Better fascist that gay - Mussolini's granddaughter

[ps1074]

ROME (Reuters) - The granddaughter of Italy's wartime dictator Benito Mussolini has defended being a fascist by saying it was better than being a "faggot".

Alessandra Mussolini's televised derogatory remarks came less than a month after Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi welcomed her far-right political party into his coalition before a general election in April.

<snip>

"Better to be a fascist than a faggot," Mussolini said, using the highly offensive Italian word "frocio", according to Porta a Porta's press office.

It was not the first time one of Berlusconi's allies publicly insulted homosexuals. Mirko Tremaglia, an outspoken right-wing minister for Italians living abroad, said in 2004 that Europe was ruled by "culattoni".

The word derives from the Italian colloquial for bottom (culo) and refers to sodomists.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-09T200512Z_01_L09643994_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ITALY-MUSSOLINI.xml&archived=False

[tjdee]

1. What's the fixation? I mean, really, don't they know any other nouns?

I mean, I know sometimes people use the word "gay" for something undesirable, and that's as idiotic as this.

What do you expect from the far right, though. Slightly retarded, they.

[Jamastiene]

2. I see the sour apple doesn't fall fall from the tree.

Better to be gay than to be a waste of human flesh. I wonder how long it will be before Bushco. is visiting her and singing her praises?

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beware the Beast Man]

4. Cuntarino?

:shrug:

[JackBeck]

8. Basically, taking it in the ass.

[ps1074]

5. Fica

says Babel Fish...

[Misunderestimator]

6. Alessandra

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

7. Hey... that's my real name!

Seriously, it is. It is a popular name in Italy.

And it's 'figa' not 'fica'

The Italian language has several disparaging names for homosexuals, including 'finocchio' (literally, fennel) which has a very interesting historical origin. It turns out that in the Middle Ages people suspected of being homosexuals were burned at the stake and fennel was used in the fire so the aroma of its burning would remind people not to 'sin.'

[JackBeck]

9. Interesting. Burning gay people at the stake is also where

"faggot" comes from. A bundle of wood in English is called a "faggot".

[arwalden]

15. Really? I Thought That Was A Myth. Just A Coincidence...

... and some folks "invented" the etmology because it sounded like it might be true.

[arwalden]

17. Ah-ha... Wikipedia had some information about this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28epithet%29

The origins of the word in this sense have been clouded by mythology.

Bundle of sticks
It has been frequently said that the pejorative use of the word derives from "faggot" in the sense of a bundle of sticks, because homosexual men were burned at the stake for sodomy and faggots were used as kindling.

There is, however, no historical evidence for these supposed derivations, and the use of the term "faggot" for gay men goes back only to the 19th century. The fact that this use appeared in the United States—where no one is known to have been burned at the stake for sodomy—but not in Britain, where men were burned at the stake for buggery until the 17th century (though the more common punishment was hanging), makes this derivation seem highly unlikely.

[JackBeck]

19. I read that some time ago on wiki.

Are we supposed to believe everything we read on wiki? I don't. I recall not in the too distant past that staff members of U.S Congresspersons were going there to edit the information so that their boss would look more favorable.

I was responding to NYCparalegal's post.

I stand more by the oral history that my community elders have passed on to me, than an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit at the drop of a dime.

[arwalden]

20. Hi, JackBeck!

<< Are we supposed to believe everything we read on wiki? I don't. >>

I'm not sure where that's coming from. I didn't really suggest such a thing, and I think it's good to view information from any source with a healthy dose of skepticism.

But, surely you don't disregard and discount all information simply because it appears on Wikipedia, do you? I think it's as good a source as anything else on most non-controversial topics.

<< I recall not in the too distant past that staff members of U.S Congresspersons were going there to edit the information so that their boss would look more favorable. >>

Uh, okay.

<< I was responding to NYCparalegal's post. >>

I realize that... and I was responding to yours.

<< I stand more by the oral history that my community elders have passed on to me, than an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit at the drop of a dime. >>

Hmmm. Do you think that this is a controversial subject? Surely you don't think that I scurried off to edit that page so that I could create some authoritative-sounding support an argument that contradicted you.

