deelaundry | An Early AM Question

Entry tags:

ep notes

An Early AM Question

~~Do you think the male nurse House spoke to in episode 6-8 (the Thanksgiving ep) was gay? Why or why not?~~

I know some people on my f-list thought the male nurse House spoke to in episode 6-8 (the Thanksgiving ep) was gay. If you thought this, what specifically made you think it?

You can screen your comment if you like.

ETA: I have turned off comment tracking for this post. If you have anything to say to me, you can send me a PM or direct email. If anyone says anything offensive to you in this post, you can let me know directly.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So people should never ask whether fictional characters are gay? If you had read my comment, I said myself that fiction matters. Asking these questions can often be an attempt to figure out the intentions of the producers. However, asking this question of a fictional character is not equal to asking it of a real person. It's personal information for someone who actually exists; for this nurse, it's simply character background, and there is no harm in being curious about it.

And queerness is a deviation from average. I won't rethink describing it as so, because it's true. It is a statistical deviation from average, and that is precisely what I meant by that statement. I think you were perfectly aware of what I meant; I'm certain you didn't honestly believe I was calling all queers deviants in the criminal sense. Deviations are statistical phenomena, and until the day when 50% or more of the population is gay, I will continue to describe homosexuality as a deviation from average. A minority. You use the words you want to use, and I'll use the ones I want to use.

you're very aggressive in this thread, it's kind of interesting

i merely suggested a different word, because there are different ones, rather than one that relates back to an unfortunate historical legacy

i didn't say there was harm - i said that there ways to ask the question that reinforce stereotyping, and ways that are more neutral

You're being very condescending in this thread, it's interesting.

ikr it fascinates me as well

Belittle me, baby, it gets me so hot.

Call me irrational again, yes, oh god yes!

lol you're not v good at this

Yes, oh god, insult me, uhn, you know what I want baby, fuck yeah...

Oh, I'm- I'm- UNNNGH!

God, you're the best. Listen, I'm gonna be busy for like... a few weeks, but, I'll call you sometime, 'kay?

sorry, still amateur

God I told you I'm busy, baby, you're gonna get me all riled up again.

nah, we're not doing this anymore

you got called on some shit, apparently it made you angry, and you're deciding to overreact to neutral points people made to you

or, you know, dismiss anything that criticizes your comment some more

Honestly, I was trying to kid around because I thought you and I were breaking off into our own argument that had even less to do with Dee's post than the original argument I started (by the way, Dee, I'm sorry about all this; I didn't think it would explode).

I stand by my original points. I stand by my decision to use certain words, and my position that semantics shouldn't be argued about in this kind of situation. I also believe pretty firmly that people should try to avoid being condescending if they want to keep an argument civil and fair, and I saw a full-on fight about to break out between the two of us that would have had nothing to do with the original point and everything to do with us yelling at each other. Nothing I said was going to make me sound non-aggressive in your eyes (because I honestly didn't think I was being aggressive, and thus had no way to change it), and nothing you said was going to sound non-condescending in mine.

You're continuing to try to make me angry, so your accusation of aggression is really a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you accuse someone of being mad, whether they originally were or not, the madder they're going to become.

Do you really want to continue arguing about whatever it was we were veering into? I can do that. I do have class in a little while, but I'm free besides that. I'm not trying to sound snotty, it just sounds like you had something you wanted to say, and if it's something relevant to the debate, then I welcome it, and I'll accept that I was hasty in judging this discussion as a fight waiting to happen.

If not, what would have been the appropriate response to your statement that I was being aggressive? I saw a fight looming and tried to diffuse it, that was my chosen response. I'm not normally one to back out of an argument, honestly, but I have a track record of days-long internet fights that go nowhere and end with both parties feeling quietly superior over an entirely ambiguous outcome, and I didn't really want this to become one of those situations.

Why shouldn't semantics be argued in this situation in particular? What makes this situation special?

Just wondering.

Hm. I don't think I'm wording this right.

