Fag-Gate... Respect my opinion, whats yours?

[Jah]

I'm from Jamaica, born and raised. Its a country where homos are

looked down upon heavily and they are regularly persecuted for

basically being gay in public. The ones who make it to jail before

they get damn near killed are the lucky ones. I can go on and on about

how they are treated, but you can do your own research and find

pictures and videos yourself if your that interested. It was weird

adjusting to America at first with how open the fruits are. For the

past few years I've gotten used to gays and lesbians being everywhere

and this countries acceptance of it, but as an avid MMA fan, the end

result of this has rekindled and reminded me of my roots and that I

just really... whats a nicer way of putting it... I just don't really

care for gays.

 

I still feel Dana did nothing wrong, the man spoke his mind. The

general public needs to get over it. I wasn't aware gay people take

offense to the word faggot when its not being directed towards them,

the word has several uses, do gay people consider themselves fags? If

not, stop being offended, shit. Less media coverage now, no more

backstage scenes and inside looks at whats going on leading up to an

event. A friend of mine's brother is gay, when I happen to be at his

house I may accidentally slip out the word "fag" every now and then

and he doesn't even flinch as I speak. I'm not calling him a fag, and

it wasn't directed towards gay people. Just calling my homeboy a fag

because he may have beaten me in Tekken or something, meant in the

context of bitch, fucker, asshole, etc.

 

I understand its not professional, but shit... freedom of speech,

especially since its nothing new coming from Dana. He calls stuff gay

all the time, and as soon as he calls an anonymous person a faggot and

a woman a bitch, everyone wants to jump all over him.

[WhisperingDeath]

The reason organizations like GLAAD are quick to jump on anyone who uses terms like "faggot" in a pejorative manner is because of just what you said, many people still hold the generalized opinion "I just don't really care for gays."

 

I hope you can understand why organizations like GLAAD may be a bit thin-skinned. Homosexuals are, after all, the only minority group in America which is still socially acceptable to say that you dislike, or even hate. As far as simple words go, hardly a day goes by that you don't hear "oh, that's gay!" or "Shut up faggot". If someone threw around terms like "wetback" or "n*****" with such frequency people would be aghast.

 

To say "do gay people consider themselves fags?" is not particularly great logic. I don't think calling an African-American man a "n*****" and then saying "why are you offended? Do you consider yourself a n*****?" would be a particularly effective means of defense. I think all could agree that would be wrong.

 

I know GLAAD asking for an apology looks a little petty, just like it looks petty when NAACP or the Anti-Defemation League take similar steps. But I don't think an apology is too much to ask for. It isn't like anyone is asking for Dana White to lose his job like Don Imus or anything. I think an apology is a sufficient request.

 

[Guest]

This is an interesting topic...

 

I think its hot when two good looking lesbians make out, but I also think its gross when two gay guys make out.. does that make me a hypocrite, a homophobe? I really have no problem with someone being gay, I dont feel like sexual orientation is something which should infringe on a person's human rights.. there's worse things out there than being gay. When you get into gay marriages and gay adoptions and stuff like that, things get a little messier, but luckily for me thats not the discussion haha. I just went and watched the clip where dana uses the word and i'm reminded of what happened to a friend's little brother a couple years ago.

 

This guy was about 19 years old, hanging out at the campus pub when he gets into an altercation with a random guy (I think he can cut in front of him in for the line to the bar). They start mouthing off to each other, and my buddy's little brother headbutts him, busts the guy's nose open and calls him a fag. A few weeks later and my friend's little bother is under house arrest for something like a year for a hate crime... turns out the guy he headbutted was gay. If you're reading this mattmac, it was JP's little brother.

 

Now was this a hate crime? He did call a gay guy a fag.. but did he call the guy a fag because he was trying derogate his sexual orientation? The kid was drunk and pissed off... and if nobody else has noticed, the word fag seems to have evolved in its definition. Think about how often you've called a straight person a fag... and of those instances, think about how many times you used it to insinuate something homosexual. I dont use the word all that frequently, but when I do use it, i use it as a negative comment, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would wager a lot of money that most people do the same... that 90% of the time the word fag or faggot is used, jokingly or otherwise, it is used REGARDLESS of sexual orientation. That fact in itself suggests that one definition of fag or faggot should be synonymous with 'dick' 'asshole' or 'jerk'. That's the context in which Dana White used it, thats the context in which it should be understood. For GLAAD to come out and say that we demand an apology for your use of anti-gay slurs, is a cry for attention and a sign of sheer ignorance. The gay community needs to get over the fact that when most people use the word faggot, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and therefore the argument that it has negatively affected them in some way is void.