I'm guessing that I must have struck a sensitive nerve with you, or something. Have I done something to offend? Or is the mere mention of "Wikipedia" enough to set you on edge?

If one thinks about it, it would seem that stories passed-down by "community elders" would be just as (if not more so) susceptible to editing and revision with each new telling and with each generation. I guess that's the nature of myths and old-wives-tales.

~Allen :hi:

[JackBeck]

26. I don't think you get what I was saying.

<<I'm not sure where that's coming from. I didn't really suggest such a thing, and I think it's good to view information from any source with a healthy dose of skepticism.

But, surely you don't disregard and discount all information simply because it appears on Wikipedia, do you? I think it's as good a source as anything else on most non-controversial topics.>>


I think you may be reading my post the wrong way. I didn't suggest that nothing be trusted from wikipedia. Thank you for understanding my skepticism, but if you read my first sentence once again, I did not imply that wikipedia should never be trusted. I said is you can't believe "everything" you read there. What I DIDN'T say was you can't believe "anything" you read there. Big diff.

<<Uh, okay.>>

"Staffers for several senators have changed their bosses’ entries so that they reflect more positively on the senators.

In the entry for Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), for instance, a reference to a long-ago plagiarism scandal was erased, according to an article posted on Wikipedia. Similarly, the term “ragheads,” used by Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), was airbrushed from the senator’s entry, Wikipedia reported. The term is a derogatory reference to Arabs."

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Campaign/022806.html

<<I realize that... and I was responding to yours.>>

My bad here. I had originally added to the end of my sentence, before my own self-edit before I posted,
"I was responding to NYCparalegal's post, which is in collusion with mine."

<<Hmmm. Do you think that this is a controversial subject?>>

Yes. I do.

'According to the police incident report, one of the men, Sidney Swift, boasted: "Yes, I beat that mother-fucking faggot up."'

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/030706gaMilitary.htm

<<Surely you don't think that I scurried off to edit that page so that I could create some authoritative-sounding support an argument that contradicted you.>>

Oh come on! Just re-read the subject line from my other post. "I read that some time ago on wiki."

<<I'm guessing that I must have struck a sensitive nerve with you, or something. Have I done something to offend? Or is the mere mention of "Wikipedia" enough to set you on edge?>>

No, you haven't struck a sensitive nerve, nor have you offended me. But you seem really defensive of wikipedia, just because I disagree with something I read there. My problem with this particular entry is that, once again, being gay is sexualized, instead of concurring with my frame of reference, which humanizes being gay. Ever since I came out 10 years ago, I've read everything about my community's history, from books to the internet. This was the first time I've ever come across this historical reasoning for the origins of this word. So I disagree with it.

[arwalden]

27. Actually...

<< I think you may be reading my post the wrong way. >>

Perhaps, but I don't think so. Could be my mood, but it could also be your delivery.

<< I didn't suggest that nothing be trusted from wikipedia. >>

True, you didn't use those exact words. But what you were implying seemed to be pretty clear and easily understood. Namely, that because entries could be edited at the "drop-of-a-dime", then the implication was that *this* one (that you happened to disagree with) also can't be trusted.

<< What I DIDN'T say was you can't believe "anything" you read there. Big diff. >>

You're splitting those hairs very carefully now... which only serves to convince me that I was probably correct the first time. I'm willing to concede this minor point to you... but only after I point out that whether or not you originally intended it to sound that way, your dismissive remarks certainly conveyed that impression.

Rather than making specific arguments that refuted the information contained in the Wikipedia entry, you just took a wholesale swipe at how questionable Wikipedia information is because it could be so easily edited.

Not that anyone could fault you for doing that... especially since doing so would tend to be the easiest way to give more credence to the explanations that had been passed down by your community-elders.

>> <<Hmmm. Do you think that this is a controversial subject?>>
>>
>> Yes. I do.
>>
>> 'According to the police incident report,
>> one of the men, Sidney Swift, boasted:
>> "Yes, I beat that mother-fucking faggot up."'
>>
>> http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/03/030706gaMilitary.htm

By "controversial subject" I was referring to the etymology and origins of the word. I wasn't talking about how bigots use the word as an epithet or in a pejorative manner.

