So, Coulter can't say "faggot" but Adam Sandler's...

[Smarmie Doofus]

character can.

Several times, in Reign over Me. To laughter ( approval?) from the audience. (Otherwise a pretty good movie, imo).

I'm not sure I understand.

[Demit]

1. Er, one is a character in fiction? The other is a real person talking about another real person?

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Hmmm... so basicially it's ok to use *fictionally*.

Had the Sandler character ( sympathetic, though crazy)called the Cheadle character a 'nigger', it'd be aok?

Would folks chuckle ?

[alcibiades_mystery]

26. Yes, it would be OK

And if people laughed, that would be on them.

I'm not sure what you don't get.

Do you not understand the difference between a fictional character and a real person?

[MAGICBULLET]

28. I don't understand this...

Sandler is an actor - Coulter is NOT an actor. Also, why do people like you always get in the habit of attaching a race issue with a gay issue??

[Smarmie Doofus]

40. I'll answer you questions even though you didn't....

>>I don't understand this...

Sandler is an actor - Coulter is NOT an actor. Also, why do people like you always get in the habit of attaching a race issue with a gay issue?? >>>

address mine.

1. I'm aware that Coulter and Sandler are not personally comparable. The comparison is between the use of the word 'faggot' as a pejorative. Causes the tides to rise and the earth to tremble when C uses it. Elicits benign guffaws from the audience when Sandler's *CHARACTER* says it.

2. Not attaching anything to anything. Drawing a parallel. Sometimes people can see situations in a different light if a workable analogy is considered. This one, if I do say so , is pretty good. The honest answer to my hypothetical is of course "no".

Wouldn't fly, they wouldn't have made the movie , theaters wouldn't have run the movie. Had Sandler character accused the Cheadle character a ' acting like a nigger' at exactly the same point in the film, there would have been no chuckles; there would have been gasps.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Depends on the context of the movie, of course. (nt)

[Smarmie Doofus]

35. I think I correctly establish the context in post #17.

I'd have to see it again to be sure. In the meantime... see it; it's pretty good.

Not sure what they are trying to establish with what seems like unnecessary appeals to 'faggotophobia'.

And why one should not object.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

36. "Getting healthy" is not nearly the same as "healthy".

But then again, you clearly have a degree in psychology and are familiar with the stages of recovering from post traumatic stress disorder, so maybe you know more about where this character should be psychologically than I do. :sarcasm:

Again, having not seen it myself, I still don't know the context of it, but it still does not sound to me like this is anything to be taken anywhere near seriously.

[Smarmie Doofus]

41. Silly me. nt

A>>>gain, having not seen it myself, I still don't know the context of it, but it still does not sound to me like this is anything to be taken anywhere near seriously.>>>

[Demit]

47. Fiction is a way to teach us things by creating characters, and using how those characters talk.

What do you suppose Ann Coulter's purpose was in using the word "faggot" to imply that John Edwards was gay? She meant it as a slur. It's not the word itself that is abhorrent. It's what she intended the effect of it to be.

I'm sure you're brighter than you sound here.

[Smarmie Doofus]

56. So... you're saying that Coulter's crime was that...

>>>What do you suppose Ann Coulter's purpose was in using the word "faggot" to imply that John Edwards was gay? She meant it as a slur. It's not the word itself that is abhorrent. It's what she intended the effect of it to be.

I'm sure you're brighter than you sound here.>>>



she called *Edwards* a faggot;

not that she called Edwards a *faggot*.

Interesting... and disturbing POV.


>It's not the word itself that is abhorrent.>

Trust me, the word itself is abhorrent.

[Demit]

76. No, that is not what I'm saying. So don't miscast my POV then call it disturbing.

A word is more or less repellent depending on who uses it and why, is my point. The shock in hearing what Ann Coulter said came from knowing that she thought it was bad to BE gay—or at least that's what she knew her audience felt—so that she knew they would snigger when she said the word. There was a subtext besides—in the past couple of months there's been a concerted effort to "feminize" the Democratic candidates (Maureen Dowd has been calling Edwards "the Breck girl"), and that's what I think Coulter's comment was designed to be in aid of. So it was extra offensive to me—the subtext being that it's bad to be called female.

I don't know whether you just had a lot of time on your hands today and thought it would be amusing to play with people, but you are being disingenuous as well as argumentative. I think you think you are cleverly catching people out in hypocrisy, but you're not. Contrasting what a fictional character says in a movie with what a real person said in real life doesn't prove any point and is just silly.

