Monday, 12 December 2011

Time to throw out "controverisal"

Ok, since the various powers that be seem to think that me and mine somehow control the entire world with our insidious gay agenda  and we all live under a brutal gayocracy enforced by our mystical gay power to cause natural disasters I’ve decided it’s time we use our mighty magical abilities to drop David Cameron into a volcano.

But since not everyone seems to be as gung-ho as I about the whole volcano dropping thing, I’ll settle for having some words either a) struck from the English language or b) cause you to be brutally attacked by an extremely angry armadillo. So, prime your armadillos

First up for armadilloing is “controversial”. Oh how I hate this word. See, there’s a lot of people and things described as controversial out there.

Stephen Green, the head of Christian Voice is often called “controversial”.

Rev. Fred Phelps of the Wetboros is often called “controversial”.

The various “family” organisations are often called “controversial” (but usually they’re accepted without even that dubious question) and Peter Spriggs, Scot Liverly and Pete LaBarbera have all been called “controversial”.

Yes, I dislike that a lot. None of this is “controversial” or most certainly shouldn’t be.  The problem is the word is so very very neutral – it suggests a long debate with merits on both sides that will be long argued. The definition for “controversial” does not generally include “bigoted arsehat who should be dropped in a volcano or savaged by an angry armadillo”.

It glosses over prejudice. It ignores some real arseholery – and it gives legitimacy to people and positions that are not legitimate. It implies people have a point when they only have bigotry. It’s part of the ongoing campaign that continually presents homophobia as reasonable. It is not. The homophobe does not hold a “controversial” opinion, they hold an outright bigoted one.
And let it not be said that I, agent of the gayocracy, your new fabulous overlords, am not magnanimous! Because for this word that is going to have its usage much reduced, I propose to increase the use of another word in balance! And that word is “bigot.”

Now, some folk have suggested we overuse this word but I protest most mightily. If someone considers us any less than straight folks then, ding ding, they’re a bigot. Do we overuse the word? Nope. Is there a lot of bigots out there that cause us to use the word pretty damn often? Sadly so. You can’t stop calling sheep sheep simply because there’s so many of the damn woolly things all over the place and you can’t refuse to recognise and label bigotry just because there’s so much of it about.