<< Oh come on! Just re-read the subject line from my other post. "I read that some time ago on wiki." >>

My sarcasm is frequently difficult to spot when someone is wound-up too tightly.

<< But you seem really defensive of wikipedia, just because I disagree with something I read there. >>

I do? I have no particular affinity for or dislike of Wikipedia. I'm neither for it or against it.

I found it odd that someone would be so dismissive of the information because of the source, especially in light of the fact that--as far as I'm concerned--the origin of the word "faggot" is really not a controversial topic. And as such, its entry is not very likely to be one that's subject to vandalism or extreme bias.

<< My problem with this particular entry is that, once again, being gay is sexualized, instead of concurring with my frame of reference, which humanizes being gay. >>

Huh? I really don't follow you there. But that's okay.

I did read the entry again to see if I could find anything particularly biased or offensive or one-sided, but I'm not seeing the same thing you're seeing.

Either you're much more delicate and sensitive than I am, or I'm just a heartless, de-sensitized, and uncaring oaf.

<< Ever since I came out 10 years ago, I've read everything about my community's history, from books to the internet.>>

It's good that you've taken such an interest in the subject.

<< This was the first time I've ever come across this historical reasoning for the origins of this word. So I disagree with it. >>

Ahh... okay.

~Allen :hi:


edit: typo

[arwalden]

12. Oh Good Grief!

:eyes:

Okay... so what's the Italian word for _unt?

[Misunderestimator]

13. Yeah really.

If you can't call a homophobic fascist a *unt... who can you? :eyes:

[arwalden]

14. But You Can Say "-unt" and it's A-OK? Astounding.

As if it magically changes the meaning of the word (which everyone KNOWS what you mean anyway) just by leaving off one little letter.

Indeed! Who better deserves to be referred to as a C-NT than a homophobic fascist bitch like that?

[derby378]

10. Europeans vs. Italians - according to animator Bruno Bozzetto

Check this out for a little levity:

http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/italy.html

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

11. ha ha ha ... that's hilarious

I had seen it a few years ago, but it's as true today as it was then!

[meow2u3]

16. Hysterical!!

Reminds me of my grandpa's Italian temper.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. "Fascist that gay"...

strange wording. Gives me an image of a chorus line of blond, blue-eyed pretty boys in SS uniforms sharing a stage with a drag queen doing a Marlene Deitrich impersonation.

[Beware the Beast Man]

21. Why was C-U-Next-Tuesday deleted?

It was quite appropriate in this circumstance...

[arwalden]

25. Reminds me of the Penn & Teller episode about the same thing.

For the life of me I'll never understand why it's okay to block out the first letter (as in "_unt") or block out only the vowels (as in "c_nt") or to use euphamisms (as in "she's acting like a real rhymes-with-witch").

It's as though this don't-let-the-children-hear "code-talk" somehow changes the MEANING and INTENT of the word that's being disguised.

NEWS FLASH... it doesn't!

When someone says "rhymes-with-witch"... we all KNOW that they really mean "bitch". Does it make it any better because they didn't actually say the exact word?

But... to answer your question BTBM... I have no idea why cvnt was deleted. I didn't even specifically CALL anyone a cvnt... I just asked what the Italian word for cvnt was.

[tjwmason]

22. You mean if I turned into a fascist I'd stop being gay?

Somehow I don't think I'm going to try that particular 'remedy'.

[XemaSab]

29. It might be a good move

You could wear a natty little uniform and have highly polished boots and impeccable grooming and insist on being called "sir" and... yeah.

[tjwmason]

30. But that wouldn't involve much of a change at all for me.

Apart from the uniform bit. :evilgrin:

[XemaSab]

32. And the art!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4870138&mesg_id=4870138

[Katherine Brengle]

23. Berlusconi also compared himself to Jesus.

He called himself "the Jesus of politics" a month or so ago.

[Deja Q]

24. Well, if she knows somebody who can straighten me out, I'm all for it.

if she can't help people, she should bugger off.

[lies and propaganda]

28. what a peach!

must run in the family!

[Fenris]

31. Il Douche