Not having had the pleasure of exchanging any dialogue with you, I am not certain exactly what it was that prompted your seeming need to chastise me.

I went back and re-read all 124 post on this thread. Of that number, I made six posts.

Post no. 49 made reference to Mr. Letterman who has been slamming the gay community ferociously for several weeks now on a variety of Queerty threads. Believe me, My tongue-in-cheek reference to him, was baby-talk compared to the vile things he has said about the LGBT community. Interesting that you have not posted one objection to his psychopathic remarks over the past several weeks.

Posts no. 112 and 115 were with ChrisM wherein I misunderstood the gist of his post. I said nothing hateful to ChrisM and when he drew my attention to what he had actually meant, I apologized, as any gentleman would do. Please note that my apology was accepted.

In post no. 113, I was actually agreeing with Charlie and added some names that we of the gay community are frequently addressed as, in addition to those he listed. Nothing hateful here either.

On post no. 121 to the Girl, I called it like I saw it. Giving my honest opinion is not being hateful. It’s just telling it like it is.

Oh…and I guess Victim of Censorship calling me a douchebag in his post no. 122 is not in the least bit hateful? Please note that I did not resort to calling him names, nor was there one instance of my calling anyone a name in any of my six posts.

My response to him in post no. 123 was duly earned by his snide and snarky comments, so no apology is required. Sarcastic, perhaps. Hateful, o.

So, if you would be so kind, could you please point out to me exactly what I said that cause you to launch a personal attack on me?

You’re not my mom, so why are you acting like you are?

If you really don’t know what I’m talking about, read what you’ve been writing. You’ve already been forced to make one apology. Put down your defenses for a moment and take a look at yourself and how you’re relating to strangers. Perhaps you are a wonderful person in real life, but I have no way of knowing that. My only frame reference for you is your rather hateful comments.

Now, go back to hiding behind your “sarcasm font” if it makes you feel safer. You have my permission.

Oh, look! A douchebag! His sexual identity is entirely incidental to his douchebag status, and needs not be mentioned or guessed at. Douchebaggery doesn’t need sexual qualifiers, since it transcends all such qualifiers, as well as those of gender, race, religion, politics, etc. In the end, when a person has “achieved” the level of douchebaggery on exhibit here, it really becomes their defining quality and how others know them. Details creation of the non-PC portmanteau was ill-conceived because most of us already know that gays can be douchebags equally as well as the heterosexuals.

Thank you, schlukitz, for clearing this up with your example.

Back to lurking…

Good place to be, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

Self-righteous people like you throw the first snowball (water-hardened, Imight add), and then yell for your mommies, like the Mormon church did, when we return the fire.

Here’s another word for your lexicon.

“namby-pamby”.

So what, then, is the point of your comment? Just because there are some people throwing around slurs on our side, too, means that the use of “fag” is ok? Or is there no point at all? I agree that I have been more quiet about the use of “breeder” and other slurs that get thrown around on here (which doesn’t mean I agree with them). But like you said, this is an LGBT site. My comments (and probably others’) are first and foremost concerned with the LGBT issues that the Queerty articles present. This one is about the use of the slur “fag,” so that’s what our discussion is centered around.

But wait, what? This site isnt for straight women, so who cares what I think…

That’s…. interesting.

I can’t comment on the actual article, because i didnt read it… “douchefag” is stupid… so, i didnt have any interest in reading it. (and cue the jokes about my comment being stupid so you are not reading it… which i know is a total lie, because you made the joke)

Back to lurking…

Obviously, I did misunderstand you and I sincerely thank you for clearing that up for me.

One of the problems with the written word, is that it lacks the added dimensions of intonation and facial expression to help convey the intended meaning of a comment. On blogs like this, it is so easy to misinterpret a commentary in a negative vein, even when it was offered as a positive statement. :)

My sincere apologies, accompanied with my appreciation for a quick response to bring me up to speed.

I hope you are enjoying a pleasant evening.

And then there are the really endearing terms like cock-sucker, dick-breath, cunt-lapper, fudge-packer, perv, deviate, sperm-gulper, fuck-face, et al.

And when we of the LGBT community take umbrage with such deprecating and demeaning terms, we are told that we are “thin-skinned”, “overly sensitive” and that we need to “get over it.”