 

This issue is retarded (who knows, this remark might draw some attention from the mentally challenged community)

[MMATycoon]

Generally disrespectful, distasteful and unpleasant. I think people focussing on the faggot aspect are completely missing the point. That's the buzz word that's been picked up by some people but it's the general actions that are the problem. If the word faggot had never left his mouth, the whole incident would still have been completely inappropriate for someone in his position.

 

As basically the face of MMA, he represents everyone involved in the MMA industry. Both people who work in MMA and the fans. If I tell someone what I do, there's a good chance they're going to be turned off by the idea of men fighting in a cage anyway. If the face of the sport is someone who calls a woman a dumb bitch and a fucking retard, or someone else a fucking faggott just for wanting to remain anonymous, that further degrades the sport of MMA in any respectable observer's eyes.

 

From my own point of view what I found to be possibly the worst part of it was him saying that the manager who wished to remain anonymous was a pussy/wuss/faggot/whatever. Not because of the choice of distasteful words but just the intimation behind it and the double standards. The manager would have no choice but to remain anonymous with any criticism, or Dana would more that likely make his life as difficult as possible. I don't particularly want to second guess him but I wouldn't be surprised if he was so angry because he wasn't able to find out who'd been slagging him off behind his back and he didn't like that lack of control. Nobody fucks with Dana White. That's basically his life motto. He loves conflict. He thrives off it. I think to be extremely successful like he is, you have to have that sort of personality or you just end up wussing out of big decisions. But for Dana to suggest that anyone would ever be better off "manning up" and calling him out like a man, is just beyond ridiculous.

 

He's saying "fucking say it to my face like a man" but then if you do, he'd squash you like a bug. If he admitted that he'd squash you like a bug then I would have no problem with it. But what he actually does is portray himself as the most reasonable and friendly guy in the world by showing everyone shaking his hand and smiling at him back stage for about 50% of every blog. He IS friendly but only if you treat him exactly how he wants to be treated. The person who DID step up and put their name on the criticism was Lorretta Hunt and look what happened there... MASSIVE alpha male display towards her to put her in her place, not to counter her points, just to show her that he's the boss. Maybe her article was full of shit, maybe it wasn't... I certainly didn't get any clarification on that from Dana's blog.

 

Anyway, the issue of criticising him publically is illustrated by me wondering whether I should even post my own thoughts. I haven't said anything that I believe to be unjustified in my post but I am effectively criticising Dana and as I say, for someone in the industry there is basically nothing to gain by doing that and potentially everything to lose. God knows why I'm doing it then... I guess I'm so new to the industry that I haven't figured out when it's time to just keep your mouth shut.

[Guest]

This is an interesting topic...

 

I think its hot when two good looking lesbians make out, but I also think its gross when two gay guys make out.. does that make me a hypocrite, a homophobe? I really have no problem with someone being gay, I dont feel like sexual orientation is something which should infringe on a person's human rights.. there's worse things out there than being gay. When you get into gay marriages and gay adoptions and stuff like that, things get a little messier, but luckily for me thats not the discussion haha. I just went and watched the clip where dana uses the word and i'm reminded of what happened to a friend's little brother a couple years ago.

 

This guy was about 19 years old, hanging out at the campus pub when he gets into an altercation with a random guy (I think he can cut in front of him in for the line to the bar). They start mouthing off to each other, and my buddy's little brother headbutts him, busts the guy's nose open and calls him a fag. A few weeks later and my friend's little bother is under house arrest for something like a year for a hate crime... turns out the guy he headbutted was gay. If you're reading this mattmac, it was JP's little brother.

