inwardly enjoy x,y, and z in the bedroom are expected to conform to those behaviors on pain of losing their relationships, then those women and men have been damaged by the seemingly harmless free actions of others. I'd be willing to bet that Andrea Dworkin reasoned on similar grounds when she labeled pornography a women's civil rights issue.

Not that I recommend censorship or official government action to solve these issues; I'd rather see them tackled through civil society, which is essentially what's happening here as RD suggested.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I feel the biggest difference between health care and the moon landing is that the moon landing was not the product of a free market, but rather a concerted, one-track minded, centralized effort. Markets just can't provide certain things efficiently.

I agree. I think that health care, on a national level, is one of the things that a market is less effective at providing, and I believe the present state of health care systems throughout the first world is evidence of this claim.

I will reserve comment on the language issue until Truthordeal responds. It don't want to respond to my vision of what his response might entail.

[Zephira]

Frustration: My nutrition class. It is a mean thing that tells us bad stuff about ourselves. According to this software, I need 2313 kCalories a day. I got an average of 1311 this weekend.

Also the above argument is entertaining. I'm guilty of letting the word gay slip into a negative adjective, and I try not to. Thing is, I saw a gay guy use it that same way during class once. I asked him about it and got "Everyone else is doing it" as a response.

[FaustWolf]

Thing is, I saw a gay guy use it that same way during class once. I asked him about it and got "Everyone else is doing it" as a response.

Excellent, excellent, excellent observation. I'm really not sure how to respond when it comes to these things, other than to suggest that one gay guy's action could have a negative effect on the lives of other gay guys, just the same. Just because the offending person belongs to the class of people at risk of injury doesn't make it right. Women were pretty much voluntarily squeezing their organs into corsets for centuries, and mothers in the Mideast advocate female genital mutilation for their daughters, because it's just, like, going with the flow of things. Men haven't been free either: Aztec priests were once perfectly willing to slice their...oh, never mind. Why do I always come up with these grotesque examples?

[ZeaLitY]

But DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE tell me what I can and cannot say!

Hate speech laws go beyond political correctness and protect against things that do injure people and spread hatred. The idea of "words can't hurt me" sounds nice, but the reality is that words can hurt people the most. Just like saying "that test raped me" might hurt a girl in earshot who's been raped, saying "that test was so gay" may remind a gay person that they're outcasts in society.

And when you can't even enjoy the benefits heterosexual couples do or be accepted like them, you really notice when this speech is uttered or other discrimination occurs. And it hurts. This is why I limit my own speech, despite, like you, having been in an environment where calling things gay was normal and even hilarious. People do hear it. And it does, even subconsciously, reinforce the alienation of gay people, especially in usage in the presence of people who are fully aware of its root and use it anyway.

Have you been to a third world country, RD?

Free trade and the economic policies of the first world are part of the reason the third world has failing health care. The Philippines is a good example. In the past, the Filipino government provided health care for everyone, including poor people, and hospitals were well funded. That all changed with new economic agreements and trade arrangements. "Structural adjustment" includes austerity provisions, which slashed the health care budget.

Today, entire graduating classes of nurses leave the Philippines to find work elsewhere (along with droves of migrant workers to the Middle East and Europe, who account for a significant share of the country's foreign revenue). Hospitals are failing and closing due to being understaffed. The health care program can't retain any labor. Poor people can't even get access. Working for the government to provide essential services means accepting a life of relative poverty. Things like this are just pure exploitation. Cut welfare programs, privatize, and exploit. To back up my accounts, it's easy enough to search for "philippines" "structural adjustment" on Google. Philippine nurses are now well-known for their training.

But fuck, we needed Nikes and everything else! And so the next time we put down a third world country's government services, it will be prudent to remember the first world's contribution to their erosion. Most Americans probably wouldn't care anyhow, because they're third world and have brown skin. Besides, free trade is supposed to benefit everyone, right? Right?

[Truthordeal]

Originally I had no intention of replying on the sole basis that I didn't think it was worth the time, but I suppose y'all deserve at least this much:

RD is wrong. Me and him do have the same goals(at least in those two subjects). I'm not homophobic, and I wait for the day when a homosexual couple can walk down the street holding hands the way hetero couples do today. Me using "gay" in the pejorative sense might seem to contradict this, but it's a far cry from being a "bigot."

You may not understand this, but due to our history, being called a bigot in the south is tantamount to excommunicating someone from the church in the Medieval days. Even if you're guilty of no wrong(which I think I am), its a label that's almost impossible to overcome. That's probably at the core of my reaction, but I don't apologize for it. You throw the word around like, to use a favorite expression of mine, the husband at a Jewish wedding(I'm speaking of the chair dance, for those of you who don't get the reference).

Your use of the word bigot entails that you do not have the sense of humor that I do. I don't use the word "gay" as a railing against homosexuals. Hell, I barely use the word to refer to homosexuals anymore. This does not make me as bad a person as the word bigot implies. Anyone who says different is a jackass.

