There has been this trend the last few years where you can only use the word "gay" to mean homosexual or happy, not the third usage usually reserved for teenage boys. I am, of course, sympathetic to gay rights and all, but I just don't get this.
When I first heard of this movement a few years ago I did some research and I found that the two uses of the word came about at roughly the same time and, as far as I can tell, the two definitions are completely separate and have never "crossed", through the actual definitions anyway, to mean the two things simultaneously.
So I am wondering, why this need to hijack this particular word and no other? You can still say something is "lame", indicating that it is not cool, and it doesn't offend "lame" people, those unable to walk normally. You can even say something is "queer", indicating it is unusual, strange, odd, normal, even though some in the LGBT community are now using the word to describe themselves. I really don't understand that sanctity of this one word. When some teen says, "That is so gay" he is not saying, "That is homosexual in nature and, thus, bad." He is not speaking to its sexuality at all. It is not intended as an insult to gay people as the usage does not even allude to gay people, but instead is just the usage of a completely different, unrelated definition of the word, something that happens ALL THE TIME in the English language. Live, lead and read not only have multiple definitions, but also multiple pronunciations. It is very confusing, but not considered a "problem". And the above example of the use of the word "lame" should be no less offensive.
I remember Wanda Sykes, who I widely consider to be the funniest woman alive, in a PSA speaking out about the word "gay" being used in that sense. She claimed it was "insulting". She then went on to give an analogy, but the analogy was WAY OFF. In the PSA the teen boys using the word "gay" to describe something they thought was stupid were not in any way indicating that they in any way were referring to sexuality of any nature. If they weren't speaking about homosexuality then it was impossible for them to be insulting homosexuality. But the analogy she gives is a direct, intentional insult to one of the boys. To say that the two are equivalent, in my opinion, is just ignorant. The boys were using another, legitimate usage of the word which has existed for about as long as the one she prefers, and not in any way referring to sexuality, intending insult or harm to no one other than an inanimate object they were laughing at. She was intentionally insulting one of the boys directly.
I lost respect for Sykes after seeing that PSA. I always saw her not only as hilarious, but a very intelligent woman. But that analogy was not only unfair, it was unintelligent. What the kids were doing was NOTHING like the analogy she gave.
Anyway, I have never understood this need to hijack a word for exclusive use or how any other use of the word could be in any way "offensive" to anyone. When someone says, "That is so gay" they are not saying, "That is so homosexual because homosexuality is bad and that is also bad". They're not speaking about homosexuality, they're not thinking about homosexuality, they're not deriding homosexuality. Not only is there no intention to insult, but there is also, as far as I can see, no unintentional insult as there would be if one were to, say, claim a man is "Jewish" to mean that he is frugal. But it seems to me as if some gays see it as the same.
So, any thoughts on this or any reasonable argument why I'm wrong to think the way that I do? The PSA I'm talking about is linked below.
What can you say? Language is loaded with inconsistencies that don't make a hell of a lot of sense Imagine if you were from a different planet and were dropped off on earth and had to learn all of the various languages and all of the inconsistencies and be perfectly fluent in all of them and report back to the mother ship and have to explain how it all works..
Wait! That's Shoe's job! :eek:
Any word aqcuires its meaning from the context which it is used...Context is the king...
Beats me, but I've had similar thoughts. But I'm not gay and know gay people, so I don't want to start anything. As far as I'm concerned Wanda Sykes doesn't own the role of gay spokesperson, but then again nobody else in the gay community has spoken up against her.
Thing is, if I'm in San Francisco and I see a couple of tastefully dressed muscular young men in a pink sports car, stereotypically I am going to draw certain conclusions. But whatever. I avoid the issue in any case.
And SofF is right. Context is king.
Quote from: widdershins on February 02, 2016, 01:08:39 PM
Anyway, I have never understood this need to hijack a word for exclusive use or how any other use of the word could be in any way "offensive" to anyone. When someone says, "That is so gay" they are not saying, "That is so homosexual because homosexuality is bad and that is also bad". They're not speaking about homosexuality, they're not thinking about homosexuality, they're not deriding homosexuality. Not only is there no intention to insult, but there is also, as far as I can see, no unintentional insult as there would be if one were to, say, claim a man is "Jewish" to mean that he is frugal. But it seems to me as if some gays see it as the same.
So, any thoughts on this or any reasonable argument why I'm wrong to think the way that I do?
If I am not part of your subculture how do I know your use of gay isn't perjorative? If you tell me, a fifty year old white gay man, "Oh my god, your outfit is so gay" I'm not sure how to take that. You can use "that's so gay" with your peers and they understand what you mean but move outside your sphere and you risk misunderstanding.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 02, 2016, 01:51:32 PM
If I am not part of your subculture how do I know your use of gay isn't perjorative? If you tell me, a fifty year old white gay man, "Oh my god, your outfit is so gay" I'm not sure how to take that. You can use "that's so gay" with your peers and they understand what you mean but move outside your sphere and you risk misunderstanding.
There really is no "subculture" to speak of. It's a common usage of the word and not at all a "cultural" thing. In fact, it started being used to describe both "homosexuals" and "things that are stupid" and roughly the same period in time.
And with the "your outfit is so gay" example you gave, shouldn't gays also be arguing against using the word gay to mean "happy or festive"? If we didn't us the word gay to describe things we thought were stupid then you STILL wouldn't know how to take that. Am I insulting you or am I saying that your outfit is "lighthearted and carefree"? But I don't know of anyone speaking out against that particular usage of the word.
I can certainly understand how it could be possible for you to misunderstand or be unsure of what is meant by the usage as you explained it, but mostly because your example is ambiguous. What if "gay" meant only "male homosexual" and I said to you "Your outfit is so gay!" Would that not be offensive? It seems to me like it would. And would it not actually be LESS offensive if what I meant was "stupid"? Again, it seems to me as if it would as it was simply an insult to your outfit, not your outfit AND sexuality.
Don't get me wrong here, I don't want to be argumentative and I certainly have no desire to offend you. I just want to understand. Frankly, I'm a straight man, but if your avatar is what you look like and you made a pass at me, I'd mull it over a bit ;)
I know a quite a few gay people that say "that's gay!" in reference to something being stupid.
I'm not gay, so I really have no say in what is/isn't offensive, but I have witnessed that pretty frequently.
Gay is a word that originally meant "happy", so it has quite a different meaning now that it's mostly referred to being attracted to someone with the same plumbing as you. What I want to know is why are black people saying the n word (a word that has ALWAYS been derogatory) constantly and then being offended by other people using it. If you want a word to not be used by someone, forget about the word. No one uses the word scallywag anymore.
On the flip side, you can overuse a word and it loses all power as an insult completely.
Lenny Bruce attempted this in the 60's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNhiRGQ-js
It didn't go over well with everyone, (and I don't necessarily agree with Lenny Bruce's approach with this...) but you can see at first, the audience was offended and as he went on, they realized he was purposely desensitizing them. He was taking away the power of the words by using them. Censorship gives power to words, that's the beautiful, double edged sword that is censorship that constantly keeps me on the fence about how I feel about it (censorship).
I don't think the n-word will ever be "OK" to say, because of it's history as a word. It was originally used as a very harmful word and has been stained in violence from the beginning. "Gay" though, IDK. maybe the way we view the word will change eventually. We already are expected to say LGBT because it's "Less offensive" than saying "gay" and before that, we were told to say "gay" because it is better than saying "homosexual" or "homo". I feel that as our world changes it's view on the lgbt community as a whole, the words we use to refer to them will change and the language will change, insults will change.... etc. Words that were insults, might not be insults anymore. New words and terms will be insults instead. It also has to do with the current culture, and "what is the thing being demonized at the time by popular culture" that yields to "what are the words and terms that are derogatory"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMkNsMMvrqk
George Carlin's list of 7 dirty words have shrunk over span of time from when he made that skit and now. Now the list is practically irrelevant, but there are new words that are more taboo. No one blinks an eye at the word "shit" anymore, but say "fagot" without referring to a bundle of wood and you're quickly in hot water.
Jeeze... I love the english language. It's so fucked haha
I don't think the word gay is sacred. Celebrities try to tell us what words to use all the time, and it usually turns out to be a joke and fails. They tell us not to use gay, retard, nigga/er, bossy, etc, but most people don't take these requests seriously, other than the super sensitive SJWs. I really don't care if people get offended by what words I use. I will use gay to mean stupid. If Lebron James flops and still gets the call, I'm going to say "that's gay". There's nothing homophobic about using the word to mean stupid, and if someone wants to see homophobic intent when none is there, that is their problem. The same goes for retarded and other words like that. I really don't care if a woman with a disabled son at home hears me say the word and gets offended. That's her problem.
Why is the word gay sacred?
Obviously because Jesus was a fag that’s why.
Vsauce has a great video exploring the psychology and history of "bad words"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7dQh8u4Hc
and this is a great documentary that is simply about the word "fuck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl9WWk431h0
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/courses/sexgender/f05/web2/s2halter.html
What's In A Label?Sarah Halter
QuoteI like the word "dyke." I like its history and its meaning: in four letters, it allows me to proclaim myself as woman, gay, and powerful at the same time. But my love for this label is problematic. As convenient as "dyke" is â€" it allows me to put my feelings and urges into two little sounds â€" I can't ignore the problems that arise when I try to define with language traits that are as complex as gender, sex, and sexuality. Looking at recently published gender theory, I see that labels have become anathema. In her essay "Inside/Out," Diana Fuss warns, "Where exactly, in this borderline sexual economy, does the one identity leave off and the other begin? And what gets left out of the inside/outside, heterosexual/homosexual opposition...?" (234). Thomas Laqueur, in his essay "On Language of the Flesh," says, "Woman alone seems to have 'gender' since the category itself is defined as that aspect of social relations based on difference between sexes in which the standard has always been man" (22) â€" in other words, woman is defined by what man is not. And in his book The History of Sexuality, Michael Foucault warns against the transformation of thoughts to words, saying, "the Counter Reformation ... attributed more and more importance in penance ... to all the insulations of the flesh; thoughts, desires, voluptuous imaginings, delectations, combined movements of the body and soul; henceforth all this had to enter, in detail, into the process of confession and guidance" (19). All three of these theorists would warn that my word is not an expression of freedom, a proclamation, but a word with agency that can be confining and exclusive. I understand what they mean, but still this troubles me. Isn't there a way I can reclaim "dyke"?
If I am to argue that we can reclaim labels, first I think it's necessary for me to illustrate the repressive power of words. I will start with a counter-argument: I can't deny that words confine, especially in a climate as politically charged as today's United States. Fuss, speaking almost as a prophet from the early '90s, says in her article,
The language and law that regulates the establishment of heterosexuality as both an identity and an institution, both a practice and a system, is the language and law of defense and protection: heterosexuality secures its self-identity and shores up its ontological boundaries by protecting itself from what it sees as the continual predatory encroachment of its contaminated other, homosexuality" (234).
