Thread: John Ahlers anti-gay comment

Um, I just noticed that your avatar is Hasslehoffs face on a womans body with the title "Gaywatch". One could make the argument that your avatar is more offensive than saying the name of a schoolyard game.

Originally Posted by BeerMan

what about the Quackers calling us the Queenies? I say let's call GLAAD organizations and have them hold protests at the Ponda.

anyone? annnnyone? Bueller? Buuelllerrr?
Posted via Mobile Device

In their case...it's nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black...

Originally Posted by ianmonsta

Um, I just noticed that your avatar is Hasslehoffs face on a womans body with the title "Gaywatch". One could make the argument that your avatar is more offensive than saying the name of a schoolyard game.

wow....just freaking wow.

hey gokingsgo25 - do the rest of us "minorities" a favor and leave the fighting for our rights to us. We don't want your kind of "help".

well, now that urban dictionary has definitively concluded that it's not homophobic* we can drop this entire conversation. </sarcasm>

so if ahlers had said that the pile up looked like a bunch of f****ts, would you be arguing that f****ts are just bundled sticks, so it was susceptible to an innocent meaning?

i'll take my cues from reference materials that don't explain practices like the "cleveland steamer" and "rusty trombone." for instance, dictionary.com, and its definition of sophistry: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

rat is right. i'd like to think most of you have better sense than that.


*upon further review, you'll note that several alternative definitions on urban dictionary conclude that it is, in fact, a homophobic term. so if so staid an institution as urban dictionary cannot categorically disclaim a homophobic meaning, how do we blithely assert that its use is purely innocent? and if we cannot say that it is exclusively innocent, how do we then assert that ahlers's intent was innocent? and if we can't decisively conclude innocent intent, why should we err on the side of giving him a pass for hate speech?

one suspects that the general tolerance for homophobic slurs among some members of this site is more influential in where one comes down on this issue than any dictionary meaning of "queer."

It's actually Chris Pronger's face..LOL
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by gokingsgo25

There is absolutely no reason to say anything like what was said. I wanted to make a point by calling the team and voicing my opinion.

If anyone else feels this way I think they should as well.

No.... You thought we would all salute you because he is a commentator for the ducks.

But he is human, and he made a mistake.

Perhaps you are the one who needs a class or two in Tolerance, or better yet.... oversensitivity..... or better yet... trying to get attention.

I'm sure there's no reason to get the posse and head over to the Pond on a witch hunt. I'll bet he has already been reprimanded and that you won't hear it again.

Originally Posted by 4/10/82

well, now that urban dictionary has definitively concluded that it's not homophobic* we can drop this entire conversation. </sarcasm>

so if ahlers had said that the pile up looked like a bunch of f****ts, would you be arguing that f****ts are just bundled sticks, so it was susceptible to an innocent meaning?

i'll take my cues from reference materials that don't explain practices like the "cleveland steamer" and "rusty trombone." for instance, dictionary.com, and its definition of sophistry: "a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning."

rat is right. i'd like to think most of you have better sense than that.


*upon further review, you'll note that several alternative definitions on urban dictionary conclude that it is, in fact, a homophobic term. so if so staid an institution as urban dictionary cannot categorically disclaim a homophobic meaning, how do we blithely assert that its use is purely innocent? and if we cannot say that it is exclusively innocent, how do we then assert that ahlers's intent was innocent? and if we can't decisively conclude innocent intent, why should we err on the side of giving him a pass for hate speech?

one suspects that the general tolerance for homophobic slurs among some members of this site is more influential in where one comes down on this issue than any dictionary meaning of "queer."

If he said it looked like a bunch of queers, then I'd be the first to call for his head, so your bundled sticks comment doesn't fly.

Queer may be used a homophobic term, but that certainly isn't it's only meaning and smear the queer has always been a game played by kids where the fastest, strongest kid was usually the queer...so I really don't get how that could be held in a homophobic light as usually homophobes are degrading gay people, not making them out to be the fastest, strongest in the group?

A few definitions of the word queer from dictionary.com:

–adjective 1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.

2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.

3. not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.

4. mentally unbalanced or deranged.

5. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a. homosexual.

b. effeminate; unmanly.



6. Slang . bad, worthless, or counterfeit.


–verb (used with object) 7. to spoil; ruin.

8. to put (a person) in a hopeless or disadvantageous situation as to success, favor, etc.

9. to jeopardize.


–noun 10. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive . a homosexual, esp. a male homosexual.

11. Slang . counterfeit money.


—Idiom
12. queer the pitch, British Informal . to spoil the chances of success.


Also:

British slang for eight gallons of gasoline.


So if you look at #8, I think we can conclude that is what is being refered to in smear the queer as the game is usually 10 on 1 or so.

Or not.

So, if the game was called "Spike the Kike" and the kids used the word innocently, without having any idea what it meant, there's no problem with using the name of the game now? Brick the Spic? Dink the Chink? Slap the Jap? Bag the ***? All perfectly OK?

I'm hardly the PC type, but this sets my "wrong" buzzer off. Language is a very, very powerfu means of expression. While there is validity to the argument that how a word is used is important, certain words carry a very recognizable inherent message. Any word is simply a collection of letters arranged in a certain way, but every society recognizes that certain collections carry a strong message.