Kobe is a bad man

[dreamcastrocks]

Good lord? Is it okay if I call you a ****** since I don't agree with your oipinion?

BTW, no one has answered my question of the meaning of the insult word , "******" and what it is meant to imply.

It was a British term meaning 'a bunch of sticks.' I can see how a bunch of sticks lying together could have morphed to homosexual male.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

It was a British term meaning 'a bunch of sticks.' I can see how a bunch of sticks lying together could have morphed to homosexual male.

****** as a bundle of sticks and ****** as a slur have no relation. Same spelling, different evolution.


As a slur, it began in ninteenth century England it meant a mean woman. From there it became a term to call men who dressed in drag. From there it evolved into being the word that it is.

I will admit I have been guilty of doing this as well. I am really working on eliminating it from my vernacular because no matter the intent, it is a slur.

 

[Rivercard]

Another reach. Again, no one said it was applicable in the heat of the argument, just understandable.

Really? Calling someone "******" in this context is understandable? You do understand that word is a derogotory reference to a minority group right?

 

[D-Dogg]

Essentially, the point of the episode was to say that the word has evolved from being a word to describe a gay person as a less-than, and now, more or less, is a term used to describe someone being a jerk.

Kind of like how people use the word "douche". When someone is called a douche--they aren't meaning that they are a bottle filled with fluid designed to clean out the inside of a woman...they mean they're being a loser/jerk.

This.

Which again, Wally, doesn't make it "ok." But if you don't accept that it IS used in that context, whether you agree with it or not, you are hiding from reality. Are you pretending you don't know how ****** came into the vernacular and how it became accepted as a put-down? It's not like you landed on this planet this month, it's a pretty well known story of how homosexuals have been abused, hated, loathed and looked upon as vile creatures, and that that has been stereotyped in the male realm as sissy, pansy, girly, etc.

The term has become interchangeable with the stereotypes surrounding gay males, just like calling someone a (phoenetic) "puhsee" would be taken. In fact, that's pretty much an interchangeable term with what Kobe used in context to the ref. He basically is saying the ref is a jerky face sissy man. Again, with a poor choice of language that is offensive to many (for the reasons outlined above). I would have simply called him an effing douchebag. Same intent, affect and meaning, without angry letters from the vaginally blessed in the world.

Now, a separate point of whether it is ok to use the term in that manner is definitely a great discussion because it is used in both contexts, and using it at all despite the intent of meaning is offensive to many. But that's not the way you framed the discusion. I'm all for a discussion about that, but pretending you don't "get it" and want to know if it "denotes some despicable attribute that will insult the recipient" is completely disingenuous because I refuse to believe you are unaware of the word being interchangeable with its stereotypical references.

right back atcha.

 

[Rivercard]

The term has become interchangeable with the stereotypes surrounding gay males, just like calling someone a (phoenetic) "puhsee" would be taken.

Not to kibble over bits here, but "puhsee" is not a gay reference is it? It's a reference to having no backbone. A wimp per se.

 

[D-Dogg]

I get mad. I curse. I will even call people names in a fit of madity on occassion. But I don't ever recall calling someone a "******" when I'm pissed because my mind does not equate gay people with some sort of lower life form like the idiot I'm mad at. This says a lot about how Kobe feels about gay folks because "******" in this context = "piece of sh*t".

It really does not (the bold). The word most definitely has contextual meaning depending upon who is targeted by it, similar to the nbomb's plurality of meaning. A gay person can absolutely infer the slur at full value. Someone being a jerk should absolutely not infer that, and should rather infer they are being a jerk. A gay person overhearing it should absolutely say "dude, ****. pick another word, you douche" but trying to determine intent to offend the sexual preference is a leap. I've heard a friend who is gay refer to another gay guy who is effeminate with that word, and not nicely, either. He most definitely isn't disgusted by the guy's sexual preference.

Just because someone might use that word in that manner, does NOT have a bearing on whether they equate gay people as a lower life form - it has been an entrenched word in society for a long, long time, and people use it quite often without even thinking about it in context to offending others. That is wrong, and that needs to change. But it's more of saying something that used to be very accepted and creeped into language, rather than an insight into someone's personal feelings on sexual preference. If you start the conversation in that manner, walls go up. "You must hate gays if you say that" = defense field activation.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I completely understand your point of view on this, Wally, and I think the correct answer was summed up in grand fashion in, (believe it or not, and I can't believe I'm typing this) a South Park episode.

