(07-07-2015, 01:42 AM)FireIceTalon Wrote: Calling something "retarded" is still a discrimination against mentally disabled individuals, regardless of the context it is being used it. The same is true of disparaging comments toward queers, women, or people of color. Further, whether people in those groups can rebut said insults better is hearsay, and is not relevant to the point being made here anyways - and that is that the terms "gay" (outside of the other definition or context of being happy) or "retarded" are discriminatory words regardless of their context. They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.
I laid out for you a warning by way of analogy: in much the same way that gay allies (for instance) may over-react, you did the same regarding "the poor" to kandrathe. The fact that you've disagreed with the aspects of the illustration is really immaterial, because what I've described can and does happen (regardless of whether you think so!), and you just did it yourself. The analogy holds. What are you going to do to avoid future meltdowns? You can't convince people that you're right, including onlookers, if your method of doing so results in such catastrophe. It's divisive. It alienates both people who might agree with you and surely those who don't.
The elephant in the room, for me, is the question: Why don't you parse indirect language? Idiomatic language, analogy, and jokes evoke serious responses instead of responses that evidence your ability to grok what's being said. It's kind of a big deal for you because you waste a lot of breath "rebutting" statements that you clearly did not understand. Do you actually have a difficulty with that kind of indirect use of language? If you do, it's not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but someone like me for whom delivery is often playful and silly is going to be difficult for you to read. I wouldn't mention it except that the thread was going fine again, and then you re-emerged as salty and sandpapery as ever.
Quote: You treat these things as being independent of each other, when they very much aren't, and thus your analysis of the circumstances of queer people is incoherent at best. Lastly, I am not divisive - as a matter of fact, I am critiquing the divisiveness that is bourgeois heteronormative hegemony. If anyone is divisive here, it would be you, since anyone who sees through the folly of your sociological analysis is just a "crackpot".
Do note that my claim that you come off as a crackpot was supported by examples of your behavior over time, and yours only. It's also strengthened by the edit you made to your last post where you rebutted Bolty for moderating you.
Not much going on this week with the thread's primary topic! kandrathe, I think you were pretty much spot on in your last post.
-Lem