Fuss argues that words can be used in defensive ways to protect a system - a system that may need revising. Those in power (much like those in the Counter Reformation that Foucault mentioned) possess the ability to control with words. For example, today "pro-family" means "anti-gay;" Focus on Family, American Family Association, and Family Research Council are all powerful organizations that praise "traditional family values" while remaining stringently anti-gay and anti-feminist. The wars over "pro-choice," "pro-life," "anti-choice," and "anti-life" provide another example for power play in words. Here, it's not the battle for or against abortion that's important, but the way that those fighting the battle choose words to represent their side. "Anti-choice" and "pro-life" both imply that a person is against abortion, but these two words could not be more different. (Who uses these words, how are they used, what do they imply, etc?) Words should never be dismissed; language is an important commodity in power.
From Fuss to Focus on Family, we see that words and agenda are intrinsically tied. This is the danger in labels. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault, using the example of confession, demonstrates the danger in words: "An imperative was established: not only will you confess to acts contravening the law, but you will seek to transform your desires, your every desire, into discourse" (21). The danger with putting feelings, thoughts, and desires into discourse is it allows for the "policing of statements" (Foucault 18). So when I label myself as a woman or a feminist or a Christian or â€" to return to the beginning of my paper â€" a dyke, I give a word to the thoughts that swirl in my mind. And words, unlike thoughts, can be policed. A friend can hush me if I say, "Dyke," too loudly in an area with children. When I call myself a feminist at a lunchtime discussion, my mind may wander to women like Adrienne Rich or Dorothy Allison, but the person I'm talking to may think with distaste of feminazis or man-hating bra-burners.
In introducing the purpose of his book, Laqueur tries to address this problem with discourse and exclusion:
My goal is to show how biology of hierarchy in which there is only one sex, a biology of incommensurability between two sexes, and the claim that there is no publicly relevant sexual difference at all, or no sex, have constrained the interpretation of bodies and the strategies of sexual politics for some two thousand years" (23).
Laqueur warns against the ways we use language to describe sex or gender: no matter how we try to put our thoughts on gender, sexuality, or sex into words, we constrain our thoughts by making up rules. Laqueur probably believes that ideas of sex and gender are best left without words: rather than calling a man a man, let him/her be. Similarly, the words "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality," at their most basic definition, only allow for two sexual orientations, and leave out hundreds that float around the border. Also, these words leave little room for communication or a movement between them.
I now feel that I have properly expressed the danger with words â€" after all, Fuss, Foucault, and Laqueur have all made compelling cases against labels. But I still like the word "dyke," so I will turn to the end of Fuss's article for support. She admits here that while breaking from language and the rules of language sounds attractive, "It would be difficult, not to say delusionary, to forget the words "inside" and "outside," "heterosexual" and "homosexual," without also losing in this act of willed amnesia the crucial sense of alterity necessary for constituting any sexed subject, any subject as sexed" (239). Fuss says that even without words, the sense of being "Other" remains. This is why I like the word "dyke." I like what it means to me. I like the history of activism and feminism that has allowed me to use positively a word that was once disgusting and derogatory. In "We 'Other' Victorians," Foucault says that he understands this: he says, "we are conscious of defying established power"(6), and later, "Something that smacks of revolt, of promised freedom, of the coming age of a different law, slips easily into this discourse on sexual oppression" (7). Foucault acknowledges that there is a siren's call that leads us to desire to "reclaim" the word dyke (or lezbo, or queer, or fag, or bitch, even). But, he argues, the problem exists not because I, a twenty-two year old college student, want to reclaim this word, but because of the history of sexuality - a history that has put words like this (that has put sex, something that shouldn't be in words) into discourse. And yet, I'm not convinced. I still like the word "dyke," I whisper to myself. Is this just stubbornness?
A classmate of mine once said that when we have a discussion in class, not only the visible students are present, but hundreds of unseen people are also floating around the edges. Whether these people are boy/girlfriends, old roommates or teachers, they are those who have shaped our thoughts, our opinions, and the ways we interpret words. When someone says "pro-choice," a well-groomed liberal arts woman may (or may not) think positive thoughts of a feminist who owns her body, but the girl sitting right beside this young woman may think about killing babies. I return to the idea I mentioned earlier: feminism to me is Adrienne Rich, but to others it is feminazis. This is because when I speak, I will always my ghosts, my history, my nationality, and my family around me, and these personal experiences will also shape how I hear words. But isn't that the point of being human? Even if we don't speak, even if we just grunt and motion to each other like Neanderthals, we will always bring our feelings and desires into any human interaction. And even if I didn't know the word for "other," a feeling of being different can remain.
I believe that when I say the word dyke, I make a statement of power. I express my feelings in words. I don't believe this word does anything but express how I feel. Others, like Foucault, will inevitably argue that I am playing into the hands of those who want to use the words against me. Foucault says, "As if in order to gain mastery over [sex] in reality, it had first been necessary to subjugate it at the level of language, control its free circulation in speech, expunge it from the things that were said, and extinguish the words the rendered it too visibly present" (17). But if I shouldn't let people put my thoughts into discourse and then police me, why should I let Foucault control my thoughts and words? I don't want Foucault's laws, arguments, or philosophies to control me any more than I want to be controlled by the state senator who thinks homosexuals shouldn't adopt children. I feel just as constrained by the President who's against gay marriage as the classmate who says that I shouldn't call myself a lesbian because that "labels" me.
Furthermore, when we put thoughts into words, we create existence â€" by saying the word "dyke," a dyke can exist. Foucault's argument is that you couldn't police the homosexual until you called him, her or it the homosexual. But would things really be so much better if this desire wasn't transformed into a label? Labels give us existence. Before the word "homosexual" came into existence, the Texas law against sodomy could not have existed. But organizations that fight AIDS for gay men would not have existed, and neither could groups like the HRC, PFLAG, NOW, or the Intersex Society of North America. Gay Pride Festivals â€" parades that celebrate sexuality in any and all forms â€" are now yearly experiences for cities. How many generations of lesbians had to marry men because there was no word to describe what they felt and no public acknowledgement of their existence?
In an ideal world, we could move away from labels. There would be no "norm" and no policing of thoughts, and people could simply exist as they are. But we don't live in an ideal world, and as Fuss says, "The dream of either a common language or no language at all is just that â€" a dream, a fantasy that ultimately can do little to acknowledge and to legitimate the hitherto repressed differences between and within sexual identities" (239). Perhaps I fight on "their terms" when I refuse to fight for the abolishment of all labels, perhaps I use words that senators and presidents can use against me, but I'm willing to do that because words can give existence. Words are difficult because they can be used to leave people out or deny freedom, but I'm not comfortable throwing these words - and their histories - away because of a few problems. I don't want to forget suffragists or gay rights activists so I can let go of their words.
I have spent this entire paper trying to illustrate why words are important, and perhaps this was my mistake. Maybe it's not my acceptance of labels that's the problem, but my view that words are all-important. If I dare to contradict myself (didn't I say in the beginning of this essay, "words should not ever be dismissed"?), perhaps I arrive at a new idea: words aren't as important as they seem. Labels are not perfect, but it's the implication behind these labels that cause the danger. There, behind the meaning of words, is where people are left out and insides and outsides are created. There is where policing begins. What if I could say that I'm a dyke, but suggest that's not all I am and not every woman who loves women has to call herself a dyke? What if I didn't give the word that much power? At the risk of sounding glib, perhaps we need to worry less about words and more about how we use them. And maybe we can move toward a world in which we use labels without letting them define us.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 02, 2016, 02:55:06 PM
What I want to know is why are black people saying the n word (a word that has ALWAYS been derogatory) constantly and then being offended by other people using it. If you want a word to not be used by someone, forget about the word. No one uses the word scallywag anymore.
That one is a WHOLE different story there. It never had any meaning other than what it has right now, so far as I know. As for why blacks use it, I'm not black, so I can't speak for blacks, but I imagine it's empowering for them. Even after the so called "equal" rights they won in the '60s, things haven't really ever been that "equal". And people still bashed them over the head with that word, as they still do even today. After more than 200 years of that, I imagine it's quite empowering to take the word for yourself and say to those who used it against you for longer than living memory, "YOU can't use it any more, dick!" I can certainly understand that and, frankly, we kind of owe them the right to say who can and cannot use that particular word.
I can see from most of the responses that this seems to be more a matter of stars telling you what to do than a real issue, at least for most people. I kind of got the impression it was more of an issue. My personal feeling is that if you are offended by one particular use of the word "gay" because you associate with another use of the word, that's more an issue with you than with the person using it in another way. If I say "That is gay" meaning it is stupid, and especially if the meaning is obvious, that shouldn't offend your sexuality because I wasn't referring to your sexuality. If you take it that way then we've had a misunderstanding. It is not my task, alone, to make sure that I never have a misunderstanding with a certain group, but our task together to sort out any such misunderstandings. To me, asking people not to use a common definition for the word "gay" because another use is to describe your sexuality is special pleading.
That said, I think I do understand the reason people don't like it. The word gay is a lot "cuddlier" when describing your sexuality than any of the other words. I'm sure you don't want to say to someone "I'm homosexual" in a conversation any more than I want to say "I'm heterosexual". I prefer to use the word "straight", so having a similar word for homosexuality is easy and conversationally more comfortable to say. But that doesn't mean that, since it's more comfortable to you to use, you now get exclusive rights to the word. The word "straight" also has several different meanings, though none of them have any negative connotations. But if there was a definition for straight which did have a negative connotation, I don't think it would bother me. If someone were to say "That is so straight!", assuming there were a definition with a negative connotation, I can't imagine I would ever mistake it for referring to my sexual orientation and being offended by it.
But, that's where things differ a bit. The word gay meaning "homosexual" ALSO had negative connotations until very recently. That meaning was ALSO spoken negatively, and I think that's where this comes from. They want to eliminate negative associations with the word. That does make sense and, in this case, it would be the "polite" thing to do to acquiesce to their request in an attempt to make a previously downtrodden populace more comfortable. But it's something they should ASK FOR, not DEMAND. And certainly that PSA was completely out of line with the bullshit comparison between "I, personally, take offense from what you said even though it was not intended to offend me in any way" and "I am purposely trying to offend you". Frankly, I see it as a bitch move by Sykes, which pisses me off because I love that woman. She really is my favorite female comedian of all times.
And that's enough posting of my entire thought process as it's happening for now. This thought process was brought to you live by Citizens to Elect Donald Trump. You could do worse, but not much!
I do historical documents for the Naval History and Heritage Command. One such was a four volume set of documents from the War of 1812. I got a good chuckle out of one USN captain ended his letter to the family. "I am glad to hear you are all still gay and hope you remain so."
in short:(http://i.imgur.com/COWrM4t.jpg)
Anyway. In regards to curse words/swear words. No shit, they're supposed to hurt and offend. When we get pissed off or even just stub our toe we curse. If you crush your finger in the car door, you exclaim "Fuck!". I may be making myself the bad guy here, but I was playing MarioKart 64 the other night, got hit by a blue shell, lost the lead and yelled "FUCKING GAY". Not saying it was right, but I did it.
