August 15th, 2013 at 1:41 PM ^

Do all fan pejoratives imply fear or hatred (phobia?) I would never personally hold up such a sign. However, almost all fan pejoratives are negative.

  • "OSU sucks" doesn't mean that all Ohio football players literally do what is implied by the slur.
  • "OSU: cheaters" doesn't imply that all who play cheated or currently cheat.
  • "Staee" doesn't mean that all MSU students can't spell and are idiots.
  • "Fighting Irish" is a pejorative racial term, but not all ND players are of Irish origin, nor do those of Irish origin necessarily show hooligan behavior.
  • "Would you trust your little boy at PSU?" is over the top, but the actions of a rogue pedophile doesn't mean you can smear all coaches with the same brush.

While I don't personally choose to insult others, I get weary of a culture that is so hypersensitive that insensitive fans are ostracized because they express their fandom inappropriately.

The very nature of most fan slurs is that they attribute a group, team, school or individual with characteristics that are typically viewed negatively or pejoratively (in this case, those who are homosexual practice or tendencies.) Sometimes, the shoe fits. I have been accused of being a prude on this very website. Well, whether or not that is true, first I don't need to get my shorts in a wad about it. Second, since it is true that I'm not a fan of gratuitous use of NSFW photos and gifs at mgoblog, there's at least a grain of truth to the accusation.

Colin M

August 15th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

The issue is not that it's insulting the player. The issue is that it's perpetuating the belief that homosexuals are deviants who deserve to be mocked. It's used as a slur in this case. I'm guessing you wouldn't be ok with a sign that insinuated that being black or hispanic was deviant and worthy of mockery. Being an OSU alum is not the same as being a minority. I struggle to even take the comparison seriously.

As for the fact that 'fighting irish' is an ethnic slur, I think it's a bit of an exception for two reasons:

1) Irish Americans do not typically face pervasive descrimination the way that racial minorities and the LGBT community does. 

2) Likely because of #1, The Notre Dame and Irish Catholic communities have generally chosen to embrace the moniker, which is their choice. This is the main issue. The Washington Redskins have received a lot of criticism for using a racial slur as their nickname, primarily because several American Indian groups have criticized the team. 

I'm not sure why you would be more worried about the ostracization of the fan in the photograph than the young boys and girls all over the world who have to constantly hear their identity used as a ubiquitous synonym for deviance, stupidity and weakness. I'm not looking to ostracize anyone. I'm just pushing back against prejudice. Listen, I can see why some people think the joke is funny and it's definitely not even close to one of the more offensive things I've read on the internet, but the reality is that the reaction here has been to condone the mocking of a class of people. I think that's wrong. A lot of people don't. I'm not sure what to do except draw attention to it when I see it on the board.

814 East U

August 15th, 2013 at 3:02 PM ^

The Maryland kid was trying to be funny while looking like a jackass. Can we all agree and end it there? 

Or...we can try to "1 up" each other to see who has the better U of M degree. This is "Michigan Arrogance" at its finest. Just saying. The kid made a joke most college/high school kids use everyday. But yes, it can be viewed as insensitive. He should have wrote LY Dumb, Stupid because that is better...right Colin M?

These words and phrases have been desensitized over the years but the N word, gay, f*g, and others have deeper roots.

Is it football season I can yell at teenage kids for screwing up...errrr I mean...

Colin M

August 15th, 2013 at 12:40 PM ^

You may want to work on improving your reading comprehension skills. The sign was insulting JJ by calling him gay, which necessarily implies that the author views homosexuality negatively, AKA, has antipathy towards homosexuals/homosexuality. 

Semantics aside, you just admitted that the sign demonstrated prejudice against homosexuals, which I think we can all agree is bad. Actually, let'st bring semantics back for a sec. One definition of homophobia is:

"an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed 

beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."

Antipathy can be defined as, "A deep-seated feeling of dislike." Therefore, saying that someone is prejudiced against homosexuals is synonymous with saying they have an unreasoning antipathy towards homosexuals, which, as you have helpfully pointed out, is a dictionary definition of homophobia. 


August 15th, 2013 at 1:04 PM ^

Hit the back button or the X and move on. There is a whole internet full of actual homophobia that needs you. And you know what? The kid holding up the "ly gay" sign is fat and has wierd fat arms. There is your justice. I guess I have cacomorphobia. 

Colin M

August 15th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^

I don't think there's anything wrong with pushing back against homophobia, racism or other prejudice on a blog that purports to be a community with pretty well defined rules of behavior. I don't comment on most blogs because it's not worth it. I really like mgoblog and I want its board to be free of homophobia and racism. I could obviously go to some other website, but I don't want to.


August 15th, 2013 at 1:58 PM ^

Look - if we can't use the "I have ____ friends, therefore I'm not ____-ist" defense, then what do we have?  Sounds pretty bullet proof to me. 