[hfojvt]

52. I recently saw part of "Trading Places" on TV

and they dubbed out the n-word. I thought that was a mistake because that word further displayed the Duke brothers as a$$holes. In some contexts it could be okay, but it does not sound appropriate in this one.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I haven't seen the movie, but fiction and comedy vs. non-fiction seems lost on you.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Not really. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Nothing you've said seems to suggest that you do. (nt)

[jwirr]

3. I believe she was referring to an actual person?

[havocmom]

8. BINGO

She was referring to a man that Katie Couric dissed for not staying home with his wife. (Yes, same Katie who continues to work while her husband was dying of cancer.)

Hmmm, seems to be a theme: Attacks on Edwards by media whores.

[hobbit709]

4. Depending on usage

There are several definitions of the word, not all pertaining to the derogatory term usually associated with the word.
Faggot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faggot or fagot may refer to:

* Faggot (epithet), a pejorative term for a gay or effeminate man
* Faggot (wood) (or fagot), bundle of sticks or branches
* Faggots (novel), a novel by Larry Kramer
* Faggot (unit of measurement), an archaic unit of measurement for bundles of sticks
* Fagot (pronounced with a silent T), the NATO reporting name for the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 airplane
* Faggot (food), a British pork meatball
* Fagot(to), the name in many languages of the musical instrument bassoon
* Faggoting, a metalworking technique
* Large faggot worm, a faggot worm found in India, Bangladesh, New Zealand, and Puerto Rico.
* The Fire and Faggot Parliament, an English Parliament of 1414.
* Ashen faggot (or ashton fagot), a British Christmas tradition

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. So maybe he was calling him a "British pork meatball'?

Nah. C'mon.

[hobbit709]

15. Maybe he thought he was a bassoon

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

19. Can we stop this please?

The word has ONE meaning in standard American English.

When you use it, EVERYONE knows what you're talking about.

[sniffa]

22. oh, next you're gonna teLL me that obtuse has onLy one meaning

[Horse with no Name]

38. Yeah it's a triangle

:eyes:

[hobbit709]

30. Words have the meaning you give them in your usage

The historical term "The Gay 90's" doesn't mean that people in the 1890s were homosexual-at least not to a higher percentage than normal. a place I worked at once told to stop using cuss words and then the manager asked me what my problem was. I replied "It's my birthday and I'm so fornicating happy that I could just defecate" It took him about 30 seconds to figure that out.

[marmar]

5. Ann Coulter is all-too-real, unfortunately....

We only wish she were a bad movie.

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. Real indeed. Not sure if that makes the pejorative ok if...

it's used only fictionally. As a put-down.

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Haven't seen it, but knowing the premise of the movie

this is a character who has absolutely lost it. Living in la-la land. As much a role model as the bum on the corner sucking down a bottle of Mad Dog.

It's called "character development."

Anthrax is espousing her world view. Sandler is revealing a character's broken personality.

IMO, it fits.

EDIT to insert "character's".

[asthmaticeog]

11. This is the correct answer.

:thumbsup:

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. Interesting. In fact it's actually as he starts to *come OUT* of...

... it ( reestablishes normal human feeling an starts to initiate human interactions with the Cheadle character that he uses the word.

(I'll have to see the movie a second time to be sure of the timing, but that's how it seemed. It was an UPBEAT scene. There was light at the end of the tunnel. Proof he was getting better: Cheadle character was 'acting like a faggot' 'cause he had to go home instead of staying out w/o wife's permission to see Mel Brooks marathon at Cinema Village.)

Point: the use of 'faggot' doesn't define him as crazy, it defines him as getting *healthy*.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. From your description of the scene, guy wants guy to stay with him

instead of going home to his wife, that sounds pretty messed up desperate. again, I've not seen it, but seen numerous clips - at the start Sandler is flat affect, completely numb, emotionally. so by this point, he has made progress, yes, but that is far from healed. Psychologically speaking, when someone has made 'some' progress they are in greater danger than before they made any, because they beging to recognise the frustrations and feel the anger - more people commit suicide as they are coming out of depression than when completely in its grip.

It sounds (and I am just extrapolating this) like this is very honestly written.

[mondo joe]

7. So it's illegal to kill a person in real life, but characters in movies can.

Think about it.

[blondeatlast]

20. Exactly. nt

[ComerPerro]

53. that says it all

[Smarmie Doofus]

67. Thought about it. It's a weak analogy.

For about fifty different reasons, so many things being unequal in the comparison.