As someone that isn't offended easily at all... I tend to find it hard to relate... and when people can be offended by literally anything.... it makes it hard to keep up the energy and keep tabs on what we're supposed to/not supposed to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8OxO5bnU_4
This lady was offended by someone saying a person was a "hard worker". Really? REALLY? Give me a break. Not saying it's the same as using "gay" as an insult or even using a racial slur, but it gets exhausting and starts to seem ridiculous and overwhelming after a while. You can let it consume you and stress you out, or you can break like I did and just not give a shit (to an extent) anymore.
We have "feminists" getting offended by butts, people getting offended by others not being completely neutral when they use "his" or "her" rather than "them" or whatever.
You can have a list that lengths an entire football field if you make a list of what some people are offended. Some people are rightfully offended, but some of this "I'm offended" nonsense is just attention-whoring nonsense. Like how same sex marriage was banned in practically every state up until about a year ago? Yeah. I would say the lgbt community had a right to be offended. Their rights were never even given to them to have a union of love like most other people are allowed.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on February 02, 2016, 04:49:09 PM
I do historical documents for the Naval History and Heritage Command. One such was a four volume set of documents from the War of 1812. I got a good chuckle out of one USN captain ended his letter to the family. "I am glad to hear you are all still gay and hope you remain so."
Nietzsche wrote "The Gay Science" in 1882. It had nothing to do with being "gay". However in German, it is titled "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft", literally meaning "The Joyful Science". Go figure.
Gay isn't the only word like that. It reminds me of the movement to refer to atheists as brights, although I'm grateful that one didn't stick. The first time I heard that blacks wanted to be referred to as blacks, I was stunned because prior to that, the word black was often used in a derogatory manner, although not always. I grew up learning that the proper designation was negro. Perhaps I learned it wrong. Whether or not that's true, I would consider it wrong today, and I wouldn't use it. Actually, I didn't think gay was particularly useful when it first arrived on the scene. I would have chosen a word that sounded a bit less fluffy. But I have no idea what that word would be. Some of these widely used descriptions exist because they were adopted by the very groups they describe, and that's hard to argue with.
Obviously we need the words, because we categorize people whether we like it or not. As long as they are not used to be offensive, then I don't think it makes much difference what society adopts. Words appear and are adopted at a fast rate, some are clever. "My computer crashed," is clever because it's so overly dramatic. Every time I hear it I chuckle.
The way I see it, if you have a gay friend and make general pokes at them for being gay, as long as they don't mind it, then its not an issue. However, much like how if you had black friends and said nigger to them and they were okay with it, but then said it in public and you offended someone of colour, then in the same context you shouldn't use words like that out in public without knowing its gonna offend someone.
Unless thats the aim anyway, in which case the goals meet.
Some words in the US are in-group, and if out-group people use them, it is considered wrong. The N word is like that ... and since I know that, I respect it. An in-group word is empowering, like a secret handshake. And some words fall into the more general taboo category. Our pagan inner selves are fearful of verbal black cats.
There's a prevailing underlying social assumption that one cannot be bigoted against a group one belongs to. Therefore Jews can get away with telling Jewish jokes, gays can call each other "faggot" in a jocular manner, and black people can use the N-word with impunity. For instance, if a black person calls another black person "n*****", the recipient can be sure that the word wasn't meant in a racist way, but if you're not black and you use the word, there's doubt about intention.
So if you belong to a certain group, you have the "immunity idol" for slurs against that group. Also, comedians have a certain degree of immunity, and if you're good at it and have a history of being trusted by the targeted group, you have immunity too. (Lenny Bruce is a good example).
https://youtu.be/TgkwYSKQTQ8
I've never used the two usages in the same way. It's about context if you ask me. Gay can have three meanings. Just as gay originally meant happy but I don't think any one uses it that way any more.
Quote from: doorknob on February 03, 2016, 09:42:42 AM
I've never used the two usages in the same way. It's about context if you ask me. Gay can have three meanings. Just as gay originally meant happy but I don't think any one uses it that way any more.
Theres also positives and negatives to take into account. Gay did once mean happy, a positive, and homosexuals then being associated with the word. The only reason the word today is used in a negative way is when someone refers to something as being gay as a derogatory because they associate something bad as being gay, and so the thing itself is bad thus gay.
QuoteToday I found out how ‘gay’ came to mean ‘homosexual’.
The word “gay†seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyfulâ€, “carefreeâ€, “full of mirthâ€, or “bright and showyâ€.
However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral lifeâ€. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefreeâ€, meaning more or less uninhibited.
Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it†meant to have sex.
With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefreeâ€, “joyfulâ€, and “bright and showy†were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man. Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.
Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man†no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gey cat†at this time which meant a homosexual boy.
By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and many still do), that “homosexual†is much too clinical, sounding like a disorder. As such, it was common amongst the gay community to refer to one another as “gay†decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s). At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay. Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.
Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/
Interesting how once straight men were called gay.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 02, 2016, 05:39:19 PM
As someone that isn't offended easily at all... I tend to find it hard to relate... and when people can be offended by literally anything.... it makes it hard to keep up the energy and keep tabs on what we're supposed to/not supposed to say.
I know exactly what you mean there. It's like someone is just randomly choosing which of these offenses are "real" offenses and which ones we can laugh off as unimportant and keeping up with which one is "important"
today is quite a challenge.
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2016, 07:30:46 PM
The way I see it, if you have a gay friend and make general pokes at them for being gay, as long as they don't mind it, then its not an issue. However, much like how if you had black friends and said nigger to them and they were okay with it, but then said it in public and you offended someone of colour, then in the same context you shouldn't use words like that out in public without knowing its gonna offend someone.
Unless thats the aim anyway, in which case the goals meet.
See, that's just the way guys treat each other already. I have a friend who is color blind and has severe nerve damage, making him shake extremely when attempting fine motor skills and I make so much shit out of him for that! And I don't mean just, "Haha, you're shaking." I say some truly offensive shit to him about it. But the only reason I do that is because he's a close friend. I would NEVER do that with a casual friend, acquaintance, stranger or even a mortal enemy. It's cool because we're friends, comfortable enough with each other to understand the idiotic ridiculous ritual that is heterosexual platonic shows of affection. We're really quite the stupid, fucked up lot, when you really think about it.
But yeah, anything is okay as long as nobody involved is offended by it, I guess is the point. But people seem to think these days that we have a fundamental right not to be offended. We do not. In the past when I have said, "That is so gay", not once was I in any way referring to sexuality, so the term, as I used it, was not "offensive" even though some may have been offended by it because it is an alternate use of a word they use to describe themselves and this alternate use has negative connotations. But no offense was intended, in no way was I referring to any other meaning of the word, it was not directed at them in any way and I was using a legitimate alternative definition for the word, so the use is not "offensive" even though it may "offend". At least, that's how I see it.
This thread is gay.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
Only if everyone's avatar is snappily dressed ;-)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 03, 2016, 08:12:17 PM
This thread is gay.
But it doesn't have enough sprinkles!!
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/97df28133aafdd190800bffb207dd7a0/tumblr_naxw6wb1Nv1txeruoo2_500.gif)
AHH HAHAH, YEEEEESSSS!!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 03, 2016, 08:12:17 PM
This thread is gay.
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
But is it too gay? Or is it not too gay enough?
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2016, 06:10:19 AM
But it doesn't have enough sprinkles!!
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/97df28133aafdd190800bffb207dd7a0/tumblr_naxw6wb1Nv1txeruoo2_500.gif)
AHH HAHAH, YEEEEESSSS!!
Sprinkles...More sprinkles!
I've known homosexuals, flamers, and divas. I've always figured that "gay" meant flaming or divaesque.
Sometimes I figured it meant "those lost in the opulence of their parents". But that's pretty gay.
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2016, 06:10:19 AM
But it doesn't have enough sprinkles!!
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/97df28133aafdd190800bffb207dd7a0/tumblr_naxw6wb1Nv1txeruoo2_500.gif)
AHH HAHAH, YEEEEESSSS!!
God damn that makes me hungry.
Sweet and creamy, eewww. And it makes me dizzy.
Context is king. I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.
This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into. I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay. It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.
Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.
Quote from: trdsf on February 07, 2016, 02:41:38 PM
Context is king. I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.
This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into. I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay. It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.
Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.
Thats pretty much my take on it every time I see someone using gay as a negative synonym when describing something they think as bad, and yet often when confronted on it they wonder why your getting aggressive with them, when it should just be a fact of the matter in modern 21st century society they should know that gay people are people, and its only because of being used as a negative synonym that they can't just accept that fact.
In a related story, but not really to do with the word gay, I was in my job putting away some stock, when one of the older shop floor members approached me, and asked my age. When I told her she said theres this nice girl around my age who works in this other department and suggested I meet up with her after work. When I told her I'm sure she's nice but I'm gay and have a boyfriend, she looked shocked, "YOUR GAY? How long you been gay for?".
Thankfully the other shop floor assistant was with me in correcting her saying "urm, since he was born?" I laughed it off, but made me really look at this whole thing in a last to current generation thing, and just thought of it really coming down to how you were raised and the way you live in current times.
Quote from: trdsf on February 07, 2016, 02:41:38 PM
Context is king. I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.
This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into. I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay. It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.
Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.
Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 07, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.
pretty much. There is often a case of someone who just doesn't realize it, and when it dawns on them they wake up to the fact "Oh, that might actually be offensive". Now don't get me wrong, like Stephen fry said, complaining about being offended is just a whine, its true, but theres always got to be a middle ground in these things.
Quote from: Munch on February 07, 2016, 03:32:51 PM
pretty much. There is often a case of someone who just doesn't realize it, and when it dawns on them they wake up to the fact "Oh, that might actually be offensive". Now don't get me wrong, like Stephen fry said, complaining about being offended is just a whine, its true, but theres always got to be a middle ground in these things.
Yes,about the whining. But I'm distinguishing between the incidents that took place in universities where people were asking for "safe space" - universities are THE place to tackle controversial topics - with incidents that are on a personal level. Were I to call a co-worker by a certain label X, and that person would tell me that it's offensive, it would only be decent on my part to stop that, even if I don't like the person.
One of the funniest posts I've seen online was after a Magic Block Party video. It was "White people." I make with the magic hands and am pretty damn white. However, I'm not this white.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjsrMOh8yFQ
Appreciated the off-post magic video. Life is magical, but some have more panache than others.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 02, 2016, 03:09:16 PM
I don't think the word gay is sacred. Celebrities try to tell us what words to use all the time, and it usually turns out to be a joke and fails. They tell us not to use gay, retard, nigga/er, bossy, etc, but most people don't take these requests seriously, other than the super sensitive SJWs. I really don't care if people get offended by what words I use. I will use gay to mean stupid. If Lebron James flops and still gets the call, I'm going to say "that's gay". There's nothing homophobic about using the word to mean stupid, and if someone wants to see homophobic intent when none is there, that is their problem. The same goes for retarded and other words like that. I really don't care if a woman with a disabled son at home hears me say the word and gets offended. That's her problem.
Keep doing that. Then your douchebaginess will ve obvious for dveryone.
I'm pansexual and transgender.
