I am gay. I however am not one for knee-jerk reactions. I am maybe the biggest Howard Stern fan you'll meet and flew to NY from Ohio for his last day on KRock. I can fully appreciate humor that is homophobic on the surface level, but at its core implies that homophobia is really just silly. Eddie Murphy never used 'faggot' with even the SLIGHTEST bit of irony.

He used it for the very cheapest of laughs. Having said all of that, I can't deny he WAS fun... 'Coming To America' is a classic, for instance. But we should save the term 'genius' for geniuses.

If you're charmed by the mere use of the word "faggot" or the n-word, that's fine. Nobody's saying those words are off limits.

I hear "faggot" and the n-word used to the point of insanity on Stern daily, but in using it they're pointing out every time the silliness in the hate BEHIND the those words... Well, except for Artie. I'm pretty sure he hates gay people, and only kinda hates black people.

In the case of the n-word, there's racial humor and then there's racist humor. I guess you're point is that if we don't laugh just as hard at both we're a bunch of pricks. I disagree.

I'm liberal AND GAY, and if you'll read above, I never once claimed Eddie Murphy is evil, hates gay people, or shouldn't be able to use the word 'faggot'.

I DID say that when he uses it the way he did, it's cheap and he is pandering to those who use gay people (along with a host of other things) to fill two absolute esintial components of the human experience:

We all need someone to hate and something to fear.

I am 100% free speech and all the nightmares that come with it. I fear the day when we might end up with some law that mirrors anti hate-speech legislation in Canada because allowing the most vile of thoughts to be openly shared in our society proves that no idea can be silenced (unless you're considered an enemy combatant, i suppose).

Laws that limit hate-speech don't change minds. They make it eaiser to pretend that minds don't need changing...

So if you'll forgive me, I'll step out from under the supposed anti free speech liberal umbrella you've put over me.

Eddie Murphy's routines are still funny to me. If they're not funny to you, then skip those chapters...but don't dare try to shame and humiliate me into feeling guilty for laughing. That is no different than a Moral Majority fascist telling me how wrong reading certain books is. If you are uncomfortable with Eddie's old jokes, my advice is to lighten up. The alternative is widespread banning and censorship and I prize my Don Rickles album too much.

It was ground breaking in that it was widely received (by mid-western housewives how vote against gay-rights) and finally depicted gay people who WEREN'T tragic and dieing.

However, it was also f-ing annoying and taugh America that gay people make catty remarks and endless pop culture references, and will do the television watching audience the favor of NEVER DATING ANYONE unless its during a time gap in the plot, or at the end of the series when a relationship is only implied to continue after the series's end.

My point is, don't pretend you know a damn thing about what gay people like and don't like.

Being homophobic doesn't make you a fool. It makes you homophobic, a quality you've proven is either a positive or a negative, depending on whole you're talking to.

PRETENDING you know ANYTHING about a group you so openly revile... That is foolish and you're ability to form sentences proves you're better than that.

As long as you know why you're laughing and you aren't claiming you should have the expectation that everyone laugh just as hard right along with you... Then by all means, laugh away.

I can't be bothered by people who say 'yeah it's cheap, but it's funny' when there are other out there claiming 'this isn't cheap! did you hear him right? he said 'f-a-g-g-o-t'! that's comedy gold!'

for offensive 'comedy gold', i tune into stuff like Stern or the new 'Sarah Silverman Program' on Comedy Central. It's offensive, takes EVERYONE to task, and (imo) isn't the least bit hateful... (Again, except for Artie, who is hilarious in spite of his absolute hate for any number of minorities, but most of all for himself).

As for your "then thats just gay" joke, that was wildly hilarious. Kudos.

I can't say enough, laugh at what you think is funny, but you're a fool to expect the butt of the joke to vindicate you.

If by chance a gay guy or lady does vindicate you, it doesn't mean they're a great and have a good sense of humor... It simply means they didn't want to make an issue out of it (I've been in this scenarios endless amounts of times).

The word 'faggot' is a term used in the bible to refer to a bundle of sticks used to fuel the flames of hell.

Whether you agree or disagree with that assessment of homosexuality, stop faining bewilderment, display an ounce of intellectual honesty and admit that it JUST MIGHT piss you off to be referred to as fueling the flames of hell.