Speaking of the word "jackass," has it not occurred to you how often innocuous words transform they way the word "gay" has? "Gay" and "queer," just 80 years ago meant two totally different things. The same with the words "douchebag(a female hygiene product which now means a disagreeable person)" "jackass(formerly meant a donkey)" and "jigaboo(which were thorny weeds in the ground, and now contain a negative racial connotation)."

You might call someone a "douchebag," which I do, frequently, but that doesn't make you sexist, despite the negative image it has for women. Or if you do, then you do lack a sense of humor, in which case, this debate has been a waste.

----

@ Zeality, I choose to think of it this way: gay wasn't rooted in homophobia; it meant happy. People used it to describe homosexuals, and it got that connotation. Now people use it to mean "bad" or "broken." It's how words evolve, and I think it's hilarious.

[Mr Bekkler]

@ Zeality, I choose to think of it this way: gay wasn't rooted in homophobia; it meant happy. People used it to describe homosexuals, and it got that connotation. Now people use it to mean "bad" or "broken." It's how words evolve, and I think it's hilarious.

Yes, it meant "happy". But the homosexual community adopted the word as a synonym for homosexual because they thought the longer term carried a stigma and was used to insult. So they decided to try the word "gay". It worked for a little while, til bigots decided "gay" was much easier to say than its synonym which had four whole other syllables, so "gay" is now used to insult.

Similarly, atheists thought the word atheist carried a bad connotation, and tried to adopt the word "bright". What religion are you? Oh you're a bright! My apologies. But it never caught on. Interesting though, because if it had caught on, do you think religious people would have started to use it as an insult? I think they would. (No I'm not talking about everyone on the face of the Earth with a tinge of a belief that there may be a god, I'm talking about the Pat Robertson minions specifically. THAT kind of religious.)

[FaustWolf]

It might be of some value to examine the history of each of the words Truth offered:

"Gay": Once meant "happy," and is now the dominant term for describing homosexual men.

"Queer": Once meant "strange," and now refers to homosexuals of either gender.

"Douchebag": I suppose this would refer to the receptacle of a douche, most likely applicable to the vaginal douche (although there are also anal douches). Now refers to assholes, i.e., people who suck, i.e., individuals we don't care for.

"Jackass": Once the name for an animal, now used to refer to people who suck, i.e., individuals we don't care for.


It could be just be a pet theory of mine, but I believe that when we use these words in common parlance, we're not just using them in the context of their current meaning, but in the context of their history of meanings.

Let's take a look at what this means for each word. Only "gay" is something positive -- it once meant "happy", people with smiles on their faces. It seems natural that homosexual men would want to identify with something positive.

Excluding "queer" for a second, just look at the rest: we're calling people "douchebags" with the inherent attitude that the vagina is unclean; we're calling people "jackasses" with the inherent attitude that donkeys are unclean. To be fair, we also call people "dicks" with the inherent attitude that the penis is somehow unclean. We also call people "assholes" after all. And...yeah.

I'm totally guessing wildly, and maybe I'm wrong, but the usage of each word might have transitioned from its old meaning to its new meaning, with the understanding that the old meaning still applies. This process might happen gradually, such that old old meanings are forgotten completely.

In the case of turning "gay" into a negative, we're transitioning into something that was once positive ("happy") into something that is now becoming negative. If we've forgotten as a society that the word "gay" once meant "happy," we certainly haven't forgotten that "gay" means "male homosexual." It's still linking the new meaning to the old, there's no way around it on a subconscious level. At least according to my pet theory, which is, arguably, an armchair hypothesis.

Now, "queer" -- here's something interesting. The advent of "Queer Theory" embraced by homosexuals indicates that the homosexual community is trying to adopt the word and transform its meaning from something negative into something positive. Betty Dodson is trying to do the same with the word "cunt." Other Third Wave feminists are trying to do the same with the word "slut."

I guess I'm kind of breaking down without reaching a conclusion, but I wanted to toss it out there. But I'll say this: if the theory has any merit, then whereas turning "queer"; "cunt"; and "slut"; to positive uses is taking homosexuals; the vagina; and sexually active women into positive territory, turning the word "gay" to a negative use is taking male homosexuals into negative territory.

That's if I have any inkling what I'm talking about. Since I just consumed a beer while writing this, one can never be sure.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Mr. Bekkler, but these posts go along quite well.

[ZeaLitY]

Well, with atheists, at least religion will one day be eradicated from the earth as humanity grows wiser. Gays can't claim dominion like that; they have to live in a world with heterosexuals, and presently, that means living in a world of adversity.

[Truthordeal]

Well, with atheists, at least religion will one day be eradicated from the earth as humanity grows wiser. Gays can't claim dominion like that; they have to live in a world with heterosexuals, and presently, that means living in a world of adversity.

That's not necessarily true; with more sexual liberation in the future, a majority of the population may turn towards bisexualism, with birth pods as the main source of procreation.

I suppose I should cite FW for the birth pod idea.