On words vs actions Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist and Obama's comment about his bowling

[dsc]

I just watched Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist which features a bunch of teens who are trying to find a band in NYC. The male in the couple plays in a band where everyone but him is gay. The film treats the gayness of the characters as just there, not a plus, not a minus, just there. But in one jarring scene early in the film the female lead and her friend discuss if the male lead is a 'mo' or not. Now 'mo' is short for 'homo' and 'homo' is derogatory. So should the film be viewed positively due to its over arching message that being gay = being straight in a moral sense or should it be viewed negatively for perpetuating a slur? I would give the film the benefit of the doubt and rate the actions over the words.

Similarly, Obama's comment was crass and mean. But he should be judged by his actions toward the disabled and not this, apologized for, comment. By his actions, he seems to be treating them well. Assuming no repeats he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

[Schema Thing]

1. slur, or "derogatory" is in the intent.

To hear some people on DU wax politically (correct), you'd think Mark Twain was not the best of his generation, he was the worst!

[dsc]

2. I don't think Twain should be judged by contemporary standards

the words he used weren't viewed as slurs then. But both mo and the way Obama used Special Olympics are considered slurs now.

[Schema Thing]

3. not to those kids in the movie

they meant no slur whatsoever in saying "mo".

[dsc]

4. If one of my students called me a mo

I would be pretty offended.

[Schema Thing]

6. really?

even if you knew they meant no offense?


that's weird to me. but to each their own offense I suppose.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

5. i loved that movie.

that is all.

[loyalsister]

7. A broad historical interpretation of the event is all fine and good

--- later. We have no idea if there will be more of these incidents, however. We certainly hope there won't be. Yes he can increase funding. And the apology is appropriate. But, balancing all of that out remember the only real civil rights laws we have were signed by George Bush and his miserable signed the Amendments. Neither are absolved of anything in my opinion.

It is not appropriate for advocates to try to take advantage of a "teachable moment" and help educate less informed people about the actual crux of the matter in terms of language and context and what exactly was wrong with what was said? More than that the aftermath among our own - the demand to look away. We're not all invisible and I know it is tortuous but we're here.