Having said ALL of that, I realize that most people don't know the origin of that word and don't mean that definition when they use the word.

I was running earlier tonight and as I ran past a ginormous fat fuck emptying his car full of groceries, I heard over my iPod him say in an annoyed tone, 'faggot'. In this case, I took 'faggot' to mean 'one who is SO GAY he'd exercise in the winter'.

Languages is a ticky thing, and i evokes all kinds of reactions for a multitude of reasons. I guess what I'm TRYING to say is stop feeling so f-ing attacked.

We all hate someone. We all fundamentally NEED to feel better than someone. We all laugh at shit that is mean, petty, and appeals the the very worst part of us. Me included.

Let's just not pretend we should be applauded for that.

I'm sure some would eagerly reply 'the white Christian majority in this country gets nothing but attacked for everything they think, say, and do these days.'

(At least I'll assume someone would reply that way since this view more or less is the basis for most of the frustration in posts above).

To clarify, I'll suggest that any person who finds him or herself in the comforts of a majority MIGHT not appreciate the level to which all minorities are under constant attack.

Incredulity by a majority (and I'm very intentionally speaking in group terms here, not about individuals within the majority) at it's waining ability to levy these a attacks on minorities DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ATTACK ON THE MAJORITY and when members (and now I'm speaking intentionally on the individual level) of a majority do not recognize this fact, it shows they do not fully appreciate how lucky they are at their standing in society.

I'll cite the fictitious 'War on Christmas', for example. Some Christians (i.e. the majority) claim it's somehow an attack (i.e. the fake attack) to say "Happy Holidays" at retail stores, WHEN CLEARLY (to whom I'll never know) the shopper is spending their hard earned cash solely in celebration of Christmas and therefore should not have to suffer the indignity of having his or her holy day (aka Holiday) lumped in with the those of other religions (i.e. the minority). If you buy this claim, stop reading. I'd try to explain the origins of the word 'Holiday' or to make some point about the irony religious people trying emphasize the consumerism side of Christ's birth, but you're probably be better off just surfing over to the FOXNews site... I wasn't gonna change your mind anyway.

In closing, I can't write in such blanketed terms without stating expressly that everyone experiences personal hardship, and minorities don't have the market on tragedy and adversity. I just wanted to make that very clear.

I don't know why, but it's that best part.

I'm not sure what this GuyLombardo said on this talkback to get deleted, but as an evangelical Christian (and yes we are a minority in the US), I've seen talkbackers rip and threaten my group of people with much ferocity in the past, but no one banned them!

I haven't seen this performance by Murphy since I was 13 - we also used to quote it in junior high. I movie with his shoe-throwin' mom and the goony-goo-goo aunt would be awesome!

Undoubtedly, 'Amos and Andy' was a product of it's time. I agree 100% (or 200%, if I must) that we cannot look back and judge the creators of Amos and Andy with the standards that exist today.

Your point, I suppose, is that we should apply the same standard to Eddie Murphy.

If you read above, I'm not sure I remember a single person attacking Eddie Murphy for even HAVING ILL WILL toward gay people. I expressly said I think it's a cheap joke, and I think it was no more or less cheap back then (inflation doesn't apply here).

Furthermore, your post seems to imply that just like with Eddie's stand-up, we should look back at 'Amos and Andy', chuckle, roll our eyes to make sure others know we're not racist, and move on having experienced a delightful jog down memory lane to a simpler time.

You acknowledge that 'Amos and Andy' contained antiquated views that were a sign of a less enlightened era, but the fact you view the 'comedy' of 'Amos and Andy' with some degree of nostalgia doesn't give much hope that in 20 year you won't be slapping your knee over some homophobic crap you saw on TV tonight.

Viewing comedy from the past DOESN'T MAKE YOU A VIEWER FROM THE PAST.

Feeling you're entitled to laugh harder at a black joke told by someone from the 50's or an AIDS joke told a guy in the 80's because 'they didn't know any better' implies YOU DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER... and clearly you do.

Again, cite once where anyone is taking Eddie to task for being a hate monger. If he made the same jokes today I'd STILL not assume for a second they imply he hates gay people as HE'S A COMIC (or was) and I realize that some of the shit that comes out of their mouths isn't a perfect reflection of their feelings.