 

Now was this a hate crime? He did call a gay guy a fag.. but did he call the guy a fag because he was trying derogate his sexual orientation? The kid was drunk and pissed off... and if nobody else has noticed, the word fag seems to have evolved in its definition. Think about how often you've called a straight person a fag... and of those instances, think about how many times you used it to insinuate something homosexual. I dont use the word all that frequently, but when I do use it, i use it as a negative comment, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would wager a lot of money that most people do the same... that 90% of the time the word fag or faggot is used, jokingly or otherwise, it is used REGARDLESS of sexual orientation. That fact in itself suggests that one definition of fag or faggot should be synonymous with 'dick' 'asshole' or 'jerk'. That's the context in which Dana White used it, thats the context in which it should be understood. For GLAAD to come out and say that we demand an apology for your use of anti-gay slurs, is a cry for attention and a sign of sheer ignorance. The gay community needs to get over the fact that when most people use the word faggot, it has nothing to do with homosexuality, and therefore the argument that it has negatively affected them in some way is void.

 

This issue is retarded (who knows, this remark might draw some attention from the mentally challenged community)

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

 

And yes I take offence to your retarded joke. I prefer it when people refer to my wife as slow.

 

 

[MMATycoon]

As a seperate point, I don't think anyone has to automatically respect someone else's opinion, although it's a given that you should respect someone's right to have an opinion.

 

As for freedom of speech, that's great but people are also accountable for what they say. If you're in a position of responsibilty that applies tenfold.

[Jah]

Fag Gate aside (it gets funnier if you say it out loud). I never really valued Loretta Hunt’s opinion too much on MMA. Only time I ever read her articles is when it involves any quotes from fighters themselves, in a sense, when she does the footwork to get some fresh MMA news or information. Other than that, I don’t really care for her work. Dana is right, the same goes for most journalists, they misconstrue the truth in an effort to create a juicy story. Lastly, the man can say whatever he wants, and he does so on a daily basis, this should be no different. It just happened to make the edit and put on youtube for the world to see. He also made an excellent point about managers and their role, they really don’t serve a purpose backstage when a fighter is prepping to go out. A bitch is a bitch.. and if it happens to be a woman, then so be it. I say good shit Dana. Too bad we will be without video blogs, press conferences (I'm guessing we'll only have post fight pressers from now on), and more. Such is life.

[MMATycoon]

http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/a-stateme...s-remarks-16853

 

Sherdog have just replied with what I believe to be a reasonable and well thought out response to the situation. It focusses on what I mention above as the main issue (rather than the faggot issue), i.e. the seemingly un-criticizable nature of the UFC.

[Guest]

Truthfully I can see myself arguing for both sides. But in this case I guess it is all three sides. And here the are with pros and cons:

 

1. Dana speaks his mind, and doesn't really mean anything buy it. Maybe this is the new generation of high profile managers, at least we know where they stand. -- He shouldn't have acted quite so childish, he could have easily explained the reasoning behind his decisions.

 

2. GLAAD, what more can I say, of course they will take this oportunity to express their plight. Who can blame them, this is the perfect opportunity to let people know that there is still prejudice against their community. -- Of course none of the caucasian community gets irate when they are referred to as white trash, trailer trash or crackers.

 

3. Sherdog, they have taken up the cause to speak up for the little guy and in so doing have alienated themselves from the big dog. -- You reap what you sow.

 

Although I don't completely agree with the way Dana handled the situation, I feel he was being the most honest. I think GLAAD was using this as an awareness tool and Sherdog is on a smear campaign.

[MMATycoon]

I don't see why it's a smear campaign just because it's somewhat critical. As I say, are the UFC un-criticizable? The point that the article brings up is that the UFC is PICKING AND CHOOSING which managers they let back stage. If that is indeed the case, the criteria by which they pick and choose warrants analysis. Are they trying to steer fighters away from certain managers? Is it the managers who make life the most difficult for the UFC by trying to get the best deals for their fighters that are barred? The ones who are less likely to bend towards the UFCs demands on stuff like the image rights? It's an ANALYSIS of the UFC's ultra controlling business practices and just cos it's critical, that doesn't mean it's a smear campaign.

 

Dana said "it's always been like that you dumb bitch". If it's always been a pick and choose policy from the UFC then that's always been a policy which warrants analytical journalism to try and understand why some managers are barred and some are not.

[Guest]

I don't see why it's a smear campaign just because it's somewhat critical. As I say, are the UFC un-criticizable? The point that the article brings up is that the UFC is PICKING AND CHOOSING which managers they let back stage. If that is indeed the case, the criteria by which they pick and choose warrants analysis. Are they trying to steer fighters away from certain managers? Is it the managers who make life the most difficult for the UFC by trying to get the best deals for their fighters that are barred? The ones who are less likely to bend towards the UFCs demands on stuff like the image rights? It's an ANALYSIS of the UFC's ultra controlling business practices and just cos it's critical, that doesn't mean it's a smear campaign.