I don't really care if people use gay as a pejorative.
https://books.google.com.tr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vYDGAQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=social+forms+and+context&ots=zTkOworPki&sig=6l6SI38drPv7AU3XnvUnNiw0hHQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=social%20forms%20and%20context&f=false
George SimmelQuoteLevels of concern[edit]
There are four basic levels of concern in Simmel’s work. First are his assumptions about the psychological workings of social life. Second is his interest in the sociological workings of interpersonal relationships. Third is his work on the structure of and changes in the social and cultural “spirit†of his times. He also adopted the principle of emergence, which is the idea that higher levels emerge from the lower levels. Finally, he dealt with his views in the nature and inevitable fate of humanity. His most microscopic work dealt with forms and the interaction that takes place with different types of people. The forms include subordination, superordination, exchange, conflict and sociability.[8]
Dialectical thinking[edit]
A dialectical approach is multicausal, multidirectional, integrates facts and value, rejects the idea that there are hard and fast dividing lines between social phenomena, focuses on social relations, looks not only at the present but also at the past and future, and is deeply concerned with both conflicts and contradictions. Simmel’s sociology was concerned with relationships especially interaction and was known as a “methodological relationistâ€. His principle was that everything interacts in some way with everything else. Overall he was mostly interested in dualisms, conflicts, and contradictions in whatever realm of the social world he happened to be working on.[8]
Individual consciousness[edit]
Simmel focused on forms of association and paid little attention to individual consciousness. Simmel believed in the creative consciousness and this belief can be found in diverse forms of interaction, the ability of actors to create social structures and the disastrous effects those structures had on the creativity of individuals. Simmel also believed that social and cultural structures come to have a life of their own.[8]
Sociability[edit]
Simmel refers to "all the forms of association by which a mere sum of separate individuals are made into a 'society,'"[9] which he describes as a, "higher unity,"[9] composed of individuals. He was especially fascinated, it seems, by the, "impulse to sociability in man,"[9] which he described as "associations...[through which] the solitariness of the individuals is resolved into togetherness, a union with others,"[10] a process he describes by which, "the impulse to sociability distils, as it were, out of the realities of social life the pure essence of association,"[10] and "through which a unity is made,"[10] which he also refers to as, "the free-playing, interacting interdependence of individuals."[10]
He defines sociability as, "the play-form of association,"[10] driven by, "amicability, breeding, cordiality and attractiveness of all kinds."[10] In order for this free association to occur, he says, "the personalities must not emphasize themselves too individually...with too much abandon and aggressiveness."[10] He also describes, "this world of sociability...a democracy of equals...without friction," so long as people blend together in a spirit of fun and affection to, "bring about among themselves a pure interaction free of any disturbing material accent."[11] As so many social interactions are not entirely of this sweet character, one has to conclude that Simmel is describing a somewhat idealised view of the best types of human interaction, and by no means the most typical or average type.
The same can be said of Simmel when he says that, "the vitality of real individuals, in their sensitivities and attractions, in the fullness of their impulses and convictions...is but a symbol of life, as it shows itself in the flow of a lightly amusing play,"[12] or when he adds: "a symbolic play, in whose aesthetic charm all the finest and most highly sublimated dynamics of social existence and its riches are gathered."[13] Again, one has to conclude that he is describing human interactions at their idealised best and not the more typical ones, which tend to fall a long way short of his descriptions.
Social geometry[edit]
Dyad and triad[edit]
A dyad is a two-person group; a triad is a three-person group. In a dyad a person is able to retain their individuality. There is no other person to shift the balance of the group thereby allowing those within the dyad to maintain their individuality. In the triad group there is a possibility of a dyad forming within the triad thereby threatening the remaining individual's independence and causing them to become the subordinate of the group. This seems to be an essential part of society which becomes a structure. Unfortunately as the group (structure) becomes increasingly greater the individual becomes separated and grows more alone, isolated and segmented. Simmel's view was somewhat ambiguous with respect to group size. On one hand he believed that the bigger the group the better for the individual. In a larger group it would be harder to exert control on individual, but on the other hand with a large group there is a possibility of the individual becoming distant and impersonal. Therefore, in an effort for the individual to cope with the larger group they must become a part of a smaller group such as the family.[8]
Distance[edit]
The value of something is determined by the distance from its actor. In "The Stranger", Simmel discusses how if a person is too close to the actor they are not considered a stranger, but if they are too far they would no longer be a part of a group. The particular distance from a group allows a person to have objective relationships with different group members.[8]
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/G/bo3622859.html#tab-content
Quote"Of those who created the intellectual capital used to launch the enterprise of professional sociology, Georg Simmel was perhaps the most original and fecund. In search of a subject matter for sociology that would distinguish it from all other social sciences and humanistic disciplines, he charted a new field for discovery and proceeded to explore a world of novel topics in works that have guided and anticipated the thinking of generations of sociologists. Such distinctive concepts of contemporary sociology as social distance, marginality, urbanism as a way of life, role-playing, social behavior as exchange, conflict as an integrating process, dyadic encounter, circular interaction, reference groups as perspectives, and sociological ambivalence embody ideas which Simmel adumbrated more than six decades ago."â€"Donald N. Levine
Half of the material included in this edition of Simmel's writings represents new translations. This includes Simmel's important, lengthy, and previously untranslated "Group Expansion and Development of Individuality," as well as three selections from his most neglected work, Philosophy of Money; in addition, the introduction to Probleme der Geschichtsphilosophie, chapter one of the Lebensanschauung, and three essays are translated for the first time.
Acknowledgments
Introduction by Donald N. Levine
I. Philosophy of the Social Sciences
1. How Is History Possible?
2. How Is Society Possible?
3. The Problem of Sociology
4. The Categories of Human Experience
II. Forms of Social Interaction
5. Exchange
6. Conflict
7. Domination
8. Prostitution
9. Sociability
III. Social Types
10. The Stranger
11. The Poor
12. The Miser and the Spendthrift
13. The Adventurer
14. The Nobility
IV. Forms of Individuality
15. Freedom and the Individual
16. Subjective Culture
17. Eros, Platonic and Modern
V. Individuality and Social Structure
18. Group Expansion and the Development of Individuality
19. Fashion
20. The Metropolis and Mental Life
21. Subordination and Personal Fulfillment
VI. Forms Versus Life Progress: The Dialectics of Change
22. Social Forms and Inner Needs
23. The Transcendent Character of Life
24. The Conflict in Modern Culture
Bibliographical Note
Quote from: trdsf on February 07, 2016, 02:41:38 PM
Context is king. I do object if I hear 'gay' being used as a synonym for 'bad' or 'unpleasant', because it's simply not plausible in this culture that the user doesn't know the other meaning(s) -- especially since the usage of 'gay' as 'happy' has mostly fallen by the wayside over the last several years.
This doesn't mean that I immediately jump down the throat of a stranger on the street that I happened to overhear; that's not worth getting into. I will address it with a co-worker, who might not know that I am gay. It's happened, and they've understood how that can be considered an objectionable usage, even if they didn't mean it that way.
Put it in perspective: imagine trying to use "That's so black!" or "That's so Jewish!" in exactly the same way.
There is a HUGE difference here. When you say, "That's so gay" you are using an actual definition for the word independent of the definition addressing sexuality. And while being gay certainly isn't a choice you make, it IS the way you're born, I still don't think a comparison to ethnicity is entirely fair or accurate. To say, "He is so Jewish" in a negative way you are not using the word "Jewish" independent of ethnicity, but instead claiming that he is like a Jewish person. Of course that's bad because you're stating that Jews are bad, he is a Jew, so he is bad. You are actually referring to the alternate meaning of "Jewish" in that usage.
To say, "That's so black", I really don't know where to go with that one. It is not a thing people say, so there is no way to determine the intention of someone saying that or how one would feel hearing it. A better comparison would be "That is so lame", which is just about exactly the same situation as saying, "That is so gay" except people don't tend to find it offensive. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard Wanda Sykes use the word "lame" in that way, and the word "lame" actually does not have a legitimate definition meaning "stupid" as the word gay does, which suggests to me this is more a pet peeve than an actual problem.
No, it's not plausible that the user doesn't know the other meaning, the one of importance to gays, but does that really matter? If they're using a word correctly, does it matter that it has other meanings to which they are not referring? Welcome to the English language.
Quote from: Munch on February 07, 2016, 02:57:22 PM
Thats pretty much my take on it every time I see someone using gay as a negative synonym when describing something they think as bad, and yet often when confronted on it they wonder why your getting aggressive with them, when it should just be a fact of the matter in modern 21st century society they should know that gay people are people, and its only because of being used as a negative synonym that they can't just accept that fact.
I think I understand where you're coming from now. When you hear people use the word you see them as using a word which describes you in a negative way. But I can tell you, in their minds, they are not thinking of sexuality when using the word. They are using it in a different, completely unrelated way and in no way insinuating sexuality. They are using a legitimate definition of the word, found in dictionaries for about as long as the definition you generally think of. If I'm understanding what's going on here (and I may not be) what we have is a traditionally victimized populace just now getting a voice for the first time simply assuming that if it sounds like you're making fun of them, you're making fun of them. It would certainly be understandable, but you should realize it's simply not the case. I've used that word lots of times in they way you don't like, mostly in my childhood, back in a time where "gay people are evil" was a given and even then NOT ONCE did I say, "That is so gay" and mean "That is so homosexual". Homosexuality never crossed my mind when using the word in that way. It wasn't a factor. Yes, gay people were evil. That's what we were taught ("wisdom" I am very happy to have recovered from). But I wasn't saying that, even then. It wasn't about sexuality. It was just a common usage of the word, completely independent from the other.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on February 07, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
Anyone can make a mistake - not knowing using a certain word can be offensive to somebody else, but once the mistake has been pointed out to that person, and that person continues using the offensive word, then you know you're dealing with an asshole or a bigot, or both.
That's a little harsh. No matter what you do or say, someone is going to be offended by your beliefs, your opinions or even your completely innocent comments. If you actually lived by this and had a large enough audience listening to you, you would eventually end up just never speaking again.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 08, 2016, 03:06:50 AM
Keep doing that. Then your douchebaginess will ve obvious for dveryone.
Again, a bit overboard, I think. After all, it is the person hearing it who is offended, not the person saying it intending to offend. If I am offended by the word "moist" are you obligated to never use it in my presence? And if you do anyway, is that a problem with you, or a problem with me?
Quote from: Jannabear on February 08, 2016, 07:43:14 AM
I'm pansexual and transgender.
I don't really care if people use gay as a pejorative.
Someone using the word as a pejorative should, in my opinion, offend you, or at least have the intention of offending you. If you can just laugh it off, good for you. You're a better person than most. But I'm not actually talking about people using it as a pejorative with the meaning "homosexual" intact. I'm talking about people using a completely different definition utterly unrelated to sexuality.