Start with:

Murderers in movies are *bad* guys;

Sandler's character, OTOH, is a *good* guy. We feel bad for him and some of us, (most of us, I'd wager) can identify with him to one degree or another.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. Clearly, you don't watch a lot of movies.

Murderers in movies are *bad* guys;

A less true statement could not have been made. Westerns, sci fi, and film noir are just three genres jam packed with movies where the good guy is the murderer, but nearly every genre has such examples.

A widely heralded movie by DU, V for Vendetta, is a perfect example.

[mondo joe]

75. You are mistaken.

Moies are filled with heroes who kill.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

12. What's the context?

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. See # 17. That's how I remember it, anyway. nt

[endarkenment]

16. Do you think we ought to ban words you find offensive from movies?

What exactly is your point?

By the way, Coulter apparently can call Edwards a faggot as demonstrably she did.

What exactly is your point?

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. In reply:

>Do you think we ought to ban words you find offensive from movies?>

No.

>What exactly is your point?>

I'm not sure I understand why Coulter's use of the pejorative is not ok and Sandler's character's use IS ( if indeed it is; maybe it's not).

>By the way, Coulter apparently can call Edwards a faggot as demonstrably she did.>

She can; she did. We ( mostly, far as I know) don't approve.

>What exactly is your point?>

We're repeating ourselves... seems to me.

[endarkenment]

43. Sandler's character said 'faggot'.

Much as all sorts of words that might be inappropriate in the real world in real situations are used in fictional situations for various purposes. Having not seen the movie I cannot comment on the specifics here as to why the audience laughed. What I can point out, for about the 12th time in this thread, is that Coulter was acting in the real world tossing faggot out as an insult directed at a real person, at a real political convention for a real faction of the real ruling political party of this real country. That you do not see the difference between the action of Coulter and the response of her audience, and our reaction here on DU to Coulter, and the action of a fictional character in a movie, is bizarre.

[Smarmie Doofus]

45. You're annoyed. I'll reply later. nt

[Smarmie Doofus]

59. The difference:

>>>What I can point out, for about the 12th time in this thread, is that Coulter was acting in the real world tossing faggot out as an insult directed at a real person, at a real political convention for a real faction of the real ruling political party of this real country. That you do not see the difference between the action of Coulter and the response of her audience, and our reaction here on DU to Coulter, and the action of a fictional character in a movie, is bizarre.>>>

Yeah, got it: one's a movie, one's real life. 12 times zero equals zero. We actually dealt with this early on in the thread. The hypothetical then was "as long as it's *fiction* anything goes."

Ridiculous. No Hollywood script would have made it thru a first reading with a sympathetic character ( actually a *protagonist*)saying , "stop acting like a nigger" or " stop acting like a Jew." (With a "pause for laughter", yet!)

And if it *did* can you seriously doubt that the liberal community, esp. DU would be all over it?

But in the case of "faggot" we fumble for rationalizations.


>>>hat you do not see the difference between the action of Coulter and the response of her audience, and our reaction here on DU to Coulter, and the action of a fictional character in a movie, is bizarre.>>>

More people will see, hear and be influenced by the fictional character in this highly promoted, major studio, big name , Hollywood production then the pathetic Coulter will influence in three hundred lifetimes.

Is there *literally* a difference? OK, there's literally a "difference". But I'm more worried about Hollywood's malevolence than Coulter's.

[endarkenment]

64. Then I guess you haven't watched a lot of movies.

The use of the word nigger for comedic purposes is not exactly lacking in the modern movie repetoire. The fact that this use is almost exclusively from what used to be called the blacksploitation genre, is an interesting twist, but there it is.

I am far more worried about the republican party's real malevolence than the cultural stupidity of hollywood. Hollywood isn't going to hang anyone for being gay, the republican party contains lots of folks who would like to do just that.

[mondo joe]

46. Here you go -

> I'm not sure I understand why Coulter's use of the pejorative is not ok and Sandler's character's use IS ( if indeed it is; maybe it's not).

1. A lot of people knew about Coulter's use, and commented. Most people don't know anything about the movie in question, that "faggot" is even used, much less the context in which it is used.

2. Context and intent matter. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a case in point about how the use of "nigger" is arguably appropriate (I say arguably because some do disagree) - it is historically accurate but more impotrantly it is important to the themes of Huck Finn which in conclusion are anything but racist.