 

Dana said "it's always been like that you dumb bitch". If it's always been a pick and choose policy from the UFC then that's always been a policy which warrants analytical journalism to try and understand why some managers are barred and some are not.

 

The ufc are criticize-able... even I do it on occasion. But there is a difference between good criticism and what Hunt put out. Hunt's article was based on anonymous sources, partial facts and anti-ufc view point. A good criticism is based on logic, facts, and is most valid with an unbiased approach. The fact that she left out key facts such as that all fighters are allowed to credential whoever they choose almost negates her entire argument. She tried to insinuate that the ufc brass is trying to put a 'wedge' between fighters and their representation to improve their position for conducting business directly with the fighters. Well if the fighters really wanted their managers and agents backstage prior to the fights, the only thing keeping them are the fighters they're representing. What the ufc has done is given these fighters a choice as to who is backstage with them. For Hunt to spin this to make it look like the ufc is just taking further steps to becoming all powerful, etc, etc is what pissed off dana white... I would've ripped into her too... but i probably wouldnt have cursed so much haha

 

[MMATycoon]

The ufc are criticize-able... even I do it on occasion. But there is a difference between good criticism and what Hunt put out. Hunt's article was based on anonymous sources, partial facts and anti-ufc view point. A good criticism is based on logic, facts, and is most valid with an unbiased approach. The fact that she left out key facts such as that all fighters are allowed to credential whoever they choose almost negates her entire argument. 1

 

She didn't leave that out at all. Here is the article. She mentions that very point several times. I think it's just too easy to say that Sherdog is "anti-UFC". In my opinion though this piece isn't bourne out of any sort of anti-UFC sentiment, it's just an analytical piece. And to discredit it because it has an anonymous source is just nonsense. As I said before, people have nothing to gain by putting their name to any comment.

 

She tried to insinuate that the ufc brass is trying to put a 'wedge' between fighters and their representation to improve their position for conducting business directly with the fighters.

I'm not sure I'd even consider that an insinuation rather than just a statement. The UFC has said as much themselves. They don't like agents and would rather fighters didn't even have them. The locker room bonuses they give are "for them and them only, not for their managers".

 

Well if the fighters really wanted their managers and agents backstage prior to the fights, the only thing keeping them are the fighters they're representing. What the ufc has done is given these fighters a choice as to who is backstage with them. For Hunt to spin this to make it look like the ufc is just taking further steps to becoming all powerful, etc, etc is what pissed off dana white... I would've ripped into her too... but i probably wouldnt have cursed so much haha

Again, the main point is completely missed off here. If I understand the initial article properly, the point is that the UFC allow some managers access and not others (i.e. some people are given access NOT as part of the 3 cornermen). There is no blanket policy from what I understand, rather they are just excerting their own control and discretion and as such, if you want to get certain priveledges (this time as a manager), you have to fall in line with exactly what the UFC wants you to do. If you don't you don't get the priveledges. That is what I personally find worthy of discussion and again that's the point that 99.999% of people are completely missing.

 

To make it perfectly clear - I don't think a fighter necessarily needs a manager back stage. I have no problem with that. The only issue is the lack of uniformity and complete organisational discretion that the UFC have. The UFC constantly tries to undermine agents, teams, fighters, journalists who ever criticise them. I thought that was just common knowledge? Again, to be very clear, I have no problem with that as a business practice - however I do find it baffling when fans try to deny that's what they do.

[Guest]

By the sounds of Dana's comments, the UFC isn't picking and choosing who can and cannot be backstage. They are enforcing a rule that is already in place so that the dressing rooms aren't filled with people that don't need to be there. It just so happens that it is affecting some of the managers.

 

 

[MMATycoon]

I'm sure that's what he says but what's the actual truth? There might be a rule in place but then they waive the rule for certain people. That's why we need people who are willing to question the company and look into stuff like this.

 

Dana says there's a rule in place. Sherdog says the rules doesn't apply for everyone. You personally seem to just want to believe what Dana says. I'm not sure why. He's a promoter who says exactly what is best to say for his promotion and that's exactly what he SHOULD do. However, a lot of the time he's economical with the truth, shall we say. Again, that's absolutely what he should do, but then fans should not believe every word he says either.

