Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (4207)	2/14/2003 6:29:32 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Nope. It was a slur on peaceniks...... Nope. The issue was not the slur on peaceniks, it was the slur on gays. Had the peaceniks been labeled "wimps" or "weaklings" or "sissies" or some such, which was the implication, that would have been another matter, IMO. But calling the peaceniks "queers," when something connoting cowardice was intended slurs gays with the old prejudice that gays are sissies. I don't have a problem with suggesting that at least some peaceniks are operating out of cowardice. It's tossing gays into the equation that's the problem. There's no reason to gratuitously insult gays when your complaint is about peaceniks. When people toss around labels like "queer" without making a distinction between a queer and a wimp, there's prejudice at work. Not necessarily raging homophobia, but something not very nice.