"Where it says name, I'll put 'deceased,' and where it says sex, I'll put 'no thanks, I'm dead.'  It's bullet proof."


August 15th, 2013 at 4:34 PM ^

If I or any gay person actually thought that the Maryland fan, by holding up that sign, was trying to push a gay-hating agenda and smear the good name of all gay people, then I would probably be upset. Since I'm guessing that's not the case, I really don't give a shit and think it's funny. But thanks for the after-school-special-fake-moral-outrage on the subject. You've got a lot of ground to cover if you're going to be outraged every time someone uses the word "gay" on the Internet in a fairly innocuous way.


August 15th, 2013 at 1:13 PM ^

Just no. Stop. People nowadays and the endless over the top pc bullshit is killing our culture. The word "gay" has also become a pop culture term that doesn't exactly imply anything about sexuality. Just stop. You are the one making this about homophobia (NTTAWWT... wait... no...). Grow some thicker skin. 

Where's Herm?


August 15th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^

Had the Terps fan held up a sign that read "ly straight" then he would be guilty of displaying heteroerotophobia?

If it works one way, it has to work in the opposite direction. An African-American (I hope this method of identification doesn't offend you) can write lyrics that include the "n-word" but then chastize others who use the word because it is derogatory. If an African-American calls a caucasian a "cracker," it's not viewed in the same negative light? That's a logical fallacy. If a word is derogatory, it is derogatory in every context. Cracker, please.

It's sad how much political correctness has retarded society. Stop trying to fight battles on the internets that don't need fought. 


Colin M

August 15th, 2013 at 2:21 PM ^

Are you arguing that the "n-word" is no longer a racial slur because black people get to say it? If so, then why censor yourself by saying n-word? 

I'm interested in reading more about this logic that says that the meaning of words isn't influenced by the context in which they're used. Let's try a little example

Q: "Why can't Walter bowl on Saturday."

A: "He's a Jew so he doesn't roll on shabbos."


Q: "Is it me, or is Walter really cheap?"

 A: "I know! He's such a Jew!" 


Now that I know that context is irrelevant, I'm a little unsure if both of these or neither are antisemitic. 


August 15th, 2013 at 2:30 PM ^

That wasn't my argument at all. But your argument is that context does matter.. which conveniently was my argument. The terps fan holding up a sign referring to a rival team's player as gay is done in a different context than someone being prejudiced towards a certain group of people. So the meaning behind the word is different, amirite??


August 15th, 2013 at 2:43 PM ^

You mean, "I already admitted in an earlier post that homophobia is not sexual prejudice."

The sign is funny. And you are annoying.

EDIT: Please don't go into a rant about me being blargophobic.


August 15th, 2013 at 4:06 PM ^

Living in Ohio guy - I think the sign is funny, but you're wrong here in a lot of ways. Groups who use their own words for each other is not racist, nor is it homophobic for a gay person to use the words gay or queer toward another gay person. Whether you agree or not, this is accepted. You saying it (assuming you aren't a part of that group) is not the same thing.

And how is the fan holding up the sign not being prejudice? He's overtly implying that being gay is inferior to being straight. I'm assuming he didn't suggest Reddick being ridiculously gay is a good (or neutral) thing.

I'm not saying this sort of this is "good" or should be encouraged. That said, I don't think it's worth getting upset over either. There is middle ground, and this is pretty light hearted.


August 15th, 2013 at 2:44 PM ^

"The sign was insulting JJ by calling him gay, which necessarily implies that the author views homosexuality negatively, AKA, has antipathy towards homosexuals/homosexuality."

Holy question begging.  

The primary flaw in your argument is the assumption that because one is using a the term "gay" perjoratively, the thrust of the insult is being directed at gay people themselves.  This position ignores the longstanding colloquial use of the word to mean something negative, much the same way that the word "retarded" has been frequently used by young people to refer to something they find annoying or stupid.  Now, you could certainly argue that these uses are distasteful, immature, or rude because of their negative associations, but to suggest that the user must necessarily have a deep-seated feeling of dislike towards the groups that are the source of the insult is ignorant of reality, and quite frankly, a bit moronic.  

This sign may be in poor taste, but it's not even close to homophobic.

Colin M

August 15th, 2013 at 2:52 PM ^

It's not a fallacy. It's not necessary to presume the author's views on homosexuality. I was a bit sloppy in my phrasing because I didn't anticipate somebody being simultaneously pedantic and purposefully obtuse. Allow me to clarify below.

IF we accept that the point of calling JJ gay is to insult or mock him, everything pretty much follows from there. In order to insult someone by calling them 'X' you have to either believe that X is bad or know that X is viewed negatively by a large set of people. By using the term X as a joking slur, you are reinforcing and validating the view that X is bad, regardless of your personal beliefs.