The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: jmyrlefuller on March 25, 2014, 11:17:43 am
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/media-matters-inexplicably-attacks-fox-news-for-using-the-term-homosexual/#ixzz2wyKtXUf6
by Brendan Bordelon
March 25, 2014
Media Matters, the website of choice for Fox News haters everywhere, attacked the cable news network on Monday for using the term “homosexual” in its programming — advancing the peculiar argument that the scientific term has a “pejorative connotation.”
The online “media watchdog” contends that calling gay people “homosexual” is “a practice that’s quickly falling out of favor with major news outlets due the term’s often pejorative connotation and frequent use by opponents of LGBT equality.” Fox News, they chide, “has yet to update its language when referring to gay and lesbian people.”
Buttressing their argument? A weekend piece in the Fashion and Style section of the New York Times entitled “The Decline and Fall of the ‘H’ Word.” In it, reporter Jeremy Peters likens the term to using “colored” to address black people and asserts that the word contains “the ring of disapproval and judgment.”
That was all Media Matters needed to pounce, accusing Fox News of not getting the memo clearly received by the New York Times and other “responsible” journalistic outlets. Specifically singled out were hosts Sarah Palin and Megyn Kelly, although the blog post provided no specific instances of when either of them used the term.
But Fox News anchor Shannon Bream — who Media Matters described as “a pro-discrimination champion” — was caught in the act of using the “H-word” as part of a tweet promoting on a news segment. That tweet, however, was over two years old.
Other specific instances of the term’s use on Fox News forced Media Matters to go all the way back to stories published in 2010. In fact, the only recent use of the word the group could find comes from a February 2014 segment of “The O’Reilly Factor,” when Bill O’Reilly described “a punk rock band with homosexual overtones.” Oh the humanity.
But an utter lack of evidence of the term’s recent use — or of any indication that the word is anything other than innocuous — didn’t stop Media Matters from accusing Fox News of using the term to “marginalize, pathologize, and and [sic] marginalize” homosexuals.
There, now we said it too. Your move, Media Matters.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
-
That's because the truth is hard to take for the left. "Homosexual" is an accurate word. "Gay" is not.
-
That's because the truth is hard to take for the left. "Homosexual" is an accurate word. "Gay" is not.
It's all about controlling the language.
"Homosexual" is a neutral term. Admittedly, it's not aesthetically pleasing (pretty), but it's largely accurate. (Although technically, it would be more accurate to use the term homeosexual; homeo- means "same" whereas homo- means "man." Alas, I don't think the dictionaries recognize that word.)
Words like "gay" and "lesbian," on the other hand, are a lot prettier, and thus they are far more useful when trying to curry favor with the general public than a dry, technical term like "homosexual."
-
goopo
Nicely laid out, Myrle.
-
Rush Limbaugh: (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/25/lakoff_rhymes_with_advises_democrats_to_make_homosexual_a_dirty_word)
Lakoff (Rhymes With) Advises Democrats to Make "Homosexual" a Dirty Word
March 25, 2014
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Remember the name George Lakoff (rhymes with)? Well, he's back. George Lakoff is a professor of "cognitive science and linguistics" at the University of California Berkeley. Here's what that means, for you low-information people. A professor of "cognitive science and linguistics" means that he sits around and thinks about words all day and how to use words in order to be the most persuasive to advance the liberal cause.
And then he sends the results of his thinking to leaders of the Democrat Party, who then take his data and poll test it and focus group it to see if he's right. Because it's all about a mirage with these people. It's all about image. Liberalism has to exist as far from reality as they can and still maintain credibility while trying to persuade people to join them.
Liberalism cannot be full-fledged honest and grow its ranks. So a guy like Lakoff, who specializes in words that fool people, is one of their gurus. Lakoff. The latest results of George Lakoff (rhymes with) research is that the word "homosexual" is a bad word. Gay people do not like "homosexual." It irritates them; they don't like the word when it is used.
He has looked at the way the term is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant, and he has concluded that people who disapprove of homosexuality will use the word "homosexual" instead of the word "gay," because he has determined that homosexuals don't like the word "homosexual." They think they're being criticized when that word is used, which goes to my point here.
"Gay" is a word stolen from the language.
"Homosexual" has a specific meaning, but we can't use it.
And it's exactly what a guy like Lakoff does.
Okay, take away a word that has a specific meaning. "Marriage." Oh, no! No, no! Marriage, a man and a woman? No, no, no. No, no. "Marriage," we gotta redefine that now. So Lakoff "has looked at the way the term [homosexual] is used by those who try to portray gays and lesbians as deviant. What is most telling about substituting it for gay or lesbian are the images that homosexual tends to activate in the brain, he said. 'Gay doesn't use the word sex,' he said."
Gay doesn't connote sex. When you start talking about gay men or gay women, you're not talking about the kind of sex they have. I mean, it's understood and known, but it doesn't connote it. "Lesbian doesn't use the word sex. Homosexual does." It's right in there: S-E-X, part of "homosexual." Homosexual "also contains 'homo,' which is an old derogatory,' he added," and he's right about that.
