Thats soooo gay
- Thread starter jetboatdeath
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Actually, AFAIK Only one of them is insulted by any of those terms and it is the word "******" (not fag) when applied to a gay man. I highly doubt if I asked for a ****** of wood for the fire, he would be upset... but I'll check with him when he comes online tonite to be clear.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
No, that was NOT my argument. I was not arguing that I was using "n-word" in the "proper", non-slur sense. It is clearly a slur, and we are discussing it as such...in that case, why should the mods redact a "cleaned up" version that won't ping filtering software? How can we have a clear conversation if all anyone can read of the term I want to discuss is ******?
This is entirely different than claiming that the n-word really was an old word for a man from that land of Nigg and those oversensitive PC black folks have "changed" the word and kept us from using it.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
See, this is the part I just don't get. Given the negative history of the word, given the fact it is used as a pejorative right before brutal beatings and murders, given the possibility for offense or misunderstanding...why the hell wouldn't you just ask for a bundle of sticks? Why is it important that an epithet had a previous history as another non-offensive word and you would like to be able to use it again? Find another term that isn't a modern day slur, understood by everyone as such. Almost no one in America at least knows that "bundle of sticks" has any other meaning than "gay man I am about to hurt".
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Says the exact same thing as my comment that asking an english girl for a pull of her fag is entirely legitimate and its clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.
You may not want to admit it, but we ARE saying the same thing... using a term in context with no mis-intent or desire to insult any particular group should not be an offense.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Well, ya know, I would. I'm not trying to argue that I want to use those words, or any words like that... my point is that, despite ONE meaning of those words, if they are not used in that way or with that intent, should someone be punished for using them, because a group of people decided that one meaning of them is somthing they find offensive, or that they chose to use in an offensive manner? There's a lot of terminology like that out there... all in varying degrees. To me, It's a question of where we draw the line, to protect someones feelings. Should we not be allowed to say "Witch" or "Blonde" because its an insult to women? Should we not be allowed to ask for a "Cracker" with our soup because its negative slang for a white man? Even the much bantered around term here in the study "slippery slope" would need to go away... because... well...
All I am saying is that words often have more than one meaning, and its NOT the word... its the USE of that word.
Perhaps, to spare everyones feelings, we should just all go back to gutteral grunts, growls and banging sticks on the floor.
Mod Note
Attention All Users:
Please keep the discussion polite and respectful. Also, please take note of the profanity policy. Rather than circumvent the word by using symbols such as * and &, just type the word and the filter will catch it.
Mike Slosek
MT Supermod
Attention All Users:
Please keep the discussion polite and respectful. Also, please take note of the profanity policy. Rather than circumvent the word by using symbols such as * and &, just type the word and the filter will catch it.
Mike Slosek
MT Supermod
Empty Hands
Senior Master
In principle, I agree. Words are just vibrations after all, with no intrinsic meaning. However, it is an unescapable fact that some words have acquired so much negative freight that they are basically unusable by certain people (n-word by non-black folks fer instance) without a high potential of offense taken by someone around you. Given that potential, such words should be avoided apart from highly controlled circumstances - like an academic discussion of slurs. I have never argued that someone should be "punished", but I don't think they should use those words either. Given the particularly negative history of words like the "n-word" or "bundle of sticks", I also find it highly suspicious when people complain about the "changed meanings" - they should realize that such words do cause hurt, have a very negative history, and deal with it. Part of the problem is that the people arguing for word rehabilitation tend to be the usual suspects in the racism/homophobia department.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Its the policy of the forum to just type the word. In some cases, the word in question will be self explainatory and in others, we'll have to use our imagination as to what the person typing it actually meant.
In fact, I got dinged for making a posting that was almost nothing but asterisks. I never actually typed in a bad word. But someone's imagination was working overtime, and she filled in the blanks with what she thought it must have said.
FearlessFreep
Senior Master
Wait, are you really saying that it's offensive to call a gay person a gay person? :idunno:
Actually, I think in this case the offense is using a word that is well known for reffering to homosexuals as a pejoritive.
It is kind of like someone seeing something stupid and saying, "that is so Christian." Or maybe if someone decided to attach a title to egotistical, inept martial artists and said, "That is so Bujinkan." I do not think people would believe an excuse that there was no offense to Christians or the Bujinkan intended.
I really do not know where the line should be drawn on it and am on the fence. On one hand, I have real trouble believing that the girl had no idea that the term was related to homosexuals in the context she used it. That does not jive with my experiences with the word as a child. On the other hand, the actual word is not offensive to any of my gay friends used by itself.
The comparisons that are attempted to be made between the 'gay' and the 'n-word' don't make sense to me either. My sister is gay. My brother-in-law (my other sister's husband) is black. While I have no problem using the word gay, I would never use the n-word. I suppose that means I've got some sort of bias or emotional shortcoming or something (or maybe even a right-wingnut?). :idunno:
From the dissapointingly anti-gay marriage BLUE STATE of Michigan,
-crushing
I'm left wondering what it was that got the Mormon girl in trouble.