[skypilot]

24. My sense is that...

...it's the laughter (approval?) from the audience that the OP is really questioning.

[Smarmie Doofus]

25. Ya, that's part of it, at least. nt

[sniffa]

18. are you f'n serious?

:shrug:

[unpossibles]

27. when is the last time Adam Sandler was given airtime on "news" shows, in print, and at the RNC?

I don't recall it happening. And actually, I should have said Sandler's character, as it was not him saying it, it was the writers showing his character saying it.

Are you serious?

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Never, far as I know.

>when is the last time Adam Sandler was given airtime on "news" shows, in print, and at the RNC?>

I make no comparison between Ann Coulter the person and Adam Sandler the person. I'm questioning when and how use of the word 'faggot' ... as a PEJORATIVE... is defensible.

>I don't recall it happening. And actually, I should have said Sandler's character, as it was not him saying it, it was the writers showing his character saying it.>

I have no feeling pro or con re. Sandler the person. Sandler , IMO, is guilty only of making a veritable wagon train of bad movies. Reign on Me is a notable exception.

Re. the Sandler character and not Sandler the person or artist: if you review my posts I'm careful not to confuse the two.

>>Are you serious?>>>

Yes.

[skypilot]

34. when and how use of the word 'faggot....is defensible.

I'm going to be a bit presumtuous here and say that I think a better way of putting the question is "When and how is the use of the word 'faggot' not offensive. As a gay man I take your question seriously because I can easily imagine myself in a theater surrounded by people laughing when they hear the word faggot. I'd realize that Sandler's character is fictional but the laughter around me in response to the word would still give me pause. But to be fair, for all we know the people who laughed at Sandler's use of the word might very will have laughed when Coulter said it. We don't know.

[unpossibles]

44. to be fair, I am not defending the use of the word or hate-speech in general

but in my opinion, there is a huge difference between it being used as comedy by a bad comedian and when it's used by Adam Sandler.

Seriously, the fact that Ann Coulter is given multiple platforms to spout her hate-filled rhetoric, and more importantly, that she is taken somewhat seriously, makes the difference.

The problem with both, as you and others have stated, is that it is taken "seriously" even when told in a joke. I think if Sandler were himself gay, and were not the posterchild of frat-boy humor, it might be somewhat more forgivable or at least understandable, a la Dave Chapelle using racial humor to make a point.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. It's called art

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie.

Whether you like it or not, bigots are real people. If you doubt that, I present as Exhibit A the aforementioned Ms. Coulter.

Ms. Coulter is particularly screwy in that not only does she hate gays, she uses the epithet faggot inappropriately in order to conflate homosexuality with leading Democrats. Not only has she called John Edwards a faggot, but in the past has spoken of President Clinton's latent homosexuality, predicted that Senator Clinton "will come out of the closet" and called Vice President Gore "a total fag."

Enter art. Suppose an artist, such as a writer or an improvasional actor, wanted to create a character. First of all, to create a real character, one wants to make this character morally ambiguous. Give the character good points and bad points. For the bad points, take Ann Coulter's public bigotry. However, I'll just bet she has her good points, too. Maybe she's fun at parties; perhaps she is a good, loyal friend to that limited part of the human race with whom she chooses to be friends. Anyway, an artist can create a character combining characteristics such as those I just named.

Unfortunately, American culture is imbued with an awful lot of bad art in which the morality is often black-and-white with few shades of gray. Most Americans don't appreciate moral ambiguity. They expect to see a bigot as somebody really disgusting in every respect. They don't want to see a party girl who's genrous with her friends but subscribes to some twisted ideology that holds some people to be beyond God's grace; they want to see a murderous night rider who gets drunk and beats his wife and kids. The cop who gets him in the end is a saint and the resolution of the plot puts heaven in earth in order -- perhaps a too neat of order than those of us in the reality-based community are comfortable.

Our homophobic party girl, placed at the center of a plot, will also get her comuppance. The rebuke is probably milder, but it leave her wiser and a better person, more accepting of people she once excluded from her world and happier for it.

[Na Gael]

39. Let me try to explain:

"So, Coulter can't say "faggot" but Adam Sandler's character can."
Coulter can, and does use the term. In fact, that is but one in a litany of inappropriate terms she chooses to use. Why can't she say it now? Has someone gotten wise, and stuffed one of those strapped ball things in her maw?

