ummm anyone else see something wrong here? re:Gooden article

[HarpStarkOakEw]

The Web site said Gooden yelled the slur at actor Chris Wylde, who is married and is not gay and was attending the game with a friend.

oh cuz if he was then it would be ok?

LOL i dunno im reading it just trying to make sense of that line and i cant.

[frogfood]

the article is from the star-telegram

[Thorn]

Seems an odd inclusion for sure

[Neb]

What was the slur?

[!nstinct]

^^^ The offensive slur to gay people? Im assuming it was "fa.." you make the rest

As for the article, I think it's trying to point out that Gooden's offense had no valid point. How can you call someone gay when they not? It's like calling a white person the n-word.

[Thorn]

^^^ The offensive slur to gay people? Im assuming it was "fa.." you make the rest

As for the article, I think it's trying to point out that Gooden's offense had no valid point. How can you call someone gay when they not? It's like calling a white person the n-word.

Just to run them down, a lot of people find being labeled gay a bad thing. Some are not secure enough in their own masculinity and feel that they need to defend their level of machismo.

It is a common enough insult really.

[knicks742]

People call others gay whether the person is gay or not as a way to insult them. Happens all the time and it is quite insulting to gay people actually. I agree though, I have no clue why that line is included in this article. Maybe the actor wanted to make sure that people didn't think he was gay.

[HawthorneWingo]

Why did Doc want to insult this cat? I don't get it.

[magnumt]

Honestly though, we don't know the other side of the story, or why/what this guy was saying to Gooden. Hecklers can be PRETTY nasty at times.

[Thorn]

That's true but some insults you don't throw out there. Just like when Cuban started to run down Kenyon Martin to his mother, a line was crossed there.

Here it is a line that was crossed it is not like saying "hey you are a wimp" it is saying "You are gay... and there is something wrong with that" as if being gay in and of itself is bad. It shows a lack of maturity on the players part.

[2010]

^^^ The offensive slur to gay people? Im assuming it was "fa.." you make the rest

As for the article, I think it's trying to point out that Gooden's offense had no valid point. How can you call someone gay when they not? It's like calling a white person the n-word.

FYI, just for the record the "n-word" does not mean a "black person." One of the biggest most ignorant misconceptions around for thousands of years in language. It's much like how people have this ignorant misconception that Native Americans are "Indians"...they most certainly are not! Yet thousands of years later people still think that the "n-word" (in it's orginal definition) refers to a black person and hundreds of years later the same ones think the word "Indian" (in it's original definition) refers to Native Americans. When in fact, they both were born out of the ignorance of Europeans.

[AydinOrs]

^^^ The offensive slur to gay people? Im assuming it was "fa.." you make the rest

As for the article, I think it's trying to point out that Gooden's offense had no valid point. How can you call someone gay when they not? It's like calling a white person the n-word.

FYI, just for the record the "n-word" does not mean a "black person." One of the biggest most ignorant misconceptions around for thousands of years in language. It's much like how people have this ignorant misconception that Native Americans are "Indians"...they most certainly are not! Yet thousands of years later people still think that the "n-word" (in it's orginal definition) refers to a black person and hundreds of years later the same ones think the word "Indian" (in it's original definition) refers to Native Americans. When in fact, they both were born out of the ignorance of Europeans.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If people use the word 'silly' to mean 'foolish', than it doesn't matter that the word silly originally means 'innocent' or 'blessed'.

What you say about the use of the word 'Indians' is just as wrong. There is nothing that makes the term 'Native Americans' any more authentic than 'Indians'. Just like in many other cases, both names where given by foreigners who used it to describe a bunch of other people.

[2010]

^^^ The offensive slur to gay people? Im assuming it was "fa.." you make the rest

As for the article, I think it's trying to point out that Gooden's offense had no valid point. How can you call someone gay when they not? It's like calling a white person the n-word.

FYI, just for the record the "n-word" does not mean a "black person." One of the biggest most ignorant misconceptions around for thousands of years in language. It's much like how people have this ignorant misconception that Native Americans are "Indians"...they most certainly are not! Yet thousands of years later people still think that the "n-word" (in it's orginal definition) refers to a black person and hundreds of years later the same ones think the word "Indian" (in it's original definition) refers to Native Americans. When in fact, they both were born out of the ignorance of Europeans.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If people use the word 'silly' to mean 'foolish', than it doesn't matter that the word silly originally means 'innocent' or 'blessed'.

What you say about the use of the word 'Indians' is just as wrong. There is nothing that makes the term 'Native Americans' any more authentic than 'Indians'. Just like in many other cases, both names where given by foreigners who used it to describe a bunch of other people.