Those who defend this sort of thing shoiuld try walking up to a hetero woman and calling her a cunt, twat, breeder mare or some other similar put-down or walking up to a hetero male and calling him a pussy, a cunt-lapper, a breeder or a carpet-muncher and see what happens to your face?

It would give entirely new meaning to the term “double standard”.

Obviously, you have not seen any of Michael Letterman’s lies, rants, insults, name calling and personal attacks on these threads which include words like “faggot”, “deviant”, “pervert” and “diseased”, among other pejoratives.

Like the Mormon Church who spewed hatred and lies at the LGBT community and got Prop. 8 passed, Mr. Letterman has rained a maelstrom of verbal abuse down on our heads and is now whining that it it is the members of our community who are verbally abusing him???

Mr. Lewtterman now complains that he is getting “annoyed” by those who have defended themselves against his attacks. In addition to having said that he would like to hold a poster’s neck under a stream and “watch the bubbles rise to the surface”, he is now making veiled threats, that would in effect, teach us a lesson.

In an ideal world it would, indeed, be nice if everyone had the tact and common courtesy to refrain from cursing, hurling epithets and verbally abusing others.

Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. So, what are the alternatives? Must we of the LGBT community don lead vests and riot gear to protect ourselves from those who don’t abide by the rules of common courtesy and respect? Obviously, such people possess nether of those attributes.

Or, are we just supposed to take our lumps like good little boys and girls and not make any waves?

Aside from the knee jerk reaction of the moderator (first initial Z, for the curious) who clearly just doesn’t get it, as intelligent as she otherwise is, the larger point is that Politically Correct censorship is still Censorship, and should be a last resort instead of a first line of defense. The antidote to hateful speech (if my self-expression really was hateful) is MORE speech, not censorship.

I dare them to try it with any other minority.

Also, this is not the first time they’ve used the f word to make a portmanteau. In an April 2006 issue, an article talking about what was “gay” used the word “fagatronic” to describe something that was “beyond gay” (the author was criticizing his use of a pseudonym). I remember reading this then and being a little off put just the same, but again, it wasn’t enough to offend me such that I would no longer read it (somehow, because the word wasn’t in its true form, I was able to contain myself).

This was nearly 4 years ago.

If you’ve still been reading this magazine since then and were offended now, enough such that you will no longer read, then either the gay world didn’t alert you enough to stay away from a “homophobic magazine” like Detail, or you were too ignorant in your unbridled trust in its purist intentions for the politically correct and didn’t do your research. If we all knew exactly how companies have offended, or worse, taken advantage (remember, it was just a word) of disenfranchised people, then we wouldn’t be consuming anything.

Get over it. I’m over it.

Way to distort our arguments. Just because we believe this article is not only worth fighting over does not mean we will fight the REAL enemies tooth and nail.

Meanwhile did you look at the actual contents?

Look at all the LGBT rights opponents who DON’T use that word.

And look at all the white gays who shouted the word “nigger” after they helped steal our rights in California with Prop H8. And if it’s not okay for non-blacks to use it then it is unacceptable for blacks to use it. There is no double standard for language.

Homophobic scum post here without being banned yet this magazine article that will be forgotten in a matter of days is worthy of a fatwa? No wonder we are treated like shit under federal law: we don’t have our priorities straight.

How about the fact that mainstream media turns a blind eye to the real attacks on gays each and every day that we are unequal under the law in this and other countries? What did GLAAD ever do about that?

The point is that the words “nigger” and “fag” are both associated with the dehumanization of a group of people. Remember in high school English class, when you’d be reading a Toni Morrison book aloud and the word “nigger” would come up? Half of the class would refuse to even read the word, saying “n-word” instead. Why all of this for a word? It’s because people who aren’t racist respect blacks and recognize the hate they face(d), and don’t want to endorse ANY vestiges of that hate.

That magazines and people who claim to be pro-gay throw around the word “fag” reflects the fact that these people don’t realize how much hate we still face and don’t respect us enough not to use a slur. We don’t even have fucking equal marriage rights yet, and you want to support our supposed allies using a word that the people who hate us use when they commit violence against us!? You guys really are self-loathing. You’re basically saying “I’m fine with the way society treats gays, let’s leave it at this.” Maybe I’ll be more comfortable with you making light of discrimination when the discrimination ISN’T so visible. But I doubt it.

