Patrick Reed's Homophobic Outburst

[Golfingdad]

Huh?

He had a homophobic outburst.

I agree it's no big deal, but how is it wrong to write about it?

You aren't seriously trying to dispute that it was homophobic, are you?

I mean it's no great breaking news to me that a porfessional athlete is a homophobe, I think it's pretty common. That's just the workd we live in. But I don't see anything wrong with anyone pointing it out or suggesting people should think about these things.

You can save the exasperation. @No Mulligans (and several others) are right ... it's not homophobic without intent.  Muttering "faggot" to yourself does not equal "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals."  To think it would is ridiculous.

It wasn't right.  It wasn't the best choice of words by any stretch.  He admitted it.  He apologized.  Maybe he'll get fined too.  I'm OK with that, because it was not a good thing to do.  But in the grand scheme of things, it's really not that big of a deal, and it certainly doesn't make him a homophobe.

[Phil McGleno]

@Shorty , are you gay? How would you punish Patrick Reed? -The questions are unrelated.-Obviously someone does not need to b gay to find it offensive.

[No Mulligans]

Huh?

He had a homophobic outburst.

I agree it's no big deal, but how is it wrong to write about it?

You aren't seriously trying to dispute that it was homophobic, are you?

I mean it's no great breaking news to me that a porfessional athlete is a homophobe, I think it's pretty common. That's just the workd we live in. But I don't see anything wrong with anyone pointing it out or suggesting people should think about these things.

I disagree and agree.

I don't agree that what Patrick Reed said makes him a homophobic.

I agree that there isn't anything wrong with some one pointing out the statement or suggesting people should think about these things.  I actually think it is good.  I've said things when I was a kid in the sixties that I would never say as an adult in 2014.  I now have a much better understanding of what is hurtful and inappropriate.

[skydog]

Reed is an immature kid with a lot to still learn on how to conduct himself, but in no ways should this be much of a story other than another footnote of evidence to that fact.

Speculating as to if someone may or may not be a "homophobe" (or whatever media crazed buzz word you want to throw out) based on what was said to one's self in a moment of anger is as useless as getting upset or offended by something this trivial. The whole world needs to grow some thicker skin. Unless someone is infringing on another's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I don't really care what someone personally believes or what biases they have.

[acerimusdux]

You can save the exasperation.  @No Mulligans (and several others) are right ... it's not homophobic without intent.  Muttering "faggot" to yourself does not equal "intense hatred or fear of homosexuals."  To think it would is ridiculous.

It doesn't have to be "intense" to be homophobic. A mild bias is still a bias.

And most people have such biases.  I just don't think it's good to deny them. Better to be aware of them, and if some are irrational and based on bad habits or cultural influneces, the way we grew up, etc., being aware is one step to countering them.

A lot of people would like to think they are free of such biases, but would be surprised at their own scores for example, on implicit association test, which tests our immediate, kne-jerk, subcouncious attitudes:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

I don't do that well on the test on sexual orientation myself, but at least I'm aware of my own bias, so I can make some effort to change.  Like I said, I don't think this is a big deal mainly because I think Reed is pretty typical, but I can't see blaming anyone else for pointing it out or complaining about it. It may be common, but it's still not right.

[Golfingdad]

It doesn't have to be "intense" to be homophobic. A mild bias is still a bias.

And most people have such biases.  I just don't think it's good to deny them. Better to be aware of them, and if some are irrational and based on bad habits or cultural influneces, the way we grew up, etc., being aware is one step to countering them.

A lot of people would like to think they are free of such biases, but would be surprised at their own scores for example, on implicit association test, which tests our immediate, kne-jerk, subcouncious attitudes:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

I don't do that well on the test on sexual orientation myself, but at least I'm aware of my own bias, so I can make some effort to change.  Like I said, I don't think this is a big deal mainly because I think Reed is pretty typical, but I can't see blaiming anyone else for pointing it out or complaining about it. It may be common, but it's still not right.

I got 'intense' directly from the dictionary.  But whatever, it doesn't matter.  I agree that there can be "levels" of bias.  What I STRONGLY disagree with though, is that you can decide on somebodys bias based on one muttering of one word to himself.

You don't know him.  And other than him being a golfer, and his "top 5" comment, you likely know very little about him.  Am I right about that?  So how can you possibly conclude that he's biased against gay people because of one slip of the tongue?  That is absurd.

Could he be homophobic?  Absolutely.  But this isn't enough evidence for me, you, or anybody.

[9424tm]

Figure of speech, obviously...  I believe @Golfingdad 's point was about recent history. Yes, it was widely accepted and used in everyday language, wasn't even considered a slur in fact, but that was quite some time ago. It has been considered taboo since before I was born. I don't think anyone is saying that, certainly not Golfingdad.    Look, I get your outrage. I hate homophobes, racists and anyone else who doesn't respect human beings for who they are (hell, I've been put in the Penalty Box for calling them out), but you're really choosing the wrong guy to take issue with. I think perhaps you haven't read many of Golfingdad's posts.