However, AND PLEASE READ THIS SLOWLY, whether or not the gay material was uttered today or 20 years back, (read SLOWLY) THE WAY EDDIE USED THE WORD 'FAGGOT' is an example of a comedian being lazy and taking advantage of the fact that most people then and slightly less people now find the word 'faggot' ALONE funny.

It's NO different than the creators of 'Amos and Andy' taking advantage of the sad fact that at the time people found it entertaining to laugh at the idea that all black people are stupid (that's a SAD fact... in case you didn't realize).

And to morons who would so stupidly cite the 'Honeymooners' as and attack against whites or even low-income whites (I'm looking at you Frijole)...

First, you already shit on your own argument by admitting that 'Amos and Andy' wasn't an example of black people commenting on themselves.

Furthermore, this idea that 'The Honeymooners' is somehow an attack on low income white people is AGAIN a perfect example of a majority group not understanding what it is to be attacked.

The 'Honeymooners' is not a racist show. The rants of Ralph Kramden aren't meant to tell us all low-income white people are racists who threaten spousal abuse daily. They're meant to show that these views are SILLY. When his comments delve into race, its RACIAL HUMOR, not racist humor. In other words, its humor about the fact that racism exists, as opposed to having Ralph Kramden, a low-income white guy, AND EVERY OTHER LOW INCOME WHITE CHARACTER ON THE SHOW portrayed as bumbling idiots who can't proper English due their absolute inability... I'll grant you, THAT would be an attack.

No. 'Amos and Andy' is racist, and 'The Honeymooners' is social commentary. If you CAN'T see the distinction... The fact that there is IRONY in the case of the 'Honeymooners' where there is none in the case of 'Amos and Andy'...

Well, I suggest you watch children's programming from here on out because you've yet to attain the capacity to process the stuff meant for adults.

PS: Don't watch 'SpongeBob Squarepants' though. Focus on the Family says it's trying to make you gay.

I can fully appreciate that by getting upset by those who use 'faggot' as a hate term, it's giving them what they want.

Does that mean it's now incumbent upon gay people to not only PRETEND it doesn't bother them, but to out-do the haters.

The result is no different than the current controversy over the use of then n-word. You'll have some person that DOESN'T THINK TWICE ABOUT GAY RIGHTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER saying, 'hey. fags use the word 'faggot'. I'm suppose to buy the fact that they can say it but I can't! Give me a break!'

'Taking back the word' is a last-draw tactic of a group that is SO up against the ropes and of the opinion that things will never change... That people will never advance BEYOND A PLAYGROUND BULLY MENTATILTY.

So thanks for the advice, but I'll refrain from referring to myself as fuel for the flames of hell, so I can trick myself into believing some progress has been made. I have more faith that societal views progress over time as a function of some people becoming more educated and others simply dieing.

For the record, anyone who views gay people as fuel for the flames of hell... You more than anyone should be shouting the word 'faggot' from the roof tops.

If people were more honest about their hate, people with only mild homophobia or racism might have think twice about who to throw in with. For instance, the Fred Phelps and the 'God Hates Fags' ministry who have been protesting the funerals of soldiers because they claim God has turned his back on America because the acceptance of homosexuality.

I don't, however, find it cute when comedians who pick up transvestite whores and suck their toes use the word 'faggot' not as hate, not as commentary, but as a cheap method whipping a crowd into a frenzy. That's NOT edgy. It's lazy.

As for the Carlin quote, Carlin IS a genius. Eddie is not. I echoed the exact point Carlin made in your quote above when I said that despite my view that Eddie is cheap and lazy, he should by all means have the right to say what he wants because putting some legal restriction on him only makes us PRETEND we don't hate each other and hinders the effort to openly educate and make people hate each other less.

NOBODY HAS TRIED TO MAKE THAT POINT. Ironically, about 20 people have railed against the idea that somebody might make that point, you being the most recent.

However, as I've stated above, you seem to be confusing the fact that Leather-JumpSuit-Eddie, as a function of time, is stuck FOREVER in the 80's and you are living in the present. To pretend that because you're laughing at someone who didn't know better takes away the fact that YOU KNOW BETTER is silly.