By the way, drop the argument that words don’t mean anything. Half of our humanity’s experiences would be meaningless if it were as simple as that. Ever hear of the linguistic relativity hypothesis?

Keep it coming fellas!

I guess this means I just don’t have a sense of humor, maybe they should get Bantu to give them a couple of his favorite expressions.

And for all of you who think this is just harmless humor, it will not be long, if it is not already, before little Johnny will be called a douchefag on the playground – yeah, kids are almost as mean and as stupid as the writers in Details

I had no idea “queen” was now a slur like “fag”. You teach me so much. And I’m not upset people found this offensive, just amused.

Contact Details and let them know that they don’t have the right to toss around the F-word.

Thank you the point that someone like you who calls gay people “queens” is going to be okay with other people using the word “fag.”

And for someone who accuses others of excessive emotion over this issue, it seems to really, really make you upset that other people find this offensive. Count your posts, kiddo– you’re the overwrought one.

But thanks for showing us all how sad and pathetic gay people are when they hate themselves. Always instructive.

The problem here isn’t the content (as if an open gay male wrote it, most of us would laugh/groan/roll eyes and move on.)

Details is a “bisexual” magazine. Details readers are, by large, not homophobic. And any (actual) straight male who reads Details probably will look at the list and say “hey, my gay friend doesn’t do any of these douchefaggy things… he must be pretty cool.” cuz let’s face it – who really get’s their anus bleached? really.

So the question is: “should bisexuals tell gay jokes?”

And the overwhelming response here is “no”. I admit, I sometimes roll my eyes when i hear a bisexual guy tell his “coming out” story.

But I just don’t take it that seriously. Sorry. There are so many other issues around us bigger than some metro magazine trying to collect the readers together by saying “hey, let’s laugh at THOSE people… over THERE… and let’s call them ‘fags’ because South Park made it okay now…”

Have we really gotten this politically correct that we’re taking this on instead of so many other things out there. Let them be ignorant. If it offends you, don’t buy their ridiculous “Style” publication which is about style only so much that it caters to people in flyover states who need a magazine to tell them what style is. Then, when they can’t afford what’s in the magazine, they go to their local mall and buy Abercrombie.

Excuse me now, so I don’t break a heel on my way down from the soapbox.

Defend that shit all you want. Most of us here know what we’re looking at. And we know what you dorks are, too.

Bryce’s Law: Anyone who tries to create an equivalent between a word in a magazine and (forthcoming) genocide in a foreign country is losing the argument.

I shouldn’t be surprised that Douchefag Central (aka Queerty and the rest of the Gay Leftist Blogreich) was offended. You sucked Obama’s cock throughout that whole miserable campaign and then turned on him when he failed to deliver the Change You Were Dumb Enough To Believe In. You accuse those who say the same things about Islam that are said regularly about Christianity of “racism,” even though the same criticisms of Christianity apply to Islam and then some. And a lot of you here seem to have no problem with a dictatorship (I saw Hitler’s economic policies defended here once someone admitted that the policies in question were socialist). You all had a mirror held up to you and when you saw the ugly, hateful, piece of shit staring you in the face you didn’t like it. No wonder we don’t have gay marriage; who’d want to be married to the likes of you?

The article is funny because it’s true. But I’m too niggardly to afford to subscribe to Details because they’d probably jew me out of more than what I’d expect to pay, and then if I objected, they’d stop sending it to me like a bunch of Indian Givers.

BTW, look at this and note the date (2005):
http://www.urbandictionary.com.....=Douchefag

And then read this:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/con.....ights.html

Don’t get mad. Get even. Stop being a douchefag and bash back!

@65 Hephaestion:

I have already excommunicated the breeders from decent society no matter what they say or do.

As pointed out numerous times, “douchefag” probably just hit a little too close to home for some guys which infuriated them. No one likes being called a douchebag and the “fag” part just incited their misguided fury even more.

@RYAN – On a side note, your evident intelligence is a huge turn-on. Good for you! Any chance you live in the Chicago area ;-)