Asking for clarification is fine in any situation. Arguing about semantic meaning of a question is, in my mind, pointless. The original comment wasn't a request for clarification. It was asking why queerness has to be interrogated, implying that the question was doing so. That sounds more like a sly way of beginning an argument about semantics than a simply request for a rephrasing. If the original intention was to clarify Dee's meaning, then that could have been asked outright, the way that the original commented wanted Dee to ask HER question outright.

Well, you mentioned this situation as particularly exempt from questions of semantics, and I wondered why that was true. If you think that semantics are pointless in all situations, why single this one out?

I think you're ascribing malice where there is none, but that's my opinion. There's a difference between dialogue and argument, after all, and asking about clarification of intention and wording isn't necessarily combative.

and asking about clarification of intention and wording isn't necessarily combative.

I agree! I agree completely, I really, really do.

This was what

queenzulu said originally:

Do you think the male nurse House spoke to was straight? Why or why not?

Or, in other words, why does queerness have to be interrogated when straightness doesn't?

To me, that sounds a lot like implying that Dee was interrogating (obviously a negative thing), and not very much like asking for clarification. The words "what do you mean by that?" or "what makes you ask?" might have been more appropriate, if that was what she honestly wanted to know. The implication wasn't malicious, but it was a little negative. It definitely wasn't a simple question for clarification.

I don't think semantics are pointless, I think arguing about them is, especially since it is, in almost all situations, more civil and less time consuming to simply ask for a rewording.

I apologize if my thoughts sound scattered right now, I'm sitting on a bus and typing this on my phone.

I suppose the difference is that I saw interrogated being used with an academic, scholarly connotation and you saw it as hostile. It's not very objective to assign incivility to the question, particularly when it wasn't addressed to you.

If we don't discuss (or argue about) semantics, then won't they become pointless?

Are we arguing semantics about semantics? We're pretty close.

Semantics will always be important, we all know that. Go debate them as you please, but I really have to get to class and I'm going to back out of this whole discussion, because I can't keep it up with multiple people all night long. (Ba-dum tisshhh.) That said, I appreciate you keeping a friendly tone. Thanks. :)

I wasn't kidding when I said I'm not doing this; I'm sick of having people, whether they're trying to or not, shut down conversations about potentially problematic things, especially when the conversation up until that point has been friendly.

Why shouldn't semantics be argued about? You can't always have it both ways - it's not necessarily fair to examine queerness without examining the way in which straight perspectives are approaching it.

I thought you sounded aggressive because of your repeated statements that zulu et. al.'s, as well as my own, comments were pointless at best, distracting us from "the real work" of advocacy at worst. I believe you did not intend to come across that way, but you did; similarly, I was not initially trying to come off as condescending, but that's the way you read me.

No, I already said it, and you have already indicated that it's not really something you're interested in discussing, although I appreciate the offer.

IMO, and as I usually do, if someone is seeing me as aggressive/condescending/snarky/whatever when I'm seriously not trying to be, I usually ask why they feel that way and clarify that I'm not trying to be.

Are you asking why I thought you were being condescending? Calling my aggressiveness "interesting" should be enough. You must be aware that that was condescending. You were treating me like a science project, and then you proceeded to try to rile me; increase what you saw as my "interesting" behaviour. Both condescending and offensive. I tried my best not to rise to the bait, but you wouldn't stop.

I'm very outnumbered in this argument, I'm exhausted, and I have to get to class. Take the last word if you want it, I'm done.

why am i even trying here

you jumped on me after a neutral comment, and so i said you were bring aggressive, and i didn't particularly care how you saw me after reading the comments you were making

so w/e

(o, i wasn't asking, btw, because i know why and i know why i said it, and that's the end of that story)

Edited 2010-01-14 19:40 (UTC)

You're one of those people who goes

OH I DON'T HAVE THE ENERGY FOR THIS/WAHWAHWAH/I'M DONE HERE BUT let me continue on for three more paragraphs and if you reply to anything I say in those paragraphs I'll put on the air of a tired parent who is trying to calmly indulge their bratty child.

I get what you're saying here but everyone here is being atrocious about it, especially you.

lol thanks for the input, random psn

btw, if that comment sounds aggressive, it's not meant to be, lol

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

An Early AM Question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject