Gaaay

The following is something I wrote almost a year ago, following the repeated pejorative use of the word gay in the WoW guild I was in then. The guild has since disbanded, a month or two or so after this was written. Regardless, the content is still interesting, I think, no matter the reason I first wrote it.

Before I begin, I’d like it if I’m allowed to finish before anyone comments or asks questions about what I mean, I spent some time writing this earlier today, so hopefully I will express myself clearly and minimize the need to explain myself afterwards.

Firstly allow me to start with a warning. What I am about to say contains opinions, strong opinions at that, it may also include words that are offensive to most people, but that’s what I*m going to be talking about anyway, so I hope you will bear with me.

Also, I will post a copy of this on the forums.
Secondly I would like to say that, normally, I care very little for being politically correct. There are several reasons for this, mostly, however, it is because it can limit our ability to express ourselves to an insane degree, and, frankly, make language incredibly boring – something it is NOT!

When I am around family and, especially, close friends who I know and care about, I can and will say things that, on the surface, are incredibly offensive to some people. However, because those are people I know so well, and they know me, it is not a problem, why? Because they know that I mean it as no more than a joke.

But when I am around people I know less well, such as most people in this guild, I am more mindful of how I express myself. This is because I do not know you people, I do not know what you think and believe about religion, politics or practically anything that is actually important.

So, when I am around people I don’t know as well as I know my close friends and family, I will never call someone “gay” as the insult it is often used as.

And yes, the word “gay” and its use, is precisely what this is about, and in a minute I will look at what it means, but first I will explain why I would not use it like that when around, for example, you people.

I do it around my friends, because I know that none of us actually have anything against people who are homosexual, and we all know we only use it in good fun – so it is safe to use without insulting anyone.

However, when in the guild or other places with people I know less intently, I avoid it, why? Because I do not know how any of you view being homosexual, and more importantly I do not know if any of you ARE homosexual. I do not wish to inadvertently insult anyone who might be gay by using the word in its insult form (yes, I will look at the word soon enough). And it IS insulting to use people’s sexual orientation as an insult.

Anyway, before I continue this, let us look at the word. The word “gay” means several things; however, I think it is safe to limit it to THREE different meanings and uses. Firstly there is the old meaning, which sees relatively little use today, that meaning is “bright,”  “happy” and “lively” – adjectives.

Secondly the word means “homosexual” – noun, this is a newer meaning, and sees far more widespread use today – in fact, you almost never hear the first meaning, though you could argue that “gay” actually means “proud, happy homosexual.”

The final meaning and use of the word is “homosexual, and thus stupid, inferior and generally bad” – adjective. This last one is the problem I’m talking about here.

The reason I am saying all this here, now to all of you, is that recently I have seen the word used in the negative third meaning several times, and I do not think that is acceptable in an environment where you do not know if you will hurt other people by using a sexual orientation as an insult.

When I called the person down on it, it was excused as “slang where I come from” and “I can’t help how I speak”
I will deal with the two separately, if you don’t mind.
First the slang excuse, the weaker of the two. It may be used widely like that where you live, but it is still a word used across the world, and NEWSFLASH! it is used in the same way across the world, too. It is not slang where you come from, it is used practically everywhere people know some English. But that’s not really what makes it a weak excuse; you still use the word, and people’s sexual orientation, as an insult. Slang can be insults too.
And allow me to restate an example I made when first arguing about this: If it is ok to use gay/homosexual as an insult by naming the use “slang,” is it ok with other words too, then?

What about “you stupid nigger”? I mean, it’s just slang, I don’t mean black people, I just use a derogative term for them in an insulting way – do you think they would like that? I know I don’t like it, and I’m not even black… or am I?

When I made that example, someone told me it was different, because there was a difference in having another skin colour and defying nature’s laws – I will return to that comment as soon as I have commented on the other excuse:

“I can’t help how I speak.” Now, if you have a Determinist belief, that’s true. To be sure everyone knows what I mean, Determinism is basically the belief that there is no free will, and that all actions are predetermined – basically you are watching your life as you live it, not making any real choices yourself.
Personally I have an Existentialist view of the world, so obviously I do not agree with such a view, I believe strongly in free will and our ability to make our own choices.

And frankly, with just minimal effort, you CAN think before you talk, and moderate it slightly based on your surroundings – if not I would dare say that you are extraordinarily weak of will, and somewhat insensitive. Whether you were destined to think before talking, or chose to do it, is irrelevant for this discussion.

Now, then, what can I say about the comment about defying nature by being homosexuality? To be honest, the short reply is “it’s not relevant to this discussion.” The statement is obviously very controversial, and I disagree strongly with it.

However, even if you believe this, or maybe you think homosexuality is the Black Plague of the 21^st century? That belief need not make you use the word as an insult – you don’t walk around calling people “stupid as a cancer patient” do you? So, even if you think homosexuals are sick or defying nature, there’s no reason to insult them, is there? Do you mock the victims of a traffic accident? I hope you don’t.

Frankly, even if you hold such narrow-minded views, there’s no reason to rude about it, so keep your medieval mentality to yourself, thank you very much.

As a side-note, if you happen to hold the belief that being homosexual makes people “less manly,” I can only suggest that you spend a little less time on this game, and spend some time reading about ancient Sparta instead, who knows, you might learn something.

I have talked for a long time now, but I strongly believe these things needed to be said. I want to mention two more things, and then I will stop, I promise.

A few times while discussing this yesterday, I was called “Mr. Political.” It is true that the question of homosexuality is a fairly loaded subject politically and religiously, however, I don’t think I have argued it in a political way today, or yesterday. The entire issue I have been focused around has not been whether you should like homosexuals or not, it has been that you should not insult them just because you can’t accept them. I don’t see that as a particularly political agenda, I see it as a humane agenda.

Besides, if saying these things makes me “Mr. Political,” it makes the other person “Mr. Idiot.” Some of you will be thinking “what is he talking about? That’s arrogant!” And yes, it is arrogant, but those of you who know your languages also know it is TRUE. The original meaning of the word idiot is literally someone who is not interested in politics – so live with the label, Mr. Idiot.

On that note, the disease or Black Plague of the 21^st century is neither homosexuality (it has been around for millennia) nor obesity – it is apathy and disinterest in important issues.

That’s all the preaching I’m going to do today, and hopefully for a good long time.

All that’s left to say now, is that I greatly enjoy this guild, but if certain people do not change, or leave, I will seriously reconsider my membership, and likely leave at some point or another.

I wouldn’t like to do that, but I wouldn’t want to stay somewhere where the things I’ve described are acceptable.

Essay about His Dark Materials

His Dark Materials is a trilogy by Philip Pullman, and one of my favourite stories. Thus, when given the option of choosing my own text as a basis for my final English essay in the gymnasium, His Dark Materials was the obvious choice. Especially since it contains a great many thoughts on life, with which I happen to agree.
I’ve decided to upload the essay here, and eventually add things that could not be included in the original paper (there’s a lot to be said!).

I chose to write about the text from l. 5 p. 547 to the end of p. 548, His Dark Materials: The Amber Spyglass, final chapter: The Botanic Garden. I am unsure whether it would be allowed to include so much text from the original here, so I’ll add a brief description of what takes place, soon.

The essay:

The Republic of Heaven

The text chosen for this essay consists of the two last pages in the book The Amber Spyglass, the third book in the trilogy His Dark Materials written by Philip Pullman. Though released primarily as children’s literature the series deal with an abundance of themes important to human existence. The pages have been chosen as they present perhaps the most clearly articulated expression of the views and ideas in the story, though they are obviously touched upon at other points in the narrative. In the following I will examine the text, with the purpose of explaining these themes and ideas, as well as relate them to similar texts from other sources.
One of the primary ways in which the story conveys these themes and ideas is in the way the universe, or, rather, the multiverse in the books work. Due to the nature of the world the conflicts of existence are made much more tangible, and thus, also, are the characters’ ways of dealing with these conflicts made much clearer to the reader. This is especially true for the relationship between Lyra and Will, which is the source of much of what can be learned from the part of the story chosen for this essay. For this to make sense, it is necessary to understand more of Lyra’s world, than is explained in the included text. The world of the story is really a multitude of worlds or universes, hence the term multiverse, and the story centres on Lyra and Will’s adventures across many of these universes. Towards the end of the story it is revealed that humans cannot exist for much longer than ten years in a universe other than their own, before falling sick and dying. Furthermore, the childrens’ means of travel, the Subtle Knife carried by Will, turns out to spawn ghost-like monsters that ‘eat’ the lust for life out of anyone who has entered or passed puberty, every time it is used.
As Will and Lyra come from different worlds, Will from ours and Lyra from a similar-yet-different world, this means that the two cannot stay together, despite being strongly in love as well as close friends, after their many shared experiences – most of which they will never be able to share with others, who would not understand them. Why they do not choose one of the two worlds will be covered lately, first Lyra’s feeling after this separation, as well as it’s implications on the vision of life presented in the text, will be examined.