Was it simply saying "That's so gay"
Or, was it saying "That's so gay" in response to the idea of having multiple, same-sex parents (10 moms).
What if the students teasing her said something like "Go back to Utah" and she responded by saying "That's so gay." Would she still be in trouble?
Was it simply saying "That's so gay"
Or, was it saying "That's so gay" in response to the idea of having multiple, same-sex parents (10 moms).
What if the students teasing her said something like "Go back to Utah" and she responded by saying "That's so gay." Would she still be in trouble?
There are non-profane, non-offensive words that can be used to make clear the words one uses to avoid those which are caught by the filter; context can also be used to clarify what one means.
As a middle school teacher, I have had such conversations with my students who blurted out such unacceptable terms - and had no difficulty making myself clear to my 7th grade students without resorting to the use of profanity or racial slurs. I suggest the use of a dictionary and a thesaurus.
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Post removed by author
I agree very strongly with a post Tellner made a little while ago about the power of words. I had thought to make a similar post myself but didn't get around to it quickly enough (sorry mate, tried to 'rep buff' you for saying what I would've but the board software implicitly accused me of favouritism 
).
The quagmire that is PC nonsense started with the best of intentions and is actually grounded in the very real sociological theory that what you call something has a profound effect on how that thing is regarded.
So, I essentially agree that if a term has garnered perjorative baggage then it is best to avoid that term, even if, as Cryo has said, there is a perfectly normal useage for that term that is thus lost.
I do, nonetheless, concur and identify with Cryo's frustration that innocent words of our language are being co-opted and lost ('gay' is particularly irritating as it used to have many shades of meaning dependant on context and now has only one).
However, language is a cycle and words mutate their meanings all the time. One that comes to mind is 'naughty'. It's useage in Shakespeare is lost on many modern audiences because they think it means something akin to 'slightly mischevious' whereas in that time it meant something much more like 'evil', 'sadistic' or 'malicious'.
There is a case tho' that this 'word policing' is a one way street. So if, like me, you're a middle aged, white, male, people can call you whatever they want with no PC backlash. That is intrinsically unjust and is what I think gets a lot of people's backs up. Until polite address is universal then 'Political Correctness' is going to generate friction.
Nontheless, much as it aggrivates me and gets used as an unjustified excuse for far too many things, the basic concept of removing the use of derogatory terms is sound.
The problem, as I said above, is that it's not really equitable for some social groups to be 'safe' from abusive terminology and others not to be. So the 'N' word is taboo if you're not black but 'Cracker', 'Redneck' or 'Snowflake' can be used in an abusive way by any race. Similarly, redheaded or balding people are fair game for all sorts of nasty talk but try inflict the same degree of invective on some other physical characteristic that falls under the PC umbrella and all hell breaks loose.
A skewed playing field is inherently unstable, so, if a word picks up unsavory baggage, then I'm sorry to say that in the end I feel that the best course is to leave well alone. The meaning will change or it's useage fade soon enough unless you (big, governmental, 'you' meant here) choose to make the word an issue.
Last word? Perjorative langauge should be universally unfettered or globally unacceptable (for the record I fall into the latter camp).
).The quagmire that is PC nonsense started with the best of intentions and is actually grounded in the very real sociological theory that what you call something has a profound effect on how that thing is regarded.
So, I essentially agree that if a term has garnered perjorative baggage then it is best to avoid that term, even if, as Cryo has said, there is a perfectly normal useage for that term that is thus lost.
I do, nonetheless, concur and identify with Cryo's frustration that innocent words of our language are being co-opted and lost ('gay' is particularly irritating as it used to have many shades of meaning dependant on context and now has only one).
However, language is a cycle and words mutate their meanings all the time. One that comes to mind is 'naughty'. It's useage in Shakespeare is lost on many modern audiences because they think it means something akin to 'slightly mischevious' whereas in that time it meant something much more like 'evil', 'sadistic' or 'malicious'.
There is a case tho' that this 'word policing' is a one way street. So if, like me, you're a middle aged, white, male, people can call you whatever they want with no PC backlash. That is intrinsically unjust and is what I think gets a lot of people's backs up. Until polite address is universal then 'Political Correctness' is going to generate friction.
Nontheless, much as it aggrivates me and gets used as an unjustified excuse for far too many things, the basic concept of removing the use of derogatory terms is sound.
The problem, as I said above, is that it's not really equitable for some social groups to be 'safe' from abusive terminology and others not to be. So the 'N' word is taboo if you're not black but 'Cracker', 'Redneck' or 'Snowflake' can be used in an abusive way by any race. Similarly, redheaded or balding people are fair game for all sorts of nasty talk but try inflict the same degree of invective on some other physical characteristic that falls under the PC umbrella and all hell breaks loose.
A skewed playing field is inherently unstable, so, if a word picks up unsavory baggage, then I'm sorry to say that in the end I feel that the best course is to leave well alone. The meaning will change or it's useage fade soon enough unless you (big, governmental, 'you' meant here) choose to make the word an issue.
Last word? Perjorative langauge should be universally unfettered or globally unacceptable (for the record I fall into the latter camp).
