bodhisamaya Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:ありがとう　atylmo　

The rules of text battle™ are quite simple really. There is only one:
#1- He/she who causes an opponent to post the last wall of text wins. Having gotten an hour of Japanese study in before the vanquished knows the game is over.

Oh. Well played, kazelee. Well played.

I mean pfft, everything I've posted here I just copy/pasted from countless similar conversations elsewhere I had years ago. Why, once when I was doing acid on top of a mountain with a mixed race multisexual Buddhist master, the fourth one I had sex with since the '70s all across the globe, helping to conceive various children, we discussed these very same problems while we were feeding the hungry, bringing about world peace, backpacking across the snowy peaks and mending the limbs of wounded beasts, and furthermore.... *drifts off into tantric reverie*

Haha,
Lucky my rants rarely make it past four or five sentences until I notice a shiny object in the corner of my eye that vies for my attention..
It is the first nice day we have had in 枚方市 in a long time so I am going to attempt a trek to 嵐山 now.

It is funny but true! My life seems to be an open book to those who have been on this forum for a while... except that I was born in 1969. I can't believe what an adventure I have had in life given where I came from.
One piece of advice to young people. To experience life to its fullest, you must give up all attachment to it and just drift with the wind. Always be looking for ways to serve those who can not possibly pay you back and you will never feel like anything is lacking in your own life.

IceCream Wrote:also, please can someone link me to the post with the link for situated meaning, as i can't seem to find it again?!

Abstract Wrote:Gay high school students do not have it easy. The latest statistics paint a harrowing picture of physical and verbal harassment, with the latter often occurring in the presence of school personnel who intervene only some of the time, and often never. The current popularity of the phrase that's so gay in the secondary school environment has made antigay harassment even more difficult to identify and address. In this study, the author uses a comprehensive case study of one suburban high school to deconstruct the phrase that's so gay, including its frequency of use, its perceived meaning, and its connection to the safety of gay students.

The author performed qualitative group interviews with 122 students and a quantitative survey of 62 teachers and staff members. The resulting data reveal that the idiom is heard daily by students and has several meanings, all of which are negative. The data also indicate statistically significant correlations between the teachers' and staff members' perceptions of the phrase and their views of bullying and school safety.

Through the use of the theory of discourse analysis, the author refutes the assertions of students, teachers, and staff members that the phrase is not connected to sexual orientation, instead drawing links between that's so gay and the interviewees' and respondents' negative associations with individuals who identify as gay.

The author gives further consideration to the idiom within the context of school safety, using social representation theory to establish a connection between the pejorative use of gay in this ubiquitous phrase and the already documented negative experiences of gay students in schools. Finally, implications for students and school personnel, recommendations for schools, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

IceCream Wrote:For example, if he had said, in reference to a man in a pink shirt in a youtube video "lol how gay", there's no way i would have sat and argued this for 11 pages. I'd have simply gone "he apologised, good, discussion closed."
So, what i've been trying to say, is simply: be careful of what uses of language you want to draw attention to, and to actively fight. Fighting the wrong battle can help lose you the war!

IceCream Wrote:ok. This is going to be my last post here, because there's absolutely no point in continuing to make the same points only to be countered with the same arguments. As i stated before, the problem is with differing theories of meaning. Are you working off theories similar to his in that paper? I'm not really sure who to address any more.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but social studies theories often don't have the kind of rigour that you find in philosophy of language. If you're interested in theories of meaning, its probably better that you read philosophy books. I understand how such theories as the one presented in the paper can seem intuitive enough, and, the paper itself is interesting. But, to put it eloquently... hes talking wank.

IceCream Wrote:1. ok. here's the first important point to note. In the study, The students, almost unanimously, denied that they actually did mean anything related to homosexual when they used the phrase "it's so gay". Interestingly, more than 50% of the teachers also denied that that was what they meant. More interestingly, the longer a teacher had been teaching, the more likely it was that they would link the phrase to homophobia. The teachers who had been teaching less than 10 years were much more likely to say that the phrase meant something non related to homosexuality.

IceCream Wrote:2.

study wrote:

The concept of activating a situated meaning of a word is central to addressing the idea proffered by students, teachers, and staff members, of that's so gay being disconnected from sexual orientation. Were students to have shouted broken or unfair during the shout-out exercise, the argument for a situated meaning apart from sexual orientation would have been at least slightly more plausible.

During this "shout out excersise", which was the 1st excersise they did, the students were supposed to shout out the first words that came into their head when the word "