The kids were using the word to describe a bunch of Harley riders that kept going through their town revving their engines & being complete nuisances. Their teacher heard them say it & called them out for not being sensitive to homosexuals. The kids then called out the teacher & said they'd never use a word like that to describe a homosexual, and that it was really uncool of the teacher & insensitive to say that.

Essentially, the point of the episode was to say that the word has evolved from being a word to describe a gay person as a less-than, and now, more or less, is a term used to describe someone being a jerk.

Kind of like how people use the word "douche". When someone is called a douche--they aren't meaning that they are a bottle filled with fluid designed to clean out the inside of a woman...they mean they're being a loser/jerk.

I'd love Dback Jon's opinion on the word, how it was used in this context, and Kobe's reply.

AMEN! Exactly what I was thinking when this "controversy" started. Excellent episode, and definitely encompasses how I feel about the word.

 

[D-Dogg]

Not to kibble over bits here, but "puhsee" is not a gay reference is it? It's a reference to having no backbone. A wimp per se.

That is exactly my point.

****** isn't a sexual preference reference as far as "I hate gays" but rather was born into the "jerk" meaning as a commentary on the stereotype of gay men being wimpy, nancy boys with no spine and limp wrists (which as we all know, is not remotely the case). DEFINITELY at its birth, highly inflammatory and offensive, but has since spawned a context all its own that doesn't even bring that original slur into the picture, and has centered around "jerk."

Yes, bad word. Yes, horribly offensive to gay people. Yes, completely a poor substitute for jerk or "puhsee" for that matter. But, contextually is often used outside of any relationship to sexual preference.

Context on that one is important as to whether someone is just an ***** for using it, or a homophobic, hateful *****. IMO, Kobe's the garden variety ***** in that context.

 

[D-Dogg]

With that said, Kobe, a "professional" athlete, should have demonstrated more restraint and taken his technical like a man. Throw his towel across the court? Fine. Call the guy an cornholio? Go for it. But keep the epithets out of it.

Completely agree. And he shouldn't have punched poor Joe Smith.

 

[desertdawg]

Completely agree. And he shouldn't have punched poor Joe Smith.

That was funny.
Kobe should sport some rainbow head and wristbands during a playoff game.

 

[Rivercard]

****** isn't a sexual preference reference as far as "I hate gays" but rather was born into the "jerk" meaning as a commentary on the stereotype of gay men being wimpy, nancy boys with no spine and limp wrists

I could not disagree with you more Donald. In my world "******" is a hurtful term - and it does not mean "jerk". If it meant "jerk" in todays society do you think Kobe would be fined $100,000? It is more akin to the N word. And for the record, when I said "wimp" I did not mean "limp wristed nancy boy". I meant meek, mild mannered and not standing up for oneself which has nothing to do with being gay.

Curious to know Cheesebeef's take on this.........

 

[Mulli]

I could not disagree with you more Donald. In my world "******" is a hurtful term - and it does not mean "jerk". If it meant "jerk" in todays society do you think Kobe would be fined $100,000? It is more akin to the N word. And for the record, when I said "wimp" I did not mean "limp wristed nancy boy". I meant meek, mild mannered and not standing up for oneself which has nothing to do with being gay.

Curious to know Cheesebeef's take on this.........

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2434617&postcount=16

Is this linked post indicative of Cheesebeef's feeling on gays?

 

[MigratingOsprey]

reminds me of the Louis CK bit and the follow up he did to the bit on his self titled series (basically how he'd never call a gay person a ****** - well, unless they were acting like one ..... and then a disussion with a gay comedian about the bit to talk about the reaction & why from certain members of the audience)

this one - I think it's being a bit overblown ......... i think the responses have been appropriate for the most part

I wouldn't say the usage of a work by someone immediately depicts how they feel about a group ..... in fact, in my younger not so nice days it was often about what would draw a reaction ...... I don't think i've dropped an f'bomb in the past decade+ ... but when I did it was usually to some meathead who I knew couldn't handle such a thing and it would get the most impact (and it wasn't used to call said meathead a jerk)

i don't know kobe, so I don't know his intent .... he does seem to be semi-sincere on this one though keeping the story alive as opposed to just letting it slide as the playoff start

proof will be in the pudding going forward

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Really? Calling someone "******" in this context is understandable? You do understand that word is a derogotory reference to a minority group right?

I'm just saying that saying something in the heat of the moment is understandable.

 

[Mulli]

I'm saying that saying something in the heat of the moment is understandable.

