Sunday, July 06, 2008

Terminology - A Two Dogs Primer

It was brought to my attention yesterday that some folks can misinterpret the exact gist of my statements, sometimes. Please understand that these blaggy posts spring fully formed from my humongous melon. I know what I mean and if you are confused, hit me up in the comments or by e-mail, I am not trying to step on your tail. I usually don't even think of you when I post, I think of me and my thoughts. Sad, maybe painful even to some, but true. We can certainly straighten out the exact meaning of what I was saying, IF you do not project certain things onto me that have come up in your past and wear your feelings on your sleeve. Remember, I am a stereotypical redneck man that doesn't think too much about those pesky ol' emotions. You know, maybe I harshed on the guy/gal/undecided that was saying that I was a homophobe because he/she/other didn't understand the terminology that I employed. Sometimes I am guilty of the same things that emotional folks are. I do not want to run anyone off, I write this crap in the HOPE that someone reads it. Lemme clear things up.

I could not care less what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. That is your business and should forever remain that way, do not take it to the streets, no matter from which side of the plate that you bat. In the post where I was relaying the conversation of what my uncle and I were talking about, make no mistake, when he said the word "queer," he meant "a man that sleeps with other men." To him, that is the lowest of the low, I do not share that sentiment. A person that refuses to provide for themselves, by moral means, is the lowest of the low in philosophical practice to me. 'Nuff 'bout that.

When I use the term, "nancy-boy" or "sissy," the image that I am trying to relay is that there exist among us certain folks that whine and cry when their ever-present feelings get hurt. I am not making a statement regarding their sexual activities, again I could not care less. I have certainly been informed that those two terms are synonyms for "homosexual" in certain circles. Again, your personal business is your personal business. Do not send me photos of that.

How about an example? This is from (supposedly) a man, namely Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post. From THIS article.

He has, of course, Wayne's rage (the famous temper) and impatience. He was formed by an extremely hard-knock system, first at Annapolis, then at flight school, then in battle, then in prison camp and torture, and finally, for 23 years, in politics. He seems like one of those alpha dogs that others kind of fear because he actually likes to fight. He doesn't fear confrontation or force like most of us; he considers their application fun. That makes him cool; that also makes him scary. He's like a gun in the house: unnerving, but when you need it, baby, does it feel good.

(Just so you know, everything about McCain's personality that he describes is simply describing a typical man to me. There is nothing out of the ordinary except for the Hanoi Hilton stuff. McCain is exactly average because of those actions, in Dogsland. He certainly ain't rough and rugged because he went to Annapolis or flight school, shit, those are "fancy-boys.")

What Stephen fails to realize is that he sounds exactly like a sissy, in this case, someone that is afraid of John McCain. The fact that he thinks that "most of us" are like that is telling. Sorry, those of us that are not "fancy-boys" do not fear other men or confrontation either. We might not like the confrontation, but we certainly do not run home to Mama. "An alpha dog that others kind of fear because he actually likes to fight." Or, "a gun in the house is unnerving." Holy shit, what kind of crybaby, whining, WOMAN is this guy? It has nothing to do with whether or not he sleeps with men or women, it has to do with this guy is cringing in the corner afraid of a gun being in the house. He has in fact become such a little "pansy" that he tee-tees on his belly when there is a gun around. Again, no sex talk there.

The problem as I see it lies in the difficulty of understanding that your emotions are exactly that, emotions. They neither have to have a reason to crop up, nor are they right or wrong. That is the nature of our country today, thousands upon thousands of people living their lives and reacting to situations based on nothing but their emotions stemming from a single circumstance. Folks walk from their homes in the morning with their hurt and pain worn as a lapel pin and then wonder why their lives are filled with drama, hate, and discontent.

I advocate thinking instead. Oh, and if you are like Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post, go buy a shirt with a built in backbone. You sissy.

Your thoughts?