 

“She had never dreamed of what it would feel like to love someone so much; of all the things that had astonished her in her adventures, that was what astonished her the most. She thought the tenderness it left in her heart was like a bruise that would never go away, but she would cherish it for ever.” (l. 10-13 in the included text.)

 

Primarily, at least at first, this passage shows how life is pain, as her past and her feelings have given Lyra a “bruise that would never go away”, but though the pain may be what is on the surface, it is not all there is. Lyra will cherish her “bruise” forever because it reminds her that she is alive, that she has lived, and, more than anything, that she has loved another person. This clearly indicates the belief that, while life may be pain, it is worth it, due to the connections we form with each other, as well as the experiences shared between us. This includes even bad experiences, or sad memories, such as Lyra’s, after all, she would not be the same person without it, nor would she have all the happy memories with Will. Furthermore bad experiences are needed to give colour and life to the happy ones, without one the other loses meaning and without either there is nothing.
This idea that life is worth something in itself is further explored when Lyra and Pan discuss the end of the kingdom of heaven. The here is always more important than the elsewhere, they say. This does not mean that one should only care about the immediate surroundings, or that it would be wrong to plan for the future. It does, however, mean that it is important to face realities, instead of wistfully imagining a better life than the current ones. Action not imagination and hoping (alone) brings good things. Coupled with the reference to the kingdom of heaven also makes this an attack on organized religion. An attack that resembles traditional accusations against organized religion, namely that organized religion destroys or worsens life by making people follow unnecessary rules, for the purpose of gaining a preferable position in the afterlife. By focusing on the elsewhere, rather than the here.
The song The Preacher and the Slave by Joe Hill is an expression of the same resentment towards organized religion, as shown in these stanzas from the song:

 

“Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ‘bout something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet

 

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die”
(Lyrics found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Preacher_and_the_Slave)

 

But why did Will and Lyra not choose to go to one of their worlds and stay there? The answer comes readily in the text itself:

 

““But then we wouldn’t have been able to build it. No one could, if they put themselves first.”
(l. 30 in the included text.)

 

Before looking at what they wish to build, it is relevant to look at the statement, that no one could, if they put themselves first. The concept that one must never put oneself before others is known from many other sources. It is part of the categorical imperative of Kant, used to finding moral laws, that it is always immoral to make oneself an exception. However, more related to the situation of Lyra and Will is the idea, explored among others by Jean-Paul Sartre, that truly moral relations between people must be devoid of any exercise of power, they must be completely equal. If they went into one the worlds, they would never be completely equal in their relationship again; one of them would have to give up the majority of their life, though gaining a sort of moral power over the other. Not only would the one, whose home world they had chosen, be forced to watch the other slowly fade away – while they were still in their twenties! – but would also have an obligation to stay with the other, due to the sacrifice that person had made in coming. Such an obligation might erode their love, one of them would feel a burden, and the other might become resentful at the first due to being exposed to the pain of watching powerlessly watching him or her fade away.
The only way for it to stay a true, honest relationship was for it to end, for them to go to their respective universes.
Lyra ends with explaining what they are going to build: The republic of heaven. With the above in mind, it is fairly simple to figure out the meaning of this. The kingdom of heaven is focused on the elsewhere, governed by hard rules imposed by a single ruler, and aggressive towards alternative ideas. The republic of heaven, on the other hand, is focused on the here, on inter-human relations, and on life, accepting that both the good and bad parts must be faced and dealt with. Just before Lyra mentions the republic of heaven comes a passage describing how a multitude of different bells start ringing. The bells are all different, but none of them are judged because of it. It gives a picture of life as incredibly varied, and better for this diversity. And so it might be concluded that, to build the republic of heaven, it is necessary to learn to accept diversity, in addition to the other things discussed above. The final, and perhaps most important, difference is that the kingdom of heaven will make you conform, while you have to build the republic of heaven yourself.
All in all the views expressed in the story are critical of organized religion, but more than everything else they are optimistic about life, good and bad included.