 

At the end of the day, it's not a massively important issue on its own. However, this episode brings into focus the issue of what happens when someone criticises the UFC in any way. Basically they get a cerb stomping.

[Guest]

it looks like the version of the article i read was abbreviated... I'll have to read the whole thing and reformulate my opinion

[Guest]

You personally seem to just want to believe what Dana says.

 

Thats not the case at all. I just find his BS easier to swallow than the BS that Sherdog shovels. If this report was written by MMAweekly or Yahoo sports I would have a completely different opinion.

[MMATycoon]

So which bit of it is BS?

[MMATycoon]

OK, here's an article which illustrates my original point;

 

As basically the face of MMA, he represents everyone involved in the MMA industry. Both people who work in MMA and the fans. If I tell someone what I do, there's a good chance they're going to be turned off by the idea of men fighting in a cage anyway. If the face of the sport is someone who calls a woman a dumb bitch and a fucking retard, or someone else a fucking faggott just for wanting to remain anonymous, that further degrades the sport of MMA in any respectable observer's eyes.

 

Then I've just read the following article. This is not some no-name MMA blog who has an agenda against the UFC, this is an outsider and it's exactly how most people will view the situation.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/columns/story/11587445

 

Dana White is garbage, his sport is garbage.

 

How White continues to behave like a foul-mouthed animal and still survive as the head of a sports league is one of the more astounding stories in all of sports....

 

...I've been saying for some time that White is an out of control, foul-mouthed bully of Promethean proportions and still he's not challenged for his behavior (mostly) by the media that covers him because they're either afraid of White or worried about losing the money he doles out to various sycophants in the press.

 

Obviously this sort of article will get MMA fans as a whole fuming but really that's not the point - this is the mainstream media and this is how the sport will get viewed by a lot of people so long as we have tirades like that video blog from the face of the sport.

 

Anyway, I think I'm pretty much done with the subject as I'm sure I could go on and on about it all day I'm just pretty disappointed that this is how the face of the sport acts and more importantly, as this guy's article says in the last line, "And you know what UFC fans will do? They'll applaud and keep watching." I personally find that point quite depressing.

[Guest]

it looks like the version of the article i read was abbreviated... I'll have to read the whole thing and reformulate my opinion

 

 

 

 

....

 

 

 

So the version which I read left out the bottom half of the article... which is strange because the article I read was on sherdog.

 

 

So

 

"Zuffa, the company that owns and operates both promotions, has notified select fighter representatives that they will no longer receive credentials from the promotion to sit with their clients backstage on fight night." Is the part that suggests that the ufc is being select in which managers they are allowing back stage or not. The argument that fighters could invite their managers backstage if they really want to is debatable because it seems that they aren't offered enough credentials to invite all their necessary corner men as well as a manager/agent.

 

My biggest problem with this article though is that no fighters are interviewed. Why is it that we care what the managers think? The managers are gonna be pissed off that they aren't allowed back stage.. I would think that's pretty obvious. The managers who are probably most vocal about the situation are the one's who are angry that they no longer get a cut from the undisclosed bonuses, and the one's who are paranoid that the ufc brass will be dealing with the fighters directly. These are the kinds of managers who should be cut out of the equation should they not? Fighters who have a good relationship with their manager will include their managers where they deserve to be included.

 

I'm kinda wondering what the ufc's actual policy on the issue is.. I'm thinking that there might be a blanket policy of no extra credentials for managers and agents but that the ufc is issuing their own credentials to managers and agents which have proven themselves to be worthy of a backstage presence. If a manager has shown that his only interest in being backstage with his fighter is to take a cut of the post fight bonus cheque then he's not gonna get an invite.. and these are the guys who should be nowhere near their fighter pre-fight.

 

I'm gonna talk myself into confusion here.. and I think its because I'm trying to analyze a situation and formulate an opinion based on too little information. We dont know which managers are being invited and which aren't, we dont know why, all we know is that the one's who aren't are pissed off.

[MMATycoon]

I'm gonna talk myself into confusion here.. and I think its because I'm trying to analyze a situation and formulate an opinion based on too little information. We dont know which managers are being invited and which aren't, we dont know why, all we know is that the one's who aren't are pissed off.

I think that's the best way to sum everything up. Nobody knows what the 100% truth and with that said, people shouldn't shoot down either side based on the facts behind the story itself.

