Patrick Reed's Homophobic Outburst

[rb72]

Tell that to Paula Dean!!!!

And I reiterate; In this country, when it comes to that word (when used by non-blacks) context is IRRELEVENT! I think I'm in a better position to know than you. I live here.

[rb72]

And I reiterate; In this country, when it comes to that word (when used by non-blacks) context is IRRELEVENT! I think I'm in a better position to know than you. I live here.

More; any media personality, celebrity, politician...etc. will refer to the word as "the N word' and will never actually use the word in any context.

[iacas]

Heterosexuals don't get to decide what offends the gay community. That's not political correctness. That's arrogance and ignorance of the worst type.

Isn't it also true then that heterosexuals don't get to decide what doesn't offend the gay community?

If context matters, what percentage of people watching were gay, and of those, how many were offended? And what percentage of those watching were heterosexual men being offended "on behalf of" homosexual men?

I'm guessing the latter is larger than the former.

So let's keep our place in this. Calling Reed out for being an insensitive jerk is fine. Good. We've done that. Nobody here is saying that what he did was fine.

But let's not lose our place either. He didn't direct this AT someone (himself). He didn't say it in a post-round speech he KNEW was being recorded.

Does it hint at some underlying issues in his personality? Probably. But let's stop short of putting ourselves on pedestals, all, by implying or even saying that every thought or action we have had ourselves in the past 10 years is pure. At some point, it becomes unrealistic, and it amounts to piling on.

I'm glad this thread started. I'm tired of people using words insensitively. I started the thread for similar reasons. But those reasons are, largely, educational. Educate people on why some things are wrong. Condemn those - without going too far - those who stray, and use them as a teaching example.

But, let's be careful about  being offended on behalf of others.

---

I'm going out on a bit of a limb here and hoping that people will take this as it was intended. I didn't want to waste my time or yours adding a thousand qualifiers. I believe I've demonstrated a good record for being supportive of various groups of people (stupid and/or lazy people excluded ) as being treated like human beings, and pretty much "the same" as everyone else, and again, hope that everyone takes this as intended: Patrick Reed was still an insensitive jerk, his comments were NOT okay, but let's not lose our place in the discussion here either: he didn't say it TO someone, etc.

Edit: revised from first version to more accurately reflect my thoughts.

[boogielicious]

Reed will have to learn to temper himself and stick to the approved F-bomb or he will eventually flame out and lose sponsors.  I think people see him as more of a knucklehead at the moment and not someone trying to offend on purpose.

[bplewis24]

I have to say that I am quite shocked to read the comments about Reed's outburst in Shanghai.

...

It's not about swearing. It's about acceptance, bigotry and homophobia.

If the gay community isn't OK with it, nor should you be.

I'm about as progressive as they come, and I have a much bigger deal with Broussard and Watson's comments last year than I do with Patrick Reed.

Now, maybe Mr. Reed is a full on homophobe, but the reality is that there are a lot of people out there that use that word and in no way use it as a homophobic slur.  I used to use it all the time growing up, and never once thought of a gay person when saying it.  I haven't said it in a while...maybe years, mostly because I feel uncomfortable now knowing that a group of people might presume I'm disparaging them.  This is as much an issue of culture as it is profanity and homophobia.  This also reminds me of the South Park episode about the word, which was hilarious.

I looked at a few articles and it seems like his apology was sincere, but maybe elsewhere he has gone on rants about how gays need to die or repent for their sins, blah blah blah?  I wouldn't know, so for now I give him the benefit of the doubt.  Although I did find it hilarious that he consulted the wisdom of Bubba Watson in dealing with the issue.  If anything serves as an indictment of him, it would be that.

In the grand scheme of things, I believe there are bigger fights to fight.  Making a huge deal about a guy using an insensitive, perceived slur against himself, and not allowing him to make it right, only serves to embolden the fundamentalist dominionists that forever crow about a war on religion and their freedom of speech being trampled on, as if they know what any of that actually would entail.  I'd rather let him apologize, deal with the natural questions that internal turmoil that come his way, and instead focus on the much more focused and direct threat in the form of groups attempting to deny marriage equality and the like.

