I know I’ve written about this before, but it drives me crazy. It also shows how incompetent and infantile our hallowed institution of journalism has become.
Pope Francis, we were told in stories across the web, “has again used a homophobic term after apologizing last month for saying gay men should not be admitted to church seminaries because ‘there’s already too much f*****ry….he used of the word ‘frociaggine’, a vulgar Italian term roughly translating as ‘f*****ness’, on May 20 during a closed-door meeting with Italian bishops.
Wait…what does the word mean again? Nobody would print it. Using the word was so newsworthy everyone was writing about it, but our public censors refused to reveal it. What is “f*****ness? Why should I have to play “Wheel of Fortune” to learn the key elements of a news story? The New York Times refused to translate “frociaggine” into English, but the Italian word means nothing to me and most Americans. It sounds like some kind of ragu. All the Times would reveal was that it was an “anti-gay slur,” a “homophobic slur,” or just a “slur.” If the Times prints all the news that’s fit to print, then why won’t it print the key element of such fit news? Personally, I couldn’t care less what the Pope says, but I do object to having to visit multiple web sites to find out what should have been revealed in every published report.
Finally I found this explanation sort-of translation:”The Italian word roughly translates to the derogatory term, “f—–t”. While the word literally means a bundle of sticks and was used in the 19th Century to describe older women who gathered firewood, it has since taken on negative connotations to describe gay men.” Ah! Faggot! At least on that site, I could figure out the word. I still haven’t found a news source that printed the word itself. What are we, children? Hysterics? Will reading the word “faggot” send us into some kind of orgy of anti-LGTBQ hate?
What possible justification can there be for doing this? There is none. The explanation, however, is that our news and public information are in the hands people too silly and dim to have that responsibility.
When I tried to post on Facebook the translation of frociaggine, the platform told me I was violating the “hate speech” rule, and took the post down.
Our culture is becoming too stupid to survive.
Ethics Alarms 
If we define the word slur to mean a term or phrase used with the intent to denigrate others for the purpose of making them feel outside of the cultural norms, and whose social value is inferior to the majority, then why are terms such transphobe, homophobe, Islamaphobe, or Christian Nationalist generally acceptable in the media and printable?
It seems to me that the ability to use slurs to define those with whom you disagree or detest, or prevent others from using the term by reserving a preferential right of use is an established characteristic of an oppressor.
“While the word literally means a bundle of sticks”
Since Italy, I was starting down the path to conclude fascist was the word, coming from the fasces bundle of sticks.
That occurred to me as well.
I find it hilarious how humans admire or mock the humble bundle of sticks depending on whether they are attempting to break it or burn it, respectively.
The same item that gives its name to a bizarre homophobic slur (burning people? What century is this?) also gives its name to a philosophy of strength in unity, which while sound in the abstract, usually ends up implemented as a totalitarian and intellectually dishonest society where narcissistic sociopaths manipulate the immature into helping them threaten everyone else into obedience. Eventually people realize this is no way to run a society, and thus even the positive connotation of stick bundles end up becoming labels of contempt.
I guess the lesson humans need to learn is how to cooperate without having to impose conformity.
Ah, the joys.
I’ve heard this word in something approximating disdain exactly once: It was the 90’s and teenage me got frosted tips. My grandmother, upon seeing me for the first time said: “Jeffrey! You look like a faggot!” And my cousin snorted milk out her nose. I think my exact words were, “Gee, thanks. Great to see you too.” (I really always was like this).
Honestly… I feel like there’s this built-in subclass of moron that doesn’t necessarily hate gay people so much as they just like being edgy. There’s a rule of goats problem in there, but I console myself that these people aren’t actually hateful so much as they’re just a little simple, and we ought to be kind to people less… y’know… Regardless, they’ll see something like this, and it’ll give them their new favorite word for the next couple of weeks, and then we move on. These overblown reactions basically guarantee that the words progressives are trying so hard to remove from the public consciousness will persevere.
Rule of goats?
It’s a Ken White thing from when Ken White wasn’t a stodgy old prude:
“Even if you’re only fucking the goat ironically, you’re still a goatfucker.”
Stodgy old Trump-Deranged prude.
In the Italian-American culture, as well as in Italy, the word I often heard to inidcate a homosexual male was “finocchio” which also means fennel.
I have taken to substituting “Voldemort” for every “forbidden” word.
-Jut
Has there been any reaction to the substance of his comment? Is this slur hoopla a means to sweep that under the rug?
Heard about the first time the Pope said frociaggine on an Italian’s youtube channel. He had to censor the Italian word because of the inane rules on that website. At least he was consistent in the censoring. The websites spelling out frociaggine but censoring faggotry are worse than idiotic. It’s pure virtue signalling. What is stopping a person from putting frociaggine in a translator and seeing what pops out?
The larger issue that nobody addressed, at least none that I could find, is that both instances that Pope Francis used frociaggine were in closed door meetings. Somebody is leaking what is meant to be private meetings between the Pope and members of the Catholic clergy. There are reasons to have closed door meetings. The Pope’s use of a slur is not a reason to violate the expectation of privacy that a closed door meeting should provide.
Another way to frame this: the same people who are revolting (both meanings) over the view that striking down Roe has wounded “the right to privacy” (the bonkers bootstrap device using the unmentioned 10the Amendment Constitutional right to justify Roe) ) celebrate surreptitious taping of private conversations to “get” various conservative public figures. But “privacy” to facilitate killing nascent human beings is sacrosanct…There’s good privacy and bad privacy, apparently. Except the “bad privacy” is called “privacy,” and the good privacy isn’t privacy at all, but killing.