My opinion on it, which is just an opinion, granted, is that there is no problem with using the word "gay" in a negative way IF you are using the legitimate definition, which seems to have disappeared from all the online dictionaries over the last few years, AND you are not even remotely referring to sexuality. If I say some object is "gay" I am obviously not saying that is a homosexual object. Yes, I am saying that I have a negative reaction to that object, but not to that object's sexuality. Sexuality, another use of the word gay completely separate from this one, is not a factor in this usage. As such, there is no intention to offend, there is no insinuation that homosexuality is bad, there is no connection between the two usages and, so, there is no offense, regardless whether someone takes offense by it or not. In my opinion, someone who finds it offensive to use the word "gay" in that manner has no business using the word "lame" in the same way and, if they do, they have no standing from which to argue because they are being just as insensitive to those who can't walk without a second thought and without considering that it is exactly the same type of usage they, themselves, are offended by. But they simply assume that since it is obvious that they are not saying, "That statuette is unable to walk normally" that it's not offensive. Well, that's how people feel when they use the word "gay", not as a "pejorative", as everyone is assuming here, but in a way completely unrelated to sexuality. They are not expressing contempt for homosexuality and, until the last few years, this was an actual definition of the word, its origins at about the same time as the other.
This thread is so black.
Quote from: gentle_dissident on February 08, 2016, 02:21:01 PM
This thread is so black.
if anything its belch white, like every page on this site.
Quote from: widdershins on February 08, 2016, 01:49:32 PM
That's a little harsh. No matter what you do or say, someone is going to be offended by your beliefs, your opinions or even your completely innocent comments. If you actually lived by this and had a large enough audience listening to you, you would eventually end up just never speaking again.
Again, a bit overboard, I think. After all, it is the person hearing it who is offended, not the person saying it intending to offend. If I am offended by the word "moist" are you obligated to never use it in my presence? And if you do anyway, is that a problem with you, or a problem with me?
Bullshit. "It's so gay" is only a negative remark if you see "gay" denoting something bad.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 08, 2016, 02:40:37 PM
Bullshit. "It's so gay" is only a negative remark if you see "gay" denoting something bad.
No, it's a negative remark if it's used in a negative context. It isn't that 'gay' has an inherent negative meaning -- although to some people it already does. That's part of what makes this usage problematic; it plays into existing homophobia, even if the user doesn't think of it that way.
Lemme give you an example that I bumped into, from another forum entirely. I had a tendency to refer to a certain type of fellow American as "Kool-Ade drinkers". I received a private message from another user on that forum asking -- not demanding, but asking -- that I refrain from that term as she had actually known Congressman Leo Ryan, who had been murdered at Jonestown, and the phrase was a personally painful one for her. And now I don't use that anymore, even outside that forum.
Now, suppose I had said that the phrase is perfectly legitimate to use and I don't mean anything by it. Who'd be the asshole here? Her for making a perfectly reasonable request, or me for persisting in its use in the direct knowledge that it's a term that definitely brings someone emotional pain (regardless of the level)?
Certainly the phrase itself is innocuous. But as I said below,
context is king. If someone is using "that's so gay" in a negative way, it's the usage that's adding a negative connotation to the word, not the bare word itself, and I reserve the right to ask them to find a different way to express themselves.
Quote from: trdsf on February 09, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
No, it's a negative remark if it's used in a negative context. It isn't that 'gay' has an inherent negative meaning -- although to some people it already does. That's part of what makes this usage problematic; it plays into existing homophobia, even if the user doesn't think of it that way.
Lemme give you an example that I bumped into, from another forum entirely. I had a tendency to refer to a certain type of fellow American as "Kool-Ade drinkers". I received a private message from another user on that forum asking -- not demanding, but asking -- that I refrain from that term as she had actually known Congressman Leo Ryan, who had been murdered at Jonestown, and the phrase was a personally painful one for her. And now I don't use that anymore, even outside that forum.
Now, suppose I had said that the phrase is perfectly legitimate to use and I don't mean anything by it. Who'd be the asshole here? Her for making a perfectly reasonable request, or me for persisting in its use in the direct knowledge that it's a term that definitely brings someone emotional pain (regardless of the level)?
Certainly the phrase itself is innocuous. But as I said below, context is king. If someone is using "that's so gay" in a negative way, it's the usage that's adding a negative connotation to the word, not the bare word itself, and I reserve the right to ask them to find a different way to express themselves.
Bullshit. Again. Words mean something. If you say "that is so gay" you express that it somehow shares a property of gay people.
Maybe your intent wasnt that but then you failed in your usage of the language.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 03:04:01 PM
Bullshit. Again. Words mean something. If you say "that is so gay" you express that it somehow shares a property of gay people.
Maybe your intent wasnt that but then you failed in your usage of the language.
Bullshit yourself. You're advancing either the idea that the word has absolutely no prior meaning whatsoever or that the two usages can't be crossed -- to say nothing of dodging the point entirely. That's patently ludicrous on the face of it.
Quote from: trdsf on February 09, 2016, 03:16:49 PM
Bullshit yourself. You're advancing either the idea that the word has absolutely no prior meaning whatsoever or that the two usages can't be crossed -- to say nothing of dodging the point entirely. That's patently ludicrous on the face of it.
There isnt any other usage! If i say "that tree is so red" intending to convey the meaning that is is blue then I have failed.
Gay is not just some word used in one meaning, it is also a label. Labels are created to control people and keep them in main norms. They are mostly negative and used in 'naming' what is defined as marginal. In a traditional society -most of the world- people try to stay away from being labeled consciously or unconsciously, according to the circumstances they live in. A way of maintaining primitive order.
But in our time this changes according to cultures; countries and communities. There are laws to prtotect what was once defined and thought as marginal, negative, bad, harmful and damgerous to society.
Their first meaning is not really important, labels can transform, lose their negativity but there is always a negative link to the traditional norms. Context is important. However that context must have a place in a given culture. There are places, you cannot use 'gay' in a positive context.
While we use the label 'Gay' for general homosexuality today, in the past, it has probably evolved from NOT fitting the traditional male norm expectations. Masculinity, showing no emotion, 'not acting like a woman'...etc. Gay = someone with male gender out of the expected male profile. And at some point, it was associated to 'degenerate' life styles, hedonism, prostitution...etc. every kind of bullshit goes here.
It sounds so absurd to us today, but it is simple. Gay is still used as a negative label. Control. Traditional society outlaws every kind of individualism it cannot benefit or profit. (Therefore it can't develop.) And there are so many things remaining from those days even in the most ideal society.
Also, 'The tree is red' is a bad example here.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 08, 2016, 03:06:50 AM
Keep doing that. Then your douchebaginess will ve obvious for dveryone.
I will. Calling something gay is not putting down homosexuals any more than using the words cunt or bitch as a negative is putting down vaginas and women. Cunt is an insult, but that doesn't mean I think someone having a vagina is bad. If I call a man a bitch, I'm not putting down all women, even though bitch means female dog. Does that make sense? That's where I stand on that. People need to grow a thicker skin.
People do not get to decide themselves in what meaning they will use a word without considering the general/cultural usage, any context or following the herd. You can't say "I will use the word 'gay' for stupid, it is their problem, if they can't handle it". Well certainly you can, but it really doesn't mean much. You just say it yourself and you just use it yourself. And it means that you are living in the middle of nowhere surrounded just by a several people -which I think how widdershins lives and survives- yeah go on and develop your own language, use every word the way you like. But then there is nothing much to discuss about that with this issue under those circumstances, is there? Set up a nude commune with a compulsory tinfoil hat and invent a new language. Why not?
Someone who has to live in close quarters with many different, various individuals, adapting to the usages of words in every context (slang, daily language, the jargons) and to the changes is a crucial skill. Be it at work, at home, relatives, friend circle...etc.
If you claim you can/do use words in remote meanings that would make no sense and be offensive to others the way you like; you are either over 75, anonymously posting in an internet forum or living in the middle of nowhere with a very limited amount of people who already have a dependent relationship with you.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 09, 2016, 04:53:52 PM
...Calling something gay is not putting down homosexuals any more than using the words cunt or bitch as a negative is putting down vaginas and women. Cunt is an insult, but that doesn't mean I think someone having a vagina is bad. If I call a man a bitch, I'm not putting down all women, even though bitch means female dog. Does that make sense? That's where I stand on that. People need to grow a thicker skin.
That is one of the most stupid posts I read in a long time.
The most stupid part is that you thinking, how you personally feel about certain slang words and insults related to their targets, should actually define the cultural link between those insults and their subject, independent from the culture created them in what context and gender norms.
You got this context thing very wrong. It's not your feelings and thoughts. Whatever you feel or think you are bound to it. You don't rule over it.
It seems like some people in the forum got this 'free thinking' business very wrong. They seem to think that words are some neutral free agents floating around, changing according to what they think and feel. Myeh.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 08, 2016, 02:40:37 PM
Bullshit. "It's so gay" is only a negative remark if you see "gay" denoting something bad.
Gay denotes something bad, but in the context we are referring that something bad is NOT people that like homoerotic buttsex and scissoring. Is the property of being lame/bad. This is a significant common usage deal with it.
Quote from: trdsf on February 09, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
.
Now, suppose I had said that the phrase is perfectly legitimate to use and I don't mean anything by it. Who'd be the asshole here? Her for making a perfectly reasonable request, or me for persisting in its use in the direct knowledge that it's a term that definitely brings someone emotional pain (regardless of the level)?
No one is the asshole, life just sucks. I have lost family to cancer and its discussion can make me uncomfortable, but i have no problem with people discussing the topic in any manner from scientific to shock humor, because i can't expect the world to accomodate to me i must adapt to it. I have no right to require other people to censor themselves specially when they are not even speaking directly with me, therefore if I ask them to and they refuse they wouldn't be assholes.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 09, 2016, 05:11:18 PM
You got this context thing very wrong. It's not your feelings and thoughts. Whatever you feel or think you are bound to it. You don't rule over it.
But as a rational mature person you know how to repress and not act on counterproductive feelings and reason that if someone is not deliberately trying to offend you and is just excersicing their freedom of speech, then maybe requiring them to curtail it is not really justified, specially when you are in a public forum not in a private 1 on 1 discussion..
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 03:20:49 PM
There isnt any other usage! If i say "that tree is so red" intending to convey the meaning that is is blue then I have failed.
Words have multiple meanings you retard. <------ see what i did there.
It was a rainy, cold evening in 12th century England. A group of men barged into a small tavern. They were looking for a derog word to use for women, couldn't succeed on one all day and time was running out. They didn't know what to do. They gathered around a table with a last hope, they put every word they could think right there in a bag. They shaked it one by one, they all held their breath. The man with the biggest dick closed his eyes and slowly drew a piece of parchment... then read the random word aloud. BITCH! That is the story of how the word bitch came to be and maaany others along with it.
Today, even though 'the biggest dick draws the word' tradition have long forgotten, everyone who grew up with the word 'bitch' and many other derog terms for all genders perfectly knows that using these words as insults, actually has nothing to do with how genders are regarded in the culture they are created in as long as the people have happiness, joy and love in their hearts.
The End.
I refuse to give special treatment to homosexuals. You know why? It's because I don't see homosexuals as weaker than the average person. I don't see them as weak and needing special treatment. I won't give a woman special treatment by eliminating my use of the word bitch because a woman is offended by it, and many women are offended by that word, and cunt. Millions are offended by the use of these words and don't like it. I don't care that millions of women are offended. I refuse to treat women in general as weaklings who can't handle hearing bitch, and I'm not going to treat gays like weaklings either. Gay people are plenty tough and I really don't think they need the special treatment. I think by giving them special treatment, I would only be insulting their toughness which is something I wouldn't want to do. I have all the respect in the world for gay people, and that is why I think I need to treat them just like anyone else. Equal treatment for all sexual orientations and genders. If I see a disabled person, I would be sure not to use the word retarded around them, because they are probably not going to feel good about that and this is a disabled person so I wouldn't go there even if there was no intent to hurt their feelings. With a gay person or a woman though? I'm not going to treat them like a disabled person. How insulting would that be?