"Several times, in Reign over Me. To laughter ( approval?) from the audience. (Otherwise a pretty good movie, imo)."
Who comprised the audience? The juvenile-adult age group his films typically garner? More information is required. Was a junior republican meeting in the theatre?

"I'm not sure I understand."
Both Coulter, and Sandler can say whatever they like. But here are some critical deferences between the two people you mention-
Coulter, defamed Edwards while: Edwards wasn't around, and couldn't rebuff her remark in person. Had Edwards been there, I'm sure he would have diffused the situation, and made Ms. Coulter's life much more pleasant at the moment. Alas, she did it in a cowardly manner, and reaps what she sowed.

Sandler's character, defamed another character while in his presence (mano-y-mano). This offers the defamed character the chance to: set the mood with their reply. Had the same script run; HOWEVER, the receiving character PUNCH Sandler's character in the face, it may have been equally funny, albeit in a slap-stick way.

Another example: Mel Gibson's life on, and off camera.

[youthere]

42. ...

Ann Coulter = REAL
Adam Sandler's character in a movie = NOT REAL

[robcon]

48. I look at it differently from the OP.

Coulter is totally free to say whatever is on her 'mind' whenever she wants. Her speech is protected political speech. She 'can' say anything, and we can denounce her for it.

I think the movie industry should avoid those words, but I would not enforce that recommendation with laws.

So both Coulter and Sandler can say anything they want, using whatever words they want.

[underseasurveyor]

49. Might I suggest that for your own safety,

don't ever go see a Mel Brooks movie.

Your head will explode:nuke:

"Damn it! Now someone's gotta ride back and get a shitload of dimes"
:rofl:

[blondeatlast]

61. Excellent! Wish I'd thought of that. Perfect scene, too.

I needed that laugh!

[Smarmie Doofus]

63. Yeah, yeah. For the "LaPettimane Freeway". n/t

[gravity]

50. What context was it used in?

[Blu Dahlia]

51. Its very simple: Adam Sandler is gay & allowed to use that word

Just like how african americans are allowed to say the n-word. Its OK to use if you are part of the group.

[WI_DEM]

54. Is he gay? I didn't know it.

I guess I can tell Pollock jokes then.

[NYCGirl]

55. That'll come as a big surprise to his wife and kid. NT

[Smarmie Doofus]

62. You are *evil*.

I like evil.

Ya rascal.

[spanone]

57. MOST folks can discern between politics and comedy. Or politics and entertainment.

coulter is not a comedian or actor.

[Smarmie Doofus]

60. That's a matter of opinion... and perception.

>>>coulter is not a comedian or actor.>>>

Actually she's a bit of both, seems to me.

[DefenseLawyer]

58. Anthony Hopkins played Hitler

in the movie "The Bunker". Why the hell isn't he in shackles at The Hague?

[mudesi]

65. And Quentin Tarantino says "nigger" in Pulp Fiction

It's a movie.

[Smarmie Doofus]

72. I know it's a movie. Tarrantino's characters are "bad guys"....

... who do 'bad things'.

Sadler guy makes the audience tear up. Then he calls people 'faggots".

We laugh. In sympathy? Recognition? Approval?

[Marr]

66. What is it with some DUers lately wanting to censor things?

Just because you find dialogue offensive doesn't mean it should be scrubbed. Just because you think a photo is sexist doesn't mean it's not art.

You're talking about a work of fiction. I'd say any dialogue the writers choose to use is fine.

[Smarmie Doofus]

68. Never said anything about scrubbing *anything*.

Least of all this movie ... which I said I LIKED.

Censoring is a loaded term. I'd prefer it if sympathetic characters in Hollywood movies did not use phraseology like 'acting like a faggot" for the same reason I'd prefer that sympathetic characters in Hollywood movies not say "acting like a nigger" before "pause for laughter".

I'm motivated by the inability and/or the unwillingness of Hollywood, the general public and much of DU to recognize that there are sentiments and assumptions in the movie that ought to be analyzed/challenged/discussed.

[WilliamPitt]

69. So much for Scorsese movies, Tarantino movies, Spike Lee movies,

or any movies where dialogue reflects how some people talk.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind...or something.

[Smarmie Doofus]

70. Apples, meet Oranges. Sandler is "everyman".

Scorceses' characters are putting postal carriers in buzz-saws.

[brentspeak]

71. There's a distinction between fiction and real life, between made-up characters & real people

[BuyingThyme]

73. You just said ""faggot"."

[WinkyDink]

77. Was somebody here praising Sandler's character? Because I must've missed that.