Roy Hibberts post game interview...No Homo

[shogun]

Michael Scott is the "that's what she said" master .

 

[semf]

Why is "No homo" offensive? I wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if they start saying "No hetero", gay people just as sensitive as liberals and blacks.

by using the term "no homo" in a conversation, the speaker is trying to proof a point like:

"I'm saying INSERT_STATEMENT_HERE, but I don't want you to think that I'm homosexual."

So i think the OFFENSIVE part of saying "no homo" is that the speaker is implying that don't associate me (the speaker) with homosexuality because I (the speaker) thinks it has a NEGATIVE connotation (ie, there is something wrong with homosexuality and that calling someone a homosexual is an insult).

And the person WHO WOULD TAKE OFFENSE to the term "no homo" would be people who do not believe homosexuality is wrong and is an acceptable lifestyle.

It would like if you called someone white or black or purple or whatever as an insult, as if you'd never want to be white or black or purple or whatever.

 

[semf]

sorry, double post . . .

 

[stork]

its w/e, he was already ready to get fined when he went on that tirade.

 

[shoelyesses]

by using the term "no homo" in a conversation, the speaker is trying to proof a point like:

"I'm saying INSERT_STATEMENT_HERE, but I don't want you to think that I'm homosexual."

So i think the OFFENSIVE part of saying "no homo" is that the speaker is implying that don't associate me (the speaker) with homosexuality because I (the speaker) thinks it has a NEGATIVE connotation (ie, there is something wrong with homosexuality and that calling someone a homosexual is an insult).

And the person WHO WOULD TAKE OFFENSE to the term "no homo" would be people who do not believe homosexuality is wrong and is an acceptable lifestyle.

It would like if you called someone white or black or purple or whatever as an insult, as if you'd never want to be white or black or purple or whatever.

but the interpretation is based on ASSumption, and not fact. If i say i am not this that or the other....i could be stating just that...that is not who i am. It is the person on the other end who feels that they are beneath said term, and interpret it as such.

Example my girls are mixed...many of times ppl ASSume or ask hey are you latina, (younger days white etc...) by them saying im no hispanic im black and korean...the no hispanic part isnt my daughters saying oh im better then hispanic ppl and i dont want to be associated with them. It is simply them saying im not hispanic im black and korean mixed. Now if an hispanic takes it to heart and feel as if they are implying they are better then them, thats their fault...based on their own ASSumptions.

 

[semf]

Example my girls are mixed...many of times ppl ASSume or ask hey are you latina, (younger days white etc...) by them saying im no hispanic im black and korean...the no hispanic part isnt my daughters saying oh im better then hispanic ppl and i dont want to be associated with them. It is simply them saying im not hispanic im black and korean mixed. Now if an hispanic takes it to heart and feel as if they are implying they are better then them, thats their fault...based on their own ASSumptions.

Point taken. Yes, you're right, it's based on an ASSumption . So if someone were to ask me if I'm black or hispanic or korean or jew or chinese, there's a 50/50 shot it's an innocent question or the term is being used negatively.

BUT sadly, the term "homo" in this day and age is considered a slur or term of disparagement. So It's a more than 50/50 chance the term is being used in the negative. It doesn't matter what connotation or context or tone you use with that word (and many words like it), it's still a [COLOR=#red]pejorative[/COLOR], just like it's unacceptable to use the N-word.

I'm in the camp where if the term "homo" is used around me, I ASSume it has a negative connotation because I don't like the term or anyone who uses it to refer to other people.