Quote from: mauricio on February 09, 2016, 05:23:15 PM
Gay denotes something bad, but in the context we are referring that something bad is NOT people that like homoerotic buttsex and scissoring. Is the property of being lame/bad. This is a significant common usage deal with it.
Really? What other uses has this very special negative mening of the word "gay" than in the phrase "its so gay"?
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 09, 2016, 06:35:46 PM
I refuse to give special treatment to homosexuals. You know why? It's because I don't see homosexuals as weaker than the average person. I don't see them as weak and needing special treatment. I won't give a woman special treatment by eliminating my use of the word bitch because a woman is offended by it, and many women are offended by that word, and cunt. Millions are offended by the use of these words and don't like it. I don't care that millions of women are offended. I refuse to treat women in general as weaklings who can't handle hearing bitch, and I'm not going to treat gays like weaklings either. Gay people are plenty tough and I really don't think they need the special treatment. I think by giving them special treatment, I would only be insulting their toughness which is something I wouldn't want to do. I have all the respect in the world for gay people, and that is why I think I need to treat them just like anyone else. Equal treatment for all sexual orientations and genders. If I see a disabled person, I would be sure not to use the word retarded around them, because they are probably not going to feel good about that and this is a disabled person so I wouldn't go there even if there was no intent to hurt their feelings. With a gay person or a woman though? I'm not going to treat them like a disabled person. How insulting would that be?
Treating a disabled person differently is a sure way of offending them.
But all this has nothing to do with offending people and everything to do with the equal value of all humans. People are not offended because you call them ugly names.
People are offended because you are an asshole.
because trigger warning feminists with fake ptsd
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 10:37:31 PM
Really? What other uses has this very special negative mening of the word "gay" than in the phrase "its so gay"?
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gay
(slang, pejorative) Used to express dislike: lame, uncool, stupid.
This game is gay; let’s play a different one. = I dislike this game; let’s play a different one.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gay
4 informal, offensive Foolish, stupid, or unimpressive:
he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay
3.
Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame:
This game is boring and really, really gay.
Significant common usage. Deal with it this new generation does not give a fuck about the tabooness of the word and has distorted its meaning into something unrelated to disparaging homosexuality.
Now if certain offendatrons would stop the pearl clutching giving this words their power back we could all live in a world with less slurs and pointless offense.
Quote from: mauricio on February 10, 2016, 01:30:37 AM
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/gay
(slang, pejorative) Used to express dislike: lame, uncool, stupid.
This game is gay; let’s play a different one. = I dislike this game; let’s play a different one.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gay
4 informal, offensive Foolish, stupid, or unimpressive:
he thinks the obsession with celebrity is totally gay
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gay
3.
Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. awkward, stupid, or bad; lame:
This game is boring and really, really gay.
Significant common usage. Deal with it this new generation does not give a fuck about the tabooness of the word and has distorted its meaning into something unrelated to disparaging homosexuality.
Now if certain offendatrons would stop the pearl clutching giving this words their power back we could all live in a world with less slurs and pointless offense.
You didnt notice the lable "offensive". In the dictionaries, did you?
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 10:42:55 PM
Treating a disabled person differently is a sure way of offending them.
But all this has nothing to do with offending people and everything to do with the equal value of all humans. People are not offended because you call them ugly names.
People are offended because you are an asshole.
They do need to be treated somewhat differently at times. If they have an outburst and call me a name or something, I wouldn't get pissed like I would if it was someone else. They might not have realized what they were doing, so they get a pass, and I won't use retard because they might have a harder time than the average person seeing that no harm was meant.
If I read a story about someone torturing an animal and I call that person a cunt, that makes me an asshole? Do you want everyone to stop using the word bitch as well? What about dick and other insults to men? What about the word lame like another poster was saying? You go down that path and you might have a couple hundred words that need banned.
You are free to think I'm an asshole because I use a little naughty language, and usually only around close friends. I don't think I'm much of an asshole but can be sometimes. I've only insulted a couple of people on this board, ever, that aren't creationists. I don't care much for insulting people and I don't see myself as much of an asshole, but it's fine if you do. The language police are never going to tell me what I can and can not say.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 10, 2016, 02:06:03 AM
They do need to be treated somewhat differently at times. If they have an outburst and call me a name or something, I wouldn't get pissed like I would if it was someone else. They might not have realized what they were doing, so they get a pass, and I won't use retard because they might have a harder time than the average person seeing that no harm was meant.
If I read a story about someone torturing an animal and I call that person a cunt, that makes me an asshole? Do you want everyone to stop using the word bitch as well? What about dick and other insults to men? What about the word lame like another poster was saying? You go down that path and you might have a couple hundred words that need banned.
You are free to think I'm an asshole because I use a little naughty language, and usually only around close friends. I don't think I'm much of an asshole but can be sometimes. I've only insulted a couple of people on this board, ever, that aren't creationists. I don't care much for insulting people and I don't see myself as much of an asshole, but it's fine if you do. The language police are never going to tell me what I can and can not say.
You totally missed the point.
(And besides: You are totally free to think that an animal torturer are similar to womens genitals. But is it wise, sane?)
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 02:04:06 AM
You didnt notice the lable "offensive". In the dictionaries, did you?
Careful there bro moving those goalsposts all across the field must be such a heavy work.
Quote from: mauricio on February 10, 2016, 02:22:53 AM
Careful there bro moving those goalsposts all across the field must be such a heavy work.
No goalposts moved.
This discussion is all about how using "gay" in the offensive way.
since we already know about the offensive use: when I asked for another use of gay that obviously ment a non-offensive use.
In spanish there's a word called paja, paja means straw. Paja in peruvian slang has 2 meanings: masturbation and cool. I just saw an advertisment on TV about a 10 year old kid who said that word in the context of the second meaning. Therefore that advertisement is not offensive and can air on TV. In other context the word could be very offensive. I was never arguing about whether the word was offensive or not. But rather about the existence of a significant common usage in a context in which the word has that meaning illustrated on those quotes from their respective dictionaries. I already proved my point now you bring the topic of offense i never talked about, i was only talking about common usage of the word in which it means lame.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 02:16:24 AM
(And besides: You are totally free to think that an animal torturer are similar to womens genitals. But is it wise, sane?)
Are you one of those pod people trying to blend in with humanity?
Quote from: mauricio on February 10, 2016, 02:36:37 AM
In spanish there's a word called paja, paja means straw. Paja in peruvian slang has 2 meanings: masturbation and cool. I just saw an advertisment on TV about a 10 year old kid who said that word in the context of the second meaning. Therefore that advertisement is not offensive and can air on TV. In other context the word could be very offensive. I was never arguing about whether the word was offensive or not. But rather about the existence of a significant common usage in a context in which the word has that meaning illustrated on those quotes from their respective dictionaries. I already proved my point now you bring the topic of offense i never talked about, i was only talking about common usage of the word in which it means lame.
The reason it used in that way is because gay means homosexual.
That is why it is marked as offensive.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 09, 2016, 06:35:46 PM
I refuse to give special treatment to homosexuals. You know why? It's because I don't see homosexuals as weaker than the average person. I don't see them as weak and needing special treatment. I won't give a woman special treatment by eliminating my use of the word bitch because a woman is offended by it, and many women are offended by that word, and cunt. Millions are offended by the use of these words and don't like it. I don't care that millions of women are offended. I refuse to treat women in general as weaklings who can't handle hearing bitch, and I'm not going to treat gays like weaklings either. Gay people are plenty tough and I really don't think they need the special treatment. I think by giving them special treatment, I would only be insulting their toughness which is something I wouldn't want to do. I have all the respect in the world for gay people, and that is why I think I need to treat them just like anyone else. Equal treatment for all sexual orientations and genders. If I see a disabled person, I would be sure not to use the word retarded around them, because they are probably not going to feel good about that and this is a disabled person so I wouldn't go there even if there was no intent to hurt their feelings. With a gay person or a woman though? I'm not going to treat them like a disabled person. How insulting would that be?
This has nothing to do with seeing women as weaklings or treating homosexuals as special. This is not just about females and homosexuals. This is about all genders. You cannot be sexist to one gender without being to the others. The reason that heterosexuals men seem to be the main target, because they are the standard. And what comes along with about being a 'real man'. This bullshit is not one sided, you are not out of it. Nobody is out of it.
This is about how and why those insults were created. They were created according to how human culture regards gender norms and to control people who refuse to accept or live in those norms. They are STILL strong and alive, because doesn't matter who is lives in what delusion where, this is how ALL the cultures, societies STILL regard gender norms. Otherwise, they would fade away and we would create new ones. But we don't. Because we can't. If we could, no other personal ideals or views would be able to stop it. Becaue it would be another human reality dictating us.
Bitch is a word created to control women. For example, because they are not expected or accepted to raise their voice, get dominant about their opinions, have a saying. They are expected to be obedient. Exactly like
slut. A woman is not expected or accepted to be sexually agressive, having multiple sex partners. That's male norm. When the male gets out of his line, he is controlled in different ways. A male slut is not the same thing with a femlae slut.
This is a patriarchal social contract. Doesn't really matter what people personally think or believe. This doesn't mean anything in real life. A woman out of the norms dictated by that contract is always very less likley to be selected as a mate. And the uncouth words like btich or slut or cunt... is created to draw that line to her in social life. With men in social life there is no such thing comparable to women's situation.
Men can say here in a forum anything they like. In real life, in a friend network, at work, among relatives, in family...etc if a woman has multiple seuxal partners and happily open about her sex life, she is defined as a slut by MEN AND WOMEN. (First women) And males in that circle will act according to that. Very few heterosexual male will act out of the norm and they will have to deal with a lot of bullshit themselves. For example, like stay home dads or single dads who wants to adopt a child for themselves.
So what people personally think about those labels or what they refuse to see, choose to think, unfortunately do not mean anything when it comes to collective norms; where from come these insults. We cannot just throw our personal 'ideals' around and expect human reality to conform them. This doesn't happen.
Western people -yes we can make a generalisation- have an incredibly distorted view of their society about gender issues, along with many others. One of the reasons for this is the 'interaction' with an opposite culture for the last decade and a half. Hierarchies of identity is based on definitions of contrasts.
This media campaign with no limits that has been goin on since 9/11 didn't just harm the Middle East or muslim minorities in Western countries. It equally harms Western societies in many levels. Western civilisation(s), Western identities GOT SHRUNK because of this and meaningless wars of any kind. Nothing fits, everything is out of place, don't you feel that for yourselves, for the society you live in? I see that most people do. This is not something seperate from the whole.
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004523735/820816356_3038678386_Im_offended_that_means_Im_right_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 03:20:49 PM
There isnt any other usage! If i say "that tree is so red" intending to convey the meaning that is is blue then I have failed.