I love love love the movie 'Monster Squad'. I love it for that fact that it is a kids movie that IN NO WAY treats kids like idiots, in the way only an 80's children's movie can. Having said that, when one of the kids in that movie smokes cigarettes, I don't think 'man! they really had it right back then. look at us with our PC 'kids shouldn't smoke' bullshit.' I REALIZE that it was a 'simpler time' because we had simpler views of the world.

There are a TON of things I roll my eyes at when it comes to being PC. I'm a gay mega-fan of Howard Stern, for Christ's sake. But WAY too often people (like you) lump in things that are just intrinsically correct, with political correctness. It's not 'PC' to abstain from using the n word. It's correct.

Read the STATED objections some have made and come back with a reaction to what was said as opposed to a reaction to what you THOUGHT was going to be said.

While I don't agree with the whole 'take back the word' thing, I do agree in rising above. I hope I didn't come off with someone who lives and dies by whether I can get through the day without seeing or hearing the word 'fag', but if I did I'm sorry I misrepresented myself. I don't think (and I assume you agree) that rising above doesn't mean shutting up at rolling with the punches. In other words, I look at the Civil Rights movements as people demanding what has wrongly been denied them, instead a much of a-holes who should learn to laugh at themselves.

I completely agree that most everyone doesn't know the origins of the word 'faggot'. I'd say that MIGHT play a major role in people thinking they can throw it about and us gay guys should do them the favor of not calling them on it.

When I came out, all my friends didn't know what to say and apologized up and down because 'that's gay', 'fag', and 'faggot' were on heavy rotation within our circle of friends. I said, by all means don't change a thing you say based on me. Over time, some friends would ask me again one-on-one if and why it bothered me when they said shit like that and I replied with this reasoning:

I hate the word 'faggot' due to its origins. I realize that nobody I'm friends with has that point of view when they say it. However, it seems silly to me that using 'fag' over 'douchebag' for instance is SO important that there is no internal cue to change your vernacular, but if you don't feel you should then do not do it for me. That just means you're gonna not say it when I'm around, and that's a complete insult.

As a result some stopped say it, others stopped saying 'fag' but still love saying 'dike', and still others continue to say fag, but they always look a little uncomfortable after they said, which is entertaining more than anything.

My point is, I'm not some battered victim nor am I some PC crusader. One of the most heavily repeated quotes between my straight friends and I is 'gayyyyyyy' for 'Shaun of the Dead', which is in the context that anti-PC use of gay as a negative. I never ONCE have claimed people should edit their speech, but have been trying to make the point that if you knew exactly why people don't like the word 'faggot' people in general might be more likely to edit their feelings about the ease with which the word is used, instead.

You're congratulating a blog for having the same views as you.

What's weirder is I noticed that if you surround your username with 'www.' and'.com' it MAKES the URL for that blog.

Clearly you wouldn't be making a point and then stroking yourself for having the same opinion as... well you. That would make you maybe the biggest douche of all time.

I'm just saying I understand that its only mere coincidence, but you gotta agree it's downright freaky.

Can we AT LEAST agree that Raven Symone isn't as rich as she was portrayed on the cover of Ebony magazine?!?!?!?! props for recognizing it www.carpemundus.com!

There are some truths we can not ignore.

Your conversion tactics didn't work on me, but I'm pretty sure similar methods were used on the outted Christian Evangelical wacko Ted Haggard.

However, I think we can both agree dubbing in 'The Final Countdown' was a masterstroke, nonetheless.

I was just bringing her up since the 'she's not so rich' argument was a topic on discussion on the blog of that douche who was pretending to give a shout-out (when in reality he was transparently plugging his own blog).

But like I always say, "that's so [carpemundus]".

In your post you cite the amount of time i've dedicated to debating this issue on this thread. I wouldn't have hung in there if I let my emotions get the best of me.

I'm not saying don't react. I'm just saying why be hurt, when you can be angry and channel that anger into motivation. Being hurt is a reality of the world, and if Eddie's words hurt you that's legit and I understand. I just doesn't accomplish much to pontificate about the fact that you've been hurt.

PS: It's a waste of time to attack fans of the Blue Collar Comedy Tour in this thread. They're not all racists or homophobes, but they're also not reading anything written where and responding with worth countering.

PSS: For the greatest thing ever, check out the back and forth of open letters between David Cross and 'Larry the Cable Guy' (who isn't a cable guy, but rather a millionaire pandering to/mocking southerners) on David's site bobanddavid.com. HILARIOUS stuff.

