Why is the word "gay" sacred?

[trdsf]

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.

[facebook164]

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.

[trdsf]

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.

[facebook164]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

...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.

[drunkenshoe]

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.

[mauricio]

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.

[mauricio]

.

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.

[mauricio]

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..

[mauricio]

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.

[drunkenshoe]

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.

[FaithIsFilth]

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?