« Giuliani and Brando | Main | The NRA and Rudy »

07 Mar 2007 03:45 pm

Kaus Attacks

It's a good way to defend. He quotes a post I wrote in 2001, talking about the way in which some young kids now use the phrase "that's so gay" to mean something generically lame. I don't like it; but I don't think it's that big a deal, and I haven't changed my mind over the last few years about it. Kaus's claim that I was "basically saying what Ann Coulter says now" is transparently untrue, as the full context (which Kaus excised in his post) proves. Allow me a little self-fisking:

Thanks for all the subsequent emails about Senator "I'm-Not-A-Racist" Byrd. They raise an interesting question: what happens when an offensive term for a particular group then gets generalized to others? Byrd's defense is that he doesn't think the term "nigger" is racial any more. It can apply to whites and blacks - so it's not racist. But its origins are clearly racist; and the term is clearly derogatory.

So this is different from my position now ... how, exactly? I went on:

Similarly, a 20 year-old reader points out, Chris Rock has a famous routine which starts with: "I love black people, but I hate niggers." Is Rock racist? And what's the difference between him and Byrd? Well, Rock is black, of course. And he's deliberately funny, unlike Byrd, who's merely a joke. But different standards for black and white discourse is a little, er, racist, isn't it? In my neighborhood, the n-word is ubiquitous. But it's a mainly black neighborhood and the word is interchangeable with 'dude'. I wouldn't use it in a million years - especially in the 'hood.

And this is different from my current position ... how, exactly? More:

There are similar problems with the term 'faggot.' In his early days, Eminem said he had nothing against gay people, just faggots. Just as not all gay men were faggots, not all black guys are niggers. The question is whether this is one step toward enlightenment or one step back toward bigotry. I'm inclined to think that, in the younger generation, the use of such terms need not be a prima facie case of prejudice. It's quite common, for example, for high school kids to use the word 'gay' to describe anything they don't particularly like. It has no tangible reference to homosexuals - although it hardly bespeaks acceptance.

Again this is not the use of the word "faggot" by a straight person in a public speech to demean and emasculate a straight guy. Nor do I even acquit the use of "that's so gay." I simply say it's not prima facie bigotry, but it might be if one inquired further. It's specifically about using the word "gay" to mean "dumb" or "lame" in a context where homosexuality is completely absent. That's not at all what Coulter was doing, as I elaborated yesterday. She's not gay; and she used the term "faggot" in its classically homophobic form, as she explained subsequently, to mean "sissy". I'm also not particularly exercized even about this when used by schoolkids. I'm a longtime opponent of hate crime laws, and support maximal free speech. The issue with Coulter is not whether she has a right to say what she said (I'd go to war to defend that) but what she meant (she meant it in its "sissy" form) and where she said it (at CPAC to cheers and laughter). So my position now is different from my position then ... how exactly? More:

But in general, the use of the term now is far less ominous than it would have been ten years ago. So let the linguistic waves roll and the racial, post-racial epithets mount. And let old Klansmen like Byrd look before they mumble.

So my conclusion is a warning to Byrd, and can in no way be seen as an endorsement of the kind of bigotry that Coulter deployed. My position remains the same as it did. Mickey's position on gays has, however, evolved over the years. About which ... stay tuned.

Permalink :: Trackback (0) :: Sphere It! ::

Share This