So, 'gay' has only one meaning. It has never meant 'happy', it has never meant 'homosexual', now its exclusive meaning is 'bad', as in the slang phrase "that's so gay".
Rrrrrriiiiiiight.
I think what you've really failed at here is in making a point.
I'm going to say it again:
context. The word already has a generally-used dominant meaning as a term for homosexual and homosexuality, and it's one that's by and large claimed by the community, so it's very difficult to see the repurposing as a synonym for 'bad' to be anything other than a hijacking with the intent to cause offense.
And what you're arguing is that it'd be perfectly legitimate for me to call you a fucking asshole, and that as long as I tell you I'm not using the common meaning of that phrase but something else, you have no business taking offense.
I would also point out that in exactly the same way that Person A cannot tell Person B what B finds funny, depressing, interesting or boring, A also cannot tell B what they may and may not be offended by. A lack of intent to cause offense is not the same as not causing offense.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 02:16:24 AM
You totally missed the point.
(And besides: You are totally free to think that an animal torturer are similar to womens genitals. But is it wise, sane?)
Well, a torturer has a stinky attitude, just like some women have stinky... um...
...runs away
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 04:04:29 AM
The reason it used in that way is because gay means homosexual.
That is why it is marked as offensive.
No you are just projecting your own stupidity on millions of young people who use the word to mean lame without any intention of disparaging homosexuals, i already proved that is a significant common usage. There's nothing more for you than to try to move the goalposts or strawman my original claims.
Btw your post is gay and you are cunt. Uhhh im such a homophobe and mysoginist, regardless that my actual positions are completely opposite to those just because i used the taboo words, herp a derp. That is how retarded you sound, oops i did it again.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 10, 2016, 10:11:49 AM
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/004523735/820816356_3038678386_Im_offended_that_means_Im_right_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg)
Lol yup.
But seriously the title gay isn't sacred but used many times negatively like "That is so gay"; I've used it many times as a kid and still use it because it was a habit that stood out since times as a kid, because in those and these days the term gay used by many is indeed thought that gay is bad, due to religious, the ignorant, and the habitual people like me that say it and don't really mean it. The reason why actvist try to make it sacred or in this case better is because all the hate negative usage of the term because gay originally meant happy, and homosexuals made it their quota term because they are a happy people.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 08, 2016, 02:40:37 PM
Bullshit. "It's so gay" is only a negative remark if you see "gay" denoting something bad.
Not bullshit. You're speaking in absolutes now. You said "...see 'gay' as denoting something bad.", but that isn't exactly what's going on necessarily. More correctly it would be, "...see 'gay' as
sometimes denoting something bad." We are talking about to different definitions for the same word, so if I say, "That is so gay" then
in that context I see gay as denoting something bad. But if I say, "Don't bother flirting with him. He's gay.", in that context I do not.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 09, 2016, 03:04:01 PM
Bullshit. Again. Words mean something. If you say "that is so gay" you express that it somehow shares a property of gay people.
Maybe your intent wasnt that but then you failed in your usage of the language.
Now THAT is bullshit. Some words have
multiple meanings and gay is one of them. Your claim is no more true than me saying, "His hear it black" in any way expresses that this usage somehow shares a property with black people or "little white lie" expresses that this usage somehow shares a property with white people. One usage specifically refers to a group of people, another usage of the very same word does not, no matter how many times you claim that this reasoning is "bullshit".
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 09, 2016, 04:56:22 PM
People do not get to decide themselves in what meaning they will use a word without considering the general/cultural usage, any context or following the herd. You can't say "I will use the word 'gay' for stupid, it is their problem, if they can't handle it". Well certainly you can, but it really doesn't mean much. You just say it yourself and you just use it yourself. And it means that you are living in the middle of nowhere surrounded just by a several people -which I think how widdershins lives and survives- yeah go on and develop your own language, use every word the way you like. But then there is nothing much to discuss about that with this issue under those circumstances, is there? Set up a nude commune with a compulsory tinfoil hat and invent a new language. Why not?
Someone who has to live in close quarters with many different, various individuals, adapting to the usages of words in every context (slang, daily language, the jargons) and to the changes is a crucial skill. Be it at work, at home, relatives, friend circle...etc.
If you claim you can/do use words in remote meanings that would make no sense and be offensive to others the way you like; you are either over 75, anonymously posting in an internet forum or living in the middle of nowhere with a very limited amount of people who already have a dependent relationship with you.
If you have to result to petty insults then you must feel your argument isn't very strong.
By the way, I never claimed to be "deciding for myself" what the meaning of the word "gay" is, and that claim is intellectually dishonest at best. I have stated all along that I was using a dictionary definition, and before that the culturally relevant reference from the entirety of my life. On the flip side, other people do not get to decide for you which definitions of a word, whether actually defined or slang, we
cannot use, which is very much what you are doing.
And as if it's any of your business, I live in a town of about 6,000 people, where I have lived most of my life. When not living in this town, I lived in smaller towns. Are you saying all people from small towns are ignorant hicks? No, what you're
really saying is that there must be something physically or emotionally wrong with all people who don't agree with you which, frankly, is a very stupid belief.
And what's this about "inventing a new language"? TOTAL BULLSHIT! As I've said all along, I am using a DEFINITION FROM A DICTIONARY. There is no "invention" of any "new language" on my part. It's actually you who is trying to revise an existing language to suit your opinion.
And then you suggest, what? You live in a big city, so you're smarter in the ways of people, I guess? And then go on to claim it's a "remote meaning that would make no sense"? Based on what? That it has been EXTREMELY common my entire life? I gather you live in a large city, but on what planet, because I don't think we live on the same one if that use of the word "gay" is in any way a "remote meaning" where you come from. You must in the very least not live in the US. You're apparently unaware of this, but not only is the meaning not "remote" it is, in fact, so common that a Public Service Announcement was made about that usage. In America a "PSA", as they are referred to, is generally not made to address something perceived by some as a problem if that problem is considered to be "remote", "obscure" or "uncommon". It costs a lot of money to make them (money is the currency we trade with here), so you wouldn't normally waste this "money" on a "problem" you don't believe to be a very common one.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 02:04:06 AM
You didnt notice the lable "offensive". In the dictionaries, did you?
You didn't notice that the definition "Homosexual" wasn't among those definitions labeled offensive, did you?
Quote from: facebook164 on February 10, 2016, 04:04:29 AM
The reason it used in that way is because gay means homosexual.
That is why it is marked as offensive.
AND THE OTHER THINGS given in those definitions. You're trying to assign the word this single, absolute meaning and claim that all uses of the word at least insinuate this single meaning to some extent, which is just not the way language works. That's why things have
multiple definition. Now, if you have an argument that makes sense, (ie, NOT one which insists that all usage of the word "gay" is referring to sexuality), make it and I'll listen.
Quote from: widdershins on February 11, 2016, 03:18:02 PM
You didn't notice that the definition "Homosexual" wasn't among those definitions labeled offensive, did you?
What? What is so hard to understand?
the usage of "gay" to mean "lame" that is offensive exactly because "gay" is a nonoffensive word for homosexual!
Quote from: facebook164 on February 11, 2016, 03:24:51 PM
What? What is so hard to understand?
the usage of "gay" to mean "lame" that is offensive exactly because "gay" is a nonoffensive word for homosexual!
It is ALSO an offensive word for "stupid". What is so hard for YOU to understand? Words sometimes have MULTIPLE, often UNRELATED meanings. But you keep telling yourself those little white lies which make your heart so black. DAMN! I just offended all white AND black people everywhere in one sentence because "white" and "black" only ever refer to a person's race and I just used them in a negative way! WHAT A DICK!
Quote from: widdershins on February 11, 2016, 03:23:25 PM
AND THE OTHER THINGS given in those definitions. You're trying to assign the word this single, absolute meaning and claim that all uses of the word at least insinuate this single meaning to some extent, which is just not the way language works. That's why things have multiple definition. Now, if you have an argument that makes sense, (ie, NOT one which insists that all usage of the word "gay" is referring to sexuality), make it and I'll listen.
Because that is how kids and teenagers behave. They use words that is loaded and tries to "break them" by using them in sbuive ways. That is where all this perojative usage of "jew", "retard", "gay" etc comes from. Its fun because it is forbidden. Its fun because people get upset, it is fun because it gives power.
That you doesnt realize this speaks loads about you.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 11, 2016, 03:31:35 PM
Because that is how kids and teenagers behave. They use words that is loaded and tries to "break them" by using them in sbuive ways. That is where all this perojative usage of "jew", "retard", "gay" etc comes from. Its fun because it is forbidden. Its fun because people get upset, it is fun because it gives power.
That you doesnt realize this speaks loads about you.
It's you who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. If you read my previous posts you'll find that I already stated that I actually researched this a few years ago and BOTH USAGES of the word "gay" originate at about the same time. The definition I am talking about is not slang, it's an actual definition from the dictionary. Furthermore, the origins of both uses predate my birth, meaning my exposure to either use of the word was not influenced by "teenagers" using it as a "loaded word". I have NEVER used, nor heard it used, to mean both "homosexual" and "stupid" simultaneously. I have NEVER seen those usages crossed except in the minds of the PC Police. If you have, then you have some life experience I do not. That you simply refuse to understand that I don't see a connection between the two usages speaks very loudly about you.
I would like to point out that ALL the arguments for not using the "unacceptable" definition of the word are insulting, angry and make ridiculous claims. That there is no one on the "other side" of this debate who can speak calmly and intelligently on this matter without resulting to petty insults and false equivalencies, not to mention even address the other instances where words have two meanings, one of which defines a group of people, the other of which is seen as negative, pretty much tells me that this argument is nothing more than people simply being offended by nothing at all. That is, unless someone can CALMLY AND POLITELY tell me where my thinking has gone wrong, which I am very much willing to listen to. But be warned, being that my intention when saying "that is so gay" has NEVER been to insult homosexuals, nor have I ever actually heard it used in that way to insult homosexuals, you have your work cut out for you to convince me that it is actually "offensive" as opposed to people simply "being offended" by it, which, in my mind, are two very different thing.
Please note, it is not my intention to offend people here. It is my intention to understand those who think differently than me. There will be no understanding if all you can do is insinuate that I'm a bigot against gays, unintelligent or a redneck jerk. If that's what you have, take it with you when you leave.
Quote from: widdershins on February 11, 2016, 03:37:56 PM
It's you who doesn't know what the hell you're talking about. If you read my previous posts you'll find that I already stated that I actually researched this a few years ago and BOTH USAGES of the word "gay" originate at about the same time. The definition I am talking about is not slang, it's an actual definition from the dictionary. Furthermore, the origins of both uses predate my birth, meaning my exposure to either use of the word was not influenced by "teenagers" using it as a "loaded word". I have NEVER used, nor heard it used, to mean both "homosexual" and "stupid" simultaneously. I have NEVER seen those usages crossed except in the minds of the PC Police. If you have, then you have some life experience I do not. That you simply refuse to understand that I don't see a connection between the two usages speaks very loudly about you.
That you doesnt realize the connection when explained to you says the most.