Online Etymology Dictionary

faggot (2)

"male homosexual," 1914, Amer.Eng. slang (shortened form fag is from 1921), probably from earlier contemptuous term for "woman" (1591), especially an old and unpleasant one, in reference to faggot (1) "bundle of sticks," as something awkward that has to be carried (cf. baggage). It was used in this sense in 20c. by D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce, among others. It may also be reinforced by Yiddish faygele "homosexual," lit. "little bird." It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb.

"He [the prefect] used to fag me to blow the chapel organ for him." ["Boy's Own Paper," 1889]

Other obsolete senses of faggot were "man hired into military service simply to fill out the ranks at muster" (1700) and "vote manufactured for party purposes" (1817). The oft-heard statement that male homosexuals were called faggots in reference to their being burned at the stake is an etymological urban legend. Burning was sometimes a punishment meted out to homosexuals in Christian Europe (on the suggestion of the Biblical fate of Sodom and Gomorah), but in England, where parliament had made homosexuality a capital offense in 1533, hanging was the method prescribed. Any use of faggot in connection with public executions had long become an English historical obscurity by the time the word began to be used for "male homosexual" in 20th century American slang, whereas the contemptuous slang word for "woman" (and the other possible sources or influences listed here) was in active use.

about 20% of the time. Which is about your average. Every 5 of your posts I might be mildly amused, but at the rate you post that leaves a LOT of tired material on the talkback.

[BTW, don't even try to attack me as anti-homosexual; I'm simply pro-linguistic]

First, there's the belief that Free Speech extends to all aspect of life. That's wrong. Your company can censor you, your school can censor you, your parents can censor you, etc. The only aspect of life that the 1st Amendment provides for is the impact of the Government. Heck, if you want to split hairs, the President can prevent Free Speech if he wants; all the amendment states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See that? CONGRESS shall make no laws. No mention of Executive Orders. Or Court orders. But that's hair-splitting. The key part of what I'm discussing is that all we're talking about is government legislation when we claim Free Speech.

Ok, so that's out of the way, let me get to the point of all this: the founders' intent. The intent of the 1st Amendment was NOT to protect libel/slander or hate speech. The intent was to prevent the government from restricting protest against the government itself (ie suppressing opposition). Look at what follows: Free press, right to assembly, right to petition the government. (Freedom of religion is there because of the recent experiences in England with state religions etc). These are all rights dealing with the relationship between the individual and the government, NOT the relationship between individuals or between groups.

That said, I'm a libertarian, and support free expression in all of its forms. My point here is that crying 'Free speech!' just demonstrates you need a refresher on what Free Speech actually means.

And the "taint" thing is really boring. Another trait that you share with "that guy" I mentioned above is that if he said something that made you laugh, he would run it into the ground until it became the most unfunny thing you ever heard. There is a principle in comedy that if something funny is said or done, then said too much until it becomes unfunny, it will actually become funny again after seven times. This does not apply to your taint comments. Maybe you're clever enough to come up with a new shtick.

As for the earlier origin of the slang against women, it may have had that connotation: here's the first definition of faggot in the OEtD:

faggot (1)

1279, "bundle of twigs bound up," from O.Fr. fagot "bundle of sticks," from It. faggotto, dim. of V.L. *facus, from L. fascis "bundle of wood" (see fasces). Esp. used for burning heretics (a sense attested from 1555), so that phrase fire and faggot was used to mean "punishment of a heretic." Heretics who recanted were required to wear an embroidered figure of a faggot on their sleeve, as an emblem and reminder of what they deserved.

There are two problems with the idea that this meaning is what was intended with its use in 1914. The first is the anachronism of it; no matter what it originally intended, I have sincere doubts that anyone in America was aware of it. The second, though, is more compelling: why didn't the slang originate in England? Homosexuality became prevalent (for lack of a better word) in England decades before it did so in America (thank you Camille Paglia); it would've been more likely that an Englishman (or woman) would be aware of the origins of the slang and thus applied its meaning if that is what was intended.

What we have then is a slang that is used against women; it seems to me that the average American in 1914 would more easily be making a play on the femininity of the slang than on any origins--heck, schoolkids today still do that. The OEtD calls it an 'etymological urban legend' and I'm going to side with them.