No, the original poster I quoted's argument (!nstinct) doesn't make any sense. His point is that you can't call a white person the "n-word" because he's implying that word MEANS a black person. My stance is that the "n-word" WAS NOT originally intended to mean a black person. Racist Europeans altered the meaning to a derogatory term SPECIFICALLY for blacks. So, if that is the case today...this younger generation uses the "n-word" very freely on themselves, amongst peers and endearingly to members of ALL RACES including whites. So if you are arguing that the meaning of words CAN CHANGE then his original statement makes no sense! Because clearly if racist Europeans can change the meaning and it can stick then why can't this new generation change the meaning to an endearing term used ON WHITES AS WELL with it sticking?

As for the idiotic/ignorance of calling Native American's "Indians" ...Euro explorers thought they'd landed in INDIA when they "discovered" the Western Hemispheric continents and labeled Native Americans as "Indians" out of foolishness. Yet today, even in textbooks, schooling, sports teams, etc. we still have people calling Mayans, Incas, Cherokees, etc. "Indians" today....HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER. Why? Because of Eurocentric views that spew a pompous view that "even when we are wrong, we are right"

The Cleveland Indians having their franchise named as such is embarrassing and makes me sick! Why not just create a baseball team in Virginia with a cotton picking smiling slave as the logo and call it the Richmond N!ggers. Because that is basically the equivalent. And that to me is unacceptable.

[HellsKitchen]

The question makes no sense.

As a reader, one of the first things you'd wonder is did Gooden shout the slur at an actual gay person. So in the interest of being thorough, the writer answers the question.

It's standard journalistic practice in stories like these and I've written and edited dozens.

Whenever there's a "gay-bash" story, and the victim is straight, the writer provides that info.

[AydinOrs]

FYI, just for the record the "n-word" does not mean a "black person." One of the biggest most ignorant misconceptions around for thousands of years in language. It's much like how people have this ignorant misconception that Native Americans are "Indians"...they most certainly are not! Yet thousands of years later people still think that the "n-word" (in it's orginal definition) refers to a black person and hundreds of years later the same ones think the word "Indian" (in it's original definition) refers to Native Americans. When in fact, they both were born out of the ignorance of Europeans.

Your argument doesn't make any sense. If people use the word 'silly' to mean 'foolish', than it doesn't matter that the word silly originally means 'innocent' or 'blessed'.

What you say about the use of the word 'Indians' is just as wrong. There is nothing that makes the term 'Native Americans' any more authentic than 'Indians'. Just like in many other cases, both names where given by foreigners who used it to describe a bunch of other people.

No, the original poster I quoted's argument (!nstinct) doesn't make any sense. His point is that you can't call a white person the "n-word" because he's implying that word MEANS a black person. My stance is that the "n-word" WAS NOT originally intended to mean a black person. Racist Europeans altered the meaning to a derogatory term SPECIFICALLY for blacks. So, if that is the case today...this younger generation uses the "n-word" very freely on themselves, amongst peers and endearingly to members of ALL RACES including whites. So if you are arguing that the meaning of words CAN CHANGE then his original statement makes no sense! Because clearly if racist Europeans can change the meaning and it can stick then why can't this new generation change the meaning to an endearing term used ON WHITES AS WELL with it sticking?

As for the idiotic/ignorance of calling Native American's "Indians" ...Euro explorers thought they'd landed in INDIA when they "discovered" the Western Hemispheric continents and labeled Native Americans as "Indians" out of foolishness. Yet today, even in textbooks, schooling, sports teams, etc. we still have people calling Mayans, Incas, Cherokees, etc. "Indians" today....HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER. Why? Because of Eurocentric views that spew a pompous view that "even when we are wrong, we are right"

The Cleveland Indians having their franchise named as such is embarrassing and makes me sick! Why not just create a baseball team in Virginia with a cotton picking smiling slave as the logo and call it the Richmond N!ggers. Because that is basically the equivalent. And that to me is unacceptable.

I am against any kind of negative slur toward a specific group, so I don't have a problem with what you said in that regard. I am also strongly opposed to eurocentrism. I just wanted to say that the term Native American is just as random as the term Indian. The name 'America' comes from the name of an explorer, so why would a large group of people living there for thousands of years be given the name of a European explorer? It isn't any more meaningful than the term Indian.

But my real point is that's not a problem, because a very large amount of words and names are based on randomness, mistakes and other non-systematic processes. Words aren't devised by people, they largely develop uncontrolled. As long as the people being called so accept it, it's not a problem, and, as far as I know, the term Indian does not have the same derogatory meaning as ni...

Anyway, words like ni.. or indian are not potentially problematic because of how these words came first into use, or because they were based on an error, they're potentially problematic because of what they mean today.