Quote from: facebook164 on February 11, 2016, 05:37:18 PM
That you doesnt realize the connection when explained to you says the most.
That you just presented the argument of a prepubescent child, complete with improper grammar says the most times infinity.
Now I know when straight people say "that's so gay" it doesn't typically have anything to do with gay people, it just means lame.
My gay friend occasionally describes himself as having a "gay moment" usually involved with the misalignment of furniture in his impeccably neat trailer, but I'm not one to try to be "gay friendly"by "talking gay," if there is such a thing. I grant people the right to be referred to as they choose. My name is Stephen but I used to be referred to as "Stevo" and "Stevie" and it irritates the shit out of me that people do that. I always make it a point to either know or ask people with nicknames if they are comfortable being called that. Quite often they aren't, but merely tolerate it.
I consider it an issue of personal respect to be observant of other people's boundaries and what they consider acceptable and not. And I wish that other people were mindful of that as well. A common sensitivity that would make the world run better.
I agree. Especially at work I ask people by what name they prefer to be called. I also ask people "how would you describe your sexual orientation" or "what should I put down on your medical record for race." I also give people the option to leave it blank. If there must be a label let the individual provide it.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 12, 2016, 03:36:17 AM
Now I know when straight people say "that's so gay" it doesn't typically have anything to do with gay people, it just means lame.
You know, thinking back, other people were saying that they saw this usage of the word referring to sexuality, but they did things like ignorantly claim there was no other definition. Reading this simple response from you, assuming I understand correctly that you actually did not know that this usage of the word did not refer to sexuality in the least, I actually understand the other side of this argument now.
I had seen this as a group trying to hijack a word with multiple meanings and delete all the meanings but the one they wanted, which, frankly, annoyed the shit out of me. Even those arguing here, at least the arguments I remember, all seemed to fall into one of two categories (on that side of the argument). Either they said that you should not use it out of respect or they claimed that it was a direct insult to homosexuality, end of discussion. There was a third argument, the "you're stupid" argument, but that childishness does not deserve analysis. The first argument I understand, but it didn't help me see things from the other side. The second argument was, frankly, pathetic and wrong, and only reinforced what I already thought about the situation because one arguer actually claimed that there was no other legitimate usage of the word.
With this simple response, I finally understand your position (I think). After a lifetime of bigotry directed toward you, you simply saw this as no real change. You have no desire to "hijack" a word, you just can't be sure exactly what it means when it's used in that way. From my point of view, I have never said, "That is so gay" and in any way indicated homosexuality. And now I understand and respect your point of view, I have my answer, it's not an attempted "hijack", it's just being jumpy from a lifetime of persecution.
Frankly, the Wanda Sykes argument actually made me MORE adamant about using it because her argument was deeply flawed. The boy in the video did not mean offense to her, but she did mean offense to him with her comparison. That wasn't a fair comparison and she came off as angry and combative rather than actually hurt, EXACTLY the imagery conservatives would have jump to our minds when talking about gays because it's easier to fight against a combatant than equality.
So, I have my answer (unless I in some way misunderstood you). Having my answer I can dismiss the bad arguments against using the phrase as irrelevant. This makes the simple argument you made with, I believe, your very first post in this thread, "I don't know how to take it when you say it", the only argument with substance, the only argument which matters and, as I now see, a rock-solid argument. I understand why I should not use this phrase now, and I will not. Thank you.
I first heard the word gay in reference to homosexuality made by (I think) David Niven many years ago in an interview, where he, a Brit, Was in Hollywood to be in movies and mentioned it as local slang among Hollywood insiders. Cary Grant and Randolph Scott, both he man actors of the late 40s and 50s, lived together for some time, and rumors abounded about their relationship.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xgizSjWdw9A/UdjsqWoxaeI/AAAAAAAALeY/dzqcZFDMT54/s640/cary+n+r+5.JPG)
http://www.homohistory.com/2013/07/cary-grant-and-randolph-scott-hollywood.html
You decide.
"Look at his outfit. That's so gay." "Soccer is so gay. Football is a real man's sport."
"This weather is f'n gay/ghey."
Huge difference between these two different uses. If someone is using it more like in the first couple sentences, I don't have a problem with them being called out for that. Homophobia is still very common, and there are plenty of people out there that will use gay as an insult, and mean effeminate when they say it.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on February 12, 2016, 01:34:37 PM
"Look at his outfit. That's so gay." "Soccer is so gay. Football is a real man's sport."
"This weather is f'n gay/ghey."
Huge difference between these two different uses. If someone is using it more like in the first couple sentences, I don't have a problem with them being called out for that. Homophobia is still very common, and there are plenty of people out there that will use gay as an insult, and mean effeminate when they say it.
Yes and the less than observant don't understand the difference. Granted we live in a world which more and more deals with hair splitting, this word is bad under certain conditions and not under others, if used by one group ok but not by others. And the internet is to blame as well, being a wide open turf where anybody can be as blatantly homophobic as they want and do it mostly anonymously. A brave new world.
Quote from: widdershins on February 12, 2016, 10:54:12 AM
You know, thinking back, other people were saying that they saw this usage of the word referring to sexuality, but they did things like ignorantly claim there was no other definition. Reading this simple response from you, assuming I understand correctly that you actually did not know that this usage of the word did not refer to sexuality in the least, I actually understand the other side of this argument now.
I had seen this as a group trying to hijack a word with multiple meanings and delete all the meanings but the one they wanted, which, frankly, annoyed the shit out of me. Even those arguing here, at least the arguments I remember, all seemed to fall into one of two categories (on that side of the argument). Either they said that you should not use it out of respect or they claimed that it was a direct insult to homosexuality, end of discussion. There was a third argument, the "you're stupid" argument, but that childishness does not deserve analysis. The first argument I understand, but it didn't help me see things from the other side. The second argument was, frankly, pathetic and wrong, and only reinforced what I already thought about the situation because one arguer actually claimed that there was no other legitimate usage of the word.
With this simple response, I finally understand your position (I think). After a lifetime of bigotry directed toward you, you simply saw this as no real change. You have no desire to "hijack" a word, you just can't be sure exactly what it means when it's used in that way. From my point of view, I have never said, "That is so gay" and in any way indicated homosexuality. And now I understand and respect your point of view, I have my answer, it's not an attempted "hijack", it's just being jumpy from a lifetime of persecution.
Frankly, the Wanda Sykes argument actually made me MORE adamant about using it because her argument was deeply flawed. The boy in the video did not mean offense to her, but she did mean offense to him with her comparison. That wasn't a fair comparison and she came off as angry and combative rather than actually hurt, EXACTLY the imagery conservatives would have jump to our minds when talking about gays because it's easier to fight against a combatant than equality.
So, I have my answer (unless I in some way misunderstood you). Having my answer I can dismiss the bad arguments against using the phrase as irrelevant. This makes the simple argument you made with, I believe, your very first post in this thread, "I don't know how to take it when you say it", the only argument with substance, the only argument which matters and, as I now see, a rock-solid argument. I understand why I should not use this phrase now, and I will not. Thank you.
To clarify my point is not about using or not using the word or whether is it offensive or not. Those are things based on subjective perception and for each individual to decide. Im just trying to refute this attitude of throwing serious accusations like homophobia/racism/sexism to people just because they use impolite and crude expressions. To me those accusations are not about infering the worst possible interpretation of someone's word usage and then bringing them to the progressive pilory. Those accusations are reserved for people with unfounded dogmatic believes about other people based solely on their gender/race.There's no logical necessity for the user of a slur/insult to be racist/homophobe/sexist and the designination of this taboo words is morally selective.
The thing about the topic of slurs/insults, in the context of the internet, that bothers me are this:
People seem to separate words like faggot, nigger, cunt, tranny, etc. from other insults and refer to them as slurs with the implication that using those words is much worse than other insults because they are homophobic/racist/mysoginist/transphobic. They think that the person who uses those slurs holds or is spousing those attitudes by using them and therefore is deserving of serious moral condemnation because those attitudes are inmoral/wrong. I do not think that is necessarily the case, it can be but it does not neccesarily follow. I also think that in the context in which i have experienced the usage of this words as insults, internet chats and forums, most of the time it does not follow because there is a much more obvious explanation for people choosing this words to insult.
I think there is a disconnect there between the action the person is actually doing and the perception of that action by the people morally condeming them. This marks the difference between an asshole and a bigot. The asshole is making an strategic choice of words. He is personalizing the insult, tailoring it with whatever little information he has of the victim to prey on their self conciousness to inflict maximium distress possible with words. This is why if they know or think you are male they will call you a cuck or a virgin and doubly so if they know you are a nerd or introverted, they will also use sexual insults towards your mother, sister or girlfriend all of this preys on your self conciousness surrounding your male identity and your gender role. ( note also the selective morality of how this ways to insult males are not part of the prohibit slur list for certain individuals) they will call a women a cunt and if she is a rabid feminist doubly so because they know how much they hate gendered insults. They will call muslims sand niggers, they will call black people niggers, etc. This strategic choice of words is in my opinion pretty standard insults 101 and is done automatically with all sorts of traits a person can have. The slur list is just a selection of some of this terms that with selective morality born out of hyperbolic progressive rhetoric become anathema. The way i see it, racism is not calling someone a nigger even if you are using it as an insult. To me racism is the irrationally dogmatic believe that a person MUST be a certain way based solely on their race. For example the racist is the one that strongly believes, without sufficient evidence, whites are inherently superior and other races are inherently inferior. This is the bigot. The guy who called you nigger/faggot/cunt/ (insert slur here) because you disagreed with him on the internet or beat him in a game is just being an asshole.
This also applies to threats of violence through the internet by random pseudonymous or anonymous people. The people who are not internet noobs should be familiar with the phenomena known as the internet though guy. This is why when someone threatens you on the internet you just laugh, because the lack of motive and material impediments and the fact that the person is most likely simply using words to try to cause you distress means you are basically completely safe and hes just a butthurt internet though guy.
With my experiences using the internet for more than a decade now engaging in many a shitfliging contests on the cesspools of the interwebs i cannot take seriously this pseudoslacktivists like anita shekelisian and her cohorts parading around "research" that are just basically people counting slurs and insults in videogame chatlogs as evidence of "widespread sexism and cyberviolence against women" on the internet and videogames community. This people are either purposfully disengenous or complete internet noobs oblivious to the art of trolling and shitposting.
Why is there an argumenT?
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 12, 2016, 06:15:11 PM
Why is there an argumenT?
Yes, why is there an argument on the Internet? It's unprecedented!
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
I say it occasionally when i consider something lame. Incidentally, being lame is also a medical condition, along with aspie, autist and retard. Essentially people insult other people with medical conditions. It works well enough.
Quote from: Dionysiou on February 18, 2016, 02:51:14 AM
I say it occasionally when i consider something lame. Incidentally, being lame is also a medical condition, along with aspie, autist and retard. Essentially people insult other people with medical conditions. It works well enough.
Being a "retard" is not a medical condition. Being "mentally retarded" is (or was. This term is no longer used professionally, mostly). Just like being a "negro" is a race, but not being a n***, making neither usage socially acceptable any more.