I want to be clear. I am not calling anyone out or saying anyone is a homophobe or racist. I have read thousands of posts on this site over the years and am fairly familiar with a lot of you. I apologize if I have come across outraged. I am not. I am simply engaging in debate and conversation and offering up a different perspective.

[Golfingdad]

I apologize if I have come across outraged.

Not even remotely necessary.

I am simply engaging in debate and conversation and offering up a different perspective.

As am I.

I probably come across as a little (a lot) more passionate about all of these debatable topics than I ever really am.  I just find it fun and a little challenging to try and debate some of these topics.

I will admit to occasionally allowing @David in FL and @newtogolf push my buttons though.  I think they know me too well ... the turds.

[9424tm]

There would be no reason given the circumstances for Reed to use the "n" word so let's not just insert the PC word of the day and make this a bigger issue than it is. Secondly, the term he used, while offensive, was / is associated with effeminate males and he was directing the comment at himself, no one else.  Would you feel better if he used wimp, homo, mary, nancy, woman or lil girl instead?   Are we going to label any term associated with weak or effeminate men as being offensive? What's next, ban the use of "stupid", "dumb" or "idiot" because low IQ people are offended?  How about "geek" and "nerd", should those terms be banned too because the high IQ people consider them offensive? We're on a slippery slope here with no end in sight, at some point context has to come into play or we'll end up banning half the words in the dictionary.

First, there was no context to use the word faggot either. Second, it's not a term to describe an effeminate male. It's a slur term for a homosexual. Third, should our culture examine using "little lady", "Nancy" or other female based terms as an insult? I don't know. I have a daughter that I want to be strong and confident when she grows up. But if I tell her one thing and turn around and use these terms as an insult, what message does that send her? Fourth, just because something had been accepted does not make it ok. And , it's usually only accepted by those that are using the term. Look guys, I am NOT the PC police. I have worked in a Teamster warehouse for over 18 years. I don't get offended. I just like offering up food for thought.

[newtogolf]

Not even remotely necessary.

As am I.

I probably come across as a little (a lot) more passionate about all of these debatable topics than I ever really am.  I just find it fun and a little challenging to try and debate some of these topics.

I will admit to occasionally allowing @David in FL and @newtogolf push my buttons though.  I think they know me too well ... the turds.

Your buttons have a big "PUSH ME" on them, so it's not tough

[acerimusdux]

You don't know him.  And other than him being a golfer, and his "top 5" comment, you likely know very little about him.  Am I right about that?  So how can you possibly conclude that he's biased against gay people because of one slip of the tongue?  That is absurd.

Could he be homophobic?  Absolutely.  But this isn't enough evidence for me, you, or anybody.

I'm not interested in judging Reed.  But No Mulligans was the one who said you can't even call the word homophobic without implying Reed is a homophobe.  And to me there's no denying that what he said was homophobic. You could argue No Mulligans is correct though, in the sense that if you catch someone stealing, would it be wrong to call him a thief?

We don't know much about Reed, but we do now his language in this instance was homophobic.

Ultimately, this isn't really about Reed. It's about a culture. And that culture probably exists in good part because certain laguage is commonly used and considered acceptable. For the most part, I think the people criticizing that language don't really care so much about Reed, what they are trying to do is change that culture.

I really don't understand the argument that we shouldn't even crititcize the language, because that would be judging the individual. It seems to me a convoluted way of defending that language and culture.

[newtogolf]

First, there was no context to use the word faggot either.

Second, it's not a term to describe an effeminate male. It's a slur term for a homosexual.

Third, should our culture examine using "little lady", "Nancy" or other female based terms as an insult? I don't know. I have a daughter that I want to be strong and confident when she grows up. But if I tell her one thing and turn around and use these terms as an insult, what message does that send her?

Fourth, just because something had been accepted does not make it ok. And , it's usually only accepted by those that are using the term.

Look guys, I am NOT the PC police. I have worked in a Teamster warehouse for over 18 years. I don't get offended. I just like offering up food for thought.

I have a daughter as well, I've taught her to define herself by actions not words.   If Reed directed what he said to a gallery member or another golfer I'd be right there with you but he said it too himself which imo makes it's a non-issue regarding him being homophobic.

It's great to have different perspectives and I love a good debates so it's all good.  The point of the post you quoted was to demonstrate that we use words regularly that are not intended to offend someone but could be deemed offensive.  Eventually every group will want their turn at the PC podium and we'll find it becomes almost impossible to express ourselves without the risk of offending someone or some group.

[acerimusdux]

Sounds like child abuse to me. Just ask A. Peterson.

Don't worry, I've already contacted a relative in the FBI.

[Golfingdad]

Your buttons have a big "PUSH ME" on them, so it's not tough

You could argue No Mulligans is correct though, in the sense that if you catch someone stealing, would it be wrong to call him a thief?

Not an equivalent.  The equivalent would be if you heard somebody saying they would steal, or that they like stealing ... would it then be right to call them a thief?

Ultimately, this isn't really about Reed. It's about a culture. And that culture probably exists in good part because certain laguage is commonly used and considered acceptable. For the most part, I think the people criticizing that language don't really care so much about Reed, what they are trying to do is change that culture.

I really don't understand the argument that we shouldn't even crititcize the language, because that would be judging the individual. It seems to me a convoluted way of defending that language and culture.

I don't think you're going to find many people who disagree with this.  It's a word that should be (and I think is) on its way out as something considered acceptable.  It's less and less commonly used as time passes (and should be) and hopefully will be all but wiped out when my kids are old enough to start cursing.

Nobody is defending the language or culture, and for that matter, we're not defending Reed ... I'm just saying that a "shame on you" and a small slap on the wrist (especially considering he immediately apologized) is more than enough.  It's over and done with.  He can't un-say it.

[9424tm]

Saying something to yourself is a better judge of your own character than what you say to others. I'm not saying Reed is homophobic I just think accepting that he "said it to himself" so it's ok does nothing but perpetuate the acceptance. It's almost more dangerous for one to say it in private and bury it in their sub conscious. You are telling yourself, "No, it's ok. I don't really believe that to be true about (insert race or orientation)". But what you have done is use the slur as an association for a negative action. Anyways, I think these discussions do nothing but positive things for these types of topics. They bring to light different views and understandings. Nice job fellas! :)

[Ernest Jones]

Saying something to yourself is a better judge of your own character than what you say to others. I'm not saying Reed is homophobic I just think accepting that he "said it to himself" so it's ok does nothing but perpetuate the acceptance. It's almost more dangerous for one to say it in private and bury it in their sub conscious. You are telling yourself, "No, it's ok. I don't really believe that to be true about (insert race or orientation)". But what you have done is use the slur as an association for a negative action.

Anyways, I think these discussions do nothing but positive things for these types of topics. They bring to light different views and understandings. Nice job fellas! :)

I hear what you're saying about what we're willing to say in public vs in private, but in this case I still think the intent is just not there. I would agree if Reed was overheard saying, "**** I hate faggots," or something like that but that wasn't the case. He called himself a faggot for putting like a pu$$y. Would it have been less offensive to have said "pu$$y"? Maybe, but that would have been pretty offensive to some people as well and he would be accused of misogyny. What if we use "wussy" instead of "pu$$y"? It's only one letter we've changed but now we are getting into the "safe zone" so to speak. "Bozo" would have been even more innocuous, right? But here's the thing, the intent in all those scenarios has remained absolutely the same, therefor I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

That's not to say that terms like faggot, nigger, and retard shouldn't be handled with care as they can be incredibly hurtful but that's not really my point at the moment.

[acerimusdux]

Yeah, I think No Mulligans agrees with this as well, from his follow up comment, so maybe we all pretty much agree.  It's just the way he phrased that one sentence seemed to me like criticism of even raising the issue of homophobia.

I do think though that the internet mob mentality, where you see people are going after people's livlihoods, etc., over one stupid comment somewhere, does get out of hand.  I think it's much better to recognize that this level of bias is fairly common, if wrong, so let people apologize, and try to do better, and leave it at that. I wouldn't even want to see Reed lose an endorsement deal over this. If people feel like they are going to be treated as evil if they admit even a little bias, then you just get a lot of denial, and avoidance, and probably not much progress anyway.

Actually, I thought the only thing really unusual thing in this case was that he did use this word to insult himself. I thought that was pretty funny actually, and I've been imagining seeing an Onion story along the lines of "Patrick Reed Apologizes to Himself for Insulting Outburst".  I think there's some great comedy potential there.

[Shorty]

Actually, I thought the only thing really unusual thing in this case was that he did use this word to insult himself. I thought that was pretty funny actually, and I've been imagining seeing an Onion story along the lines of "Patrick Reed Apologizes to Himself for Insulting Outburst".  I think there's some great comedy potential there.

Which brings me back to the my original point. Lots of people seem not to care about the issue

If I called myself a "fat faggot nigger" with or without a huge audience, that would be funny, would it?

The point is that the words are designed as a slur. A put down. "Hate" language, if you like. It's nothing to do with who it was directed at.

I note that those who seem to thinks it's a bit of a non - issue are those who are not the targets.

And for the record, the title of the thread isn't mine. I called it an outburst, not a homophobic outburst.