it's also commonly referred to as "red dragon," based off of the mahjong tile that it appears on. the tile wasn't originally called such, but it commonly had a red dragon on it for flourish, i believe (though i might be mistaken), and thus it got said moniker.

Hollywood and such have adopted it as a symbol for the often fictitious "Red Dragon Triad," though i've heard tell of Asian street gangs here in the US taking the name, too.

I just think it's looking too hard for controversy where none is found. Many websites use filters that either blocks out words (by using a spoiler) or replaces them that some might find offensive so it can cause a mix up. There have been reports that Facebook blocked the name "Gay" by default, asking people to confirm that Gay is their real name in order to stop abuse and the Christian web page did fix the error when it came to their attention. Also isn't it a good thing that even this rag of a "news" site is using the "correct" term instead of derogatory terms such as "gay" and "fag" to describe them (even if they are condescending). The mix up was funny but I am not sure it was "Asshole Fuckface" worthy but it might have been a slow week.

Also being Evangelical/Christians that take it too far and Republican doesn't always equal being Conservative or at least a Classical Conservative since Mr. Conservative (Barry Goldwater) himself hated the Christian movement and evangelicals that tried to take over the GOP and politics and said "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

No. They are attempting to take a word homosexuals have "taken back" as a term of empowerment. They are seeking to find the most derogatory legitimately used description.

That is according to gay friends. So, once again, you are completely wrong.

I didn't know your friends spoke for the entire gay and lesbian community. I really have no problem with the term gay or homosexual, I just think people are making way to big of a deal out of a filter that made a mistake and pointing out that it really isn't that worthy of being on the list since the mistake was corrected and the article at hand had no agenda (even if the web site it self does).

Well, that's why you don't make the list. You are ignorant.

Yup, you are right. Those Christians are trying to lie and make people think Homosexuals are fast Olympic runners. Damn vast right wing conspiracy is at it again.

I have created a new word just for you: Wooshtarded. You not only missed the point, but are also a moron.

Congrats.

Do you even know why that filter exists? It's a clinical word, because the American Family Association thinks that gay people have a disease that can be cured.

"Homosexual" is derogatory? Somebody better tell The Village Voice.

"most derogatory" does not mean derogatory.

Just because you want to believe that's their intent doesn't make it so. There are several other equally legitimate explanations for why they may have thought the filter was necessary. The more believable reason is probably political correctness. They probably thought that replacing "gay" with "homosexual" would be one way to avoid being accused of bigotry against queers. Obviously they were wrong.

Hahahaha! That's a good one. I'll have to remember that.

Was that supposed to be satire? Because if it was, you're no Jonathan Swift.

Instructive as to what? In polite conversation/debate, one does not simply say, "Here, read this, it proves everything!" If you believe something, make your point yourself instead of hiding behind a book.

Source, please.

How magnanimous of you.

My flip comments may be weak satire so that may indeed be an apt charge, and I'll have to live with that but...

Where do I begin with this other nonsense? Firstly, how does one defend themselves vis-a-vis "hiding behind a book" when leveled at me by an apologist for wait for it... RELIGION!? haahahahahhahahahah (cough cough, hack hack) hahahahahhahahha.

Secondly, I merely mentioned that the book may be useful to this fellow. He may learn something from it. I am not interested in teaching him anything, but rather, showing him how to teach himself (I feel a Jebus parable in here somewhere).

Lastly, you want a source for my assertion that religion is irrational? Really? Try the religious tomes themselves (e.g.,Deuteronomy 22:13-21). Further, let's just look at the concept: Religions believe "that an invisible man lives in the sky and looks out for them" (Carlin), despite the fact that there has been ZERO empirical evidence to support such a grand theory. Yet they believe it anyway. This is the sine quo non of the crazy, irrational person. Ok?

I gotta go, enjoy your IQ kids!

I am not sure a wo/man like you would even be able to discern what constitutes a "bright" person. The tools themselves may not be sharp enough, ya know?

But, maybe you're right, shit, a (recorded/documented/ i.e., provable) 150 IQ may just not spend like it used to...

Lock & load!

P.s. Maybe, as I admitted earlier, the satire wasn't real funny, but I was clearly making fun of something by pretending to agree with it. That is satire, kids. Now it may have fallen flat, I agree, but I certainly know that I tried to go over-the-top in order to make a point. Again, this is --while maybe not the apotheosis of satire-- an honest attempt at satirical scribbling. Ok, Kids, "enjoy your hair" (Hicks) ...

I was going to make this very point myself. Excellent point. The term's etymology is instructive, but for reactionary twits like (abbazappa) everything only exists 'right now' and thus sans historical context. "Homosexual" is a pejorative because it was meant to describe a pathology, i.e., saying gay people are "sick".