[loki16]

Some fair points but you lost me at "the gay community". Some won't give a shit, some will be outraged. The community does not have one voice. And you certainly are not their voice. Calm down.

[Shorty]

Some fair points but you lost me at "the gay community". Some won't give a shit, some will be outraged. The community does not have one voice. And you certainly are not their voice. Calm down.

Perhaps it is you that needs to "calm down". You're the one shouting.

I don't think anyone in the "gay community" likes to have derisive comments directed at their "lifestyle choice". (Which isn't a  choice BTW.)

In the same way that I don't think there are any parents of cerebal palsy kids who are fine with the term "Dumb effing spastic".

[Shorty]

I'm about as progressive as they come, and I have a much bigger deal with Broussard and Watson's comments last year than I do with Patrick Reed.

Couldn't agree more.

Watson essentially believes that being Christian means you have to be homophobic.

[No Mulligans]

Couldn't agree more.

Watson essentially believes that being Christian means you have to be homophobic.

Yes, Reed's comment was probably an unintentional gaffe that he probably regrets and is insignificant compared to that.

[inthehole]

I don't think anyone in the "gay community" likes to have derisive comments directed at their "lifestyle choice". (Which isn't a  choice BTW.)

LOL Shorty ... always have to throw in a philosophical agenda / stick poke.    I don't really have an opinion, but seems you're trying to get a rise out of people that might not agree with you on volatile social issues (I'm sure you can provide scientific backing for your position, so don't get yer panties in a wad).

I'm of the Seinfeld way of thinking ... not that there's anything wrong with that

[ghalfaire]

I certainly don't believe it proper to use pejorative and hurtful terms and language directed at any specific group or individual.  Having said that I also know we are all human and when angry might say something we regret.  It is a human failing to sometimes set the mouth in motion prior to engaging the brain and we all have done it.  So I am a little hesitant to impugn someone's character based on one angry outburst.  Whether or not Reed's outburst should label him a homophobic, although the term he used is, just doesn't seem warranted without some consideration of his history.

[Gunther]

Found this study to be interesting. Always had heard that LGB's comprised around 10% of folks. Not even close. They are, however, the most powerful 2% bloc in the US today. No opinion on Reed's outburst but this is relevant and enlightening so thought I'd post it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

[dbuck]

I hate political correctness, but I am a big fan of good manners.

[Ernest Jones]

I hate political correctness, but I am a big fan of good manners.

Bingo!

[boogielicious]

Found this study to be interesting. Always had heard that LGB's comprised around 10% of folks. Not even close. They are, however, the most powerful 2% bloc in the US today.

No opinion on Reed's outburst but this is relevant and enlightening so thought I'd post it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Nah.  I call your 2% and raise you THE 1% $$$$$$.  They are the most powerful block!

[rebelrob]

But, let's be careful about  being offended on behalf of others.

This. I believe something is offensive when A, it is deliberately said to offend, and B, when the person it was directed at takes offence.

There's a whole other conversation to which can be had to decide if it is ok to say certain words though...

[dchoye]

This is good discussion. If Reed was bi or gay and said the same thing , Im sure the comments would be more acceptable.

More gays are calling each other 'faggots' now a days just I heard  black folks are calling each other 'nigas' , its more how one says it and the tone and manner it's said that people take offense too.

Dont get me wrong,  saying 'faggot' can be hateful and disrespectful too, But it's not all black or white to me.

[bplewis24]

They are, however, the most powerful 2% bloc in the US today.

That's kind of a meaningless statement.  Are they the "most powerful" because of marriage equality trends across the country?  Or because of growing media trends covering more LGBT issues?  What real power does that 'bloc' have?  Keep in mind that basic civil rights aren't (or at least shouldn't be, in a democratic republic) a manifestation of power.