 

I'm not sure what fighter you expect to get interviewed though. I doubt that anyone who said they thought it was unfair would be getting a discretionary bonus any time soon.

 

p.s. Damn, I really can't help myself with commenting on this bloody thread

[CZeR613]

digging up old shit here , but I don't think the word faggot is against gays at all , I regularly say , faggot , gay and tosser in anger or derrogatory manners but does that make me homophobic ? no

 

because I didn't say it in any way against gays , Like if a someone says wadddup nigga, there not being racist , so only narrow minded idiots would bring it up ...

 

if u called something retarded your not seen as commuting a hate crime against people with mental retardation are you?

 

same thing ...

 

however , I believe Dana is in the wrong because he is calling someone a faggot for not saying it too his face , what he needs to do is operate an open door policy to hear everyone's issues and deal with them in a way that makes sense and isn't counter constructive.

 

just my 2 pennies

[Guest]

digging up old shit here , but I don't think the word faggot is against gays at all , I regularly say , faggot , gay and tosser in anger or derrogatory manners but does that make me homophobic ? no

 

because I didn't say it in any way against gays , Like if a someone says wadddup nigga, there not being racist , so only narrow minded idiots would bring it up ...

 

if u called something retarded your not seen as commuting a hate crime against people with mental retardation are you?

 

same thing ...

 

however , I believe Dana is in the wrong because he is calling someone a faggot for not saying it too his face , what he needs to do is operate an open door policy to hear everyone's issues and deal with them in a way that makes sense and isn't counter constructive.

 

just my 2 pennies

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw

 

I don't use the word anymore, but when I did, it was never to refer to homosexuals. It was used in the same context as dipshit, douchebag, wanker, idiot, etc.

 

I just don't use it anymore because it's relatively the same as calling a black person the N word. My vocabulary hasn't suffered.

 

No big deal. I'm not gonna complain unless I can't say fuckstick anymore. This is by far my favorite name to call someone, only if they deserve it of course.

 

Not like I walk around throwing those words around anyway.

[DougSupreme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw

 

I don't use the word anymore, but when I did, it was never to refer to homosexuals. It was used in the same context as dipshit, douchebag, wanker, idiot, etc.

 

I just don't use it anymore because it's relatively the same as calling a black person the N word. My vocabulary hasn't suffered.

 

No big deal. I'm not gonna complain unless I can't say fuckstick anymore. This is by far my favorite name to call someone, only if they deserve it of course.

 

Not like I walk around throwing those words around anyway.

 

 

I'm partial to the term "Asshat"

[Guest]

I use many words like that around friends and will continue to do so until i choose to quit. I wont be manipulated and pressured into conforming with ghey rules and restrictions. With my friends its a two way street. They used to call people "queer lips", they like to call each other Fag now and i call them Fruit Johnny's. To be honest it isnt anyone elses business.

 

What i feel is strange about the whole anti gay slang movement is their campaign to get people to quit using it and calling them a homophobe. When i call people a fag its because i know they take it as an insult and dont want to be refered to as a fag. It is them taking it as a negative rather than me saying it as a negative. If they took it as a compliment it would take all the fun out of calling them a name at all. So the name caller isnt the homophone it is the person being called the fag who is acting like a homophone and to be honest anyone against using the word can be seen as a homophobe or at thevery least ashamed of their sexuality. If you are offended by the term them you apparently think being gay is negative and therefore an insult.

[Guest]

I disagree SLIGHTLY there BS, but only with the term being used to insult people, but I get your point in that its not your fault that they're touchy about certain words. I am the same as most, in that I call people all sorts of things because its the word I choose to use and nothing more. I call one of my friends the N word, and that's because he is Vampire pale... I use all kinds of words and phrases that people could say were derogatory or non pc, but that's my choice and as they're not meant as a slur then there is nothing wrong in my opinion

 

A word is simply that... a word. It's the context that people miss out on, and that's what causes people to kick off about them. In fact if you really look, its usually straight, white older people that complain about people being racism or homophobic which beggars belief to me

 

If we are laughing away joking and I say 'don't try and touch me like you did while I was sleeping last time ya big gaylord' then in no way is that homophobic. People need to realise that soon to stop this crap from carrying on, in fact I think every pc person should be poked in the eye with a shitty stick and called a fag by all of humanity until they learn to keep their opinions to themselves