"Homo" used to be an insulting, derogatory word. So he said, "They want to have that idea there. They want to say this is not normal sex, this is not normal family, it's going against God," and they use "homosexual" to convey that. Lakoff says that those of you who describe homosexuals as "homosexuals" are actually saying they're not normal and their sex isn't normal, and their family isn't normal, and they're going against God.
So you have to use "gay," 'cause "gay" doesn't connote any of that. Now, here's what Lakoff means, I'm sure. If there were an obvious gay public official that were being discussed, say, on this program, and if I described this person as "a man who likes to have sex with other men," I would be ripped to no end. Right? If I said... Pick a name. It doesn't matter who it is, just a known figure who's gay.
Let's see... I don't know. It doesn't matter. If instead of my saying, "Such-such is gay," I said, "Oh, yeah, look at that TV anchor! He likes having sex with men," Lakoff's point is that when any notion of sex enters the thought process when think homosexuality, homosexuals lose. They can't have any thought created revolving around sex. So the word "gay" is used, and homosexuals are not...
So where this is gonna end up, what they're then gonna do is they're gonna go out and they're gonna look at Republican candidates. This is what this means. They're gonna look for a Republican, probably running for state senate someplace or state legislature, who calls gays "homosexuals," and they're a gonna harp on this guy as the next Todd Akin. This is what is being set up.
This is a New York Times story, by the way. "For Manys [sic] Gays and Lesbians, the Term 'Homosexual' is Flinch-Worthy," and it's just indicative here. Liberalism cannot survive if it's described. Liberalism, liberals are very, very uncomfortable when they are accurately described or behaviors or their politics or what have you. So they have to hire guys like Lakoff to come up with less damaging ways to say things.
END TRANSCRIPT
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/media-matters-inexplicably-attacks-fox-news-for-using-the-term-homosexual/#ixzz2wyKtXUf6
by Brendan Bordelon
March 25, 2014
Media Matters, the website of choice for Fox News haters everywhere, attacked the cable news network on Monday for using the term “homosexual” in its programming — advancing the peculiar argument that the scientific term has a “pejorative connotation.”
The online “media watchdog” contends that calling gay people “homosexual” is “a practice that’s quickly falling out of favor with major news outlets due the term’s often pejorative connotation and frequent use by opponents of LGBT equality.” Fox News, they chide, “has yet to update its language when referring to gay and lesbian people.”
Buttressing their argument? A weekend piece in the Fashion and Style section of the New York Times entitled “The Decline and Fall of the ‘H’ Word.” In it, reporter Jeremy Peters likens the term to using “colored” to address black people and asserts that the word contains “the ring of disapproval and judgment.”
That was all Media Matters needed to pounce, accusing Fox News of not getting the memo clearly received by the New York Times and other “responsible” journalistic outlets. Specifically singled out were hosts Sarah Palin and Megyn Kelly, although the blog post provided no specific instances of when either of them used the term.
But Fox News anchor Shannon Bream — who Media Matters described as “a pro-discrimination champion” — was caught in the act of using the “H-word” as part of a tweet promoting on a news segment. That tweet, however, was over two years old.
Other specific instances of the term’s use on Fox News forced Media Matters to go all the way back to stories published in 2010. In fact, the only recent use of the word the group could find comes from a February 2014 segment of “The O’Reilly Factor,” when Bill O’Reilly described “a punk rock band with homosexual overtones.” Oh the humanity.
But an utter lack of evidence of the term’s recent use — or of any indication that the word is anything other than innocuous — didn’t stop Media Matters from accusing Fox News of using the term to “marginalize, pathologize, and and [sic] marginalize” homosexuals.
There, now we said it too. Your move, Media Matters.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Just go with "Homo" or Faggot. No point in trying to be nice. They would bitch if you hanged them with a new rope. Screw 'em.
-
We should be able to say "queer," by Prof. Jagoff's logic.
-
Nowt so queer as folk.
I say that a lot. It's true, and it's a word with a specific meaning. Let them invent their own words, rather than hijacking perfectly nice ones. That shit offends me.
-
Will they attack Obama for using the same word when he said "homosexuality" is a natural right? Methinks not.
-
Gaysexuals?
-
Butt pirates?? Ass Commandos??
:smokin:
-
A particularly gifted one could be Deep Sex. :whistle:
-
That's because the truth is hard to take for the left. "Homosexual" is an accurate word. "Gay" is not.
That is exactly right.
Homosexual accurately describes who they are, and what they do.
Gay is a stolen word that has nothing to do with anything they are or do.
-
What are tey over there at MM, a bunch of queers??
:silly:
-
Fudge Packers and Carpet Munchers. ***cool cat***
-
Fudge Packers and Carpet Munchers. ***cool cat***
Now, now. Since when have we started picking low hanging fruits ..... :smokin:
-
Now, now. Since when have we started picking low hanging fruits ..... :smokin:
000hehehehe
-
Media Matters is owned by one of the biggest fanooks in America, the excrable David Brock. He's a real flamer (just google "David Brock images").
-
Paging Duck Dynasty.
Clarification required.