Agree. Word choice might a bad choice or worse, but it is still understandable.

 

[TJ]

Another reach. Again, no one said it was applicable in the heat of the argument, just understandable.

Furthermore, How is someone an cornholio better than calling them a ******?

Reach? Not in the least bit. ****** is a derogatory term towards homosexuals and the context behind it is not only trying to be antagonistic, but also implying that homosexuals are beneath you and I as straight guys, even if the term is used towards a heterosexual in the heat of an argument. The only difference is in society, we have allowed this term to become a traditional put down towards anyone and everyone.

As for the term "cornholio," it is not directed towards any demographic, but simply common profanity. Like if someone cut you off while driving, your reaction is to utter something along those lines about that particular driver. Happens all of the time. Completely benign when compared to a derogatory term towards any specific group of people, unarguably.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Reach? Not in the least bit. ****** is a derogatory term towards homosexuals and the context behind it is not only trying to be antagonistic, but also implying that homosexuals are beneath us even if saying it to a heterosexual in the heat of an argument. The only difference is that in society, we have allowed this term to become a traditional put down towards anyone and everyone.

As for the term "cornholio," it is not directed towards any demographic, but simply common profanity. Like if someone cut you off while driving. Completely benign when compared to a derogatory term towards any specific group of people. No question

Agree to disagree.

 

[Mulli]

Reach? Not in the least bit. ****** is a derogatory term towards homosexuals and the context behind it is not only trying to be antagonistic, but also implying that homosexuals are beneath us even if saying it to a heterosexual in the heat of an argument. The only difference is that in society, we have allowed this term to become a traditional put down towards anyone and everyone.

As for the term "cornholio," it is not directed towards any demographic, but simply common profanity. Like if someone cut you off while driving. Completely benign when compared to a derogatory term towards any specific group of people. No question

If it is worse to call someone "bundle of sticks" (which it most likely is) that is most likely why Kobe called the ref that. As in, he was so mad at the ref, he wanted to get back at the ref (or get the ref's attention) so he chose "bundle of sticks."

It makes no sense to sit around saying "golly, Beaver, why didn't Kobe just call the ref a knucklehead."

 

[Cheesebeef]

I don't think Donald said that it was ok, just not unreasonable. People say all sorts of things our of anger or frustration that aren't 'okay.'

so if someone called Donald a ******, would that be not unreasonable?

 

[TJ]

If it is worse to call someone "bundle of sticks" (which it most likely is) that is most likely why Kobe called the ref that. As in, he was so mad at the ref, he wanted to get back at the ref (or get the ref's attention) so he chose "bundle of sticks."

It makes no sense to sit around saying "golly, Beaver, why didn't Kobe just call the ref a knucklehead."

True, but calling someone a "bundle of sticks" is kind of hilarious and I would love to see a grown man use that phrase, especially in basketball. But who are you offending when saying that? An inanimate object?

And I guarantee that if Kobe called the ref a "knucklehead" instead of "******," his bank account would be at least $95,000 richer than it is today.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

so if someone called Donald a ******, would that be not unreasonable?

Every one of us is guilty of saying things that they do not mean in the heat of the moment; it wouldn't be unreasonable. Smart? Of course not.

 

[Mulli]

True, but calling someone a "bundle of sticks" is kind of hilarious and I would love to see a grown man use that phrase, especially in basketball. But who are you offending when saying that? An inanimate object?

And I guarantee that if Kobe called the ref a "knucklehead" instead of "******," his bank account would be at least $95,000 richer than it is today.

I typed "bundle of sticks" instead of going with the word Kobe went with, duh.

 

[Cheesebeef]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2434617&postcount=16

Is this linked post indicative of Cheesebeef's feeling on gays?

lol.

 

[Mulli]

http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2434617&postcount=16

Is this linked post indicative of Cheesebeef's feeling on gays?

lol.

Thanks for noticing Cheeze. I thought that was well-played by Mulli.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Every one of us is guilty of saying things that they do not mean in the heat of the moment; it wouldn't be unreasonable. Smart? Of course not.

********. I'd NEVER use the word ****** when insulting someone... but unfortunately, have been guilty of using the word ****** before. been trying to curb the way I talk though lately, as I don't see the difference between the words. they're both used to denote someone of a lesser class. arguing otherwise is pretty stupid.

and the idea that Kobe's "owning" this... yet APPEALING the fine is ludicrous. if you own what you did, why appeal the punishment? Owning something means you take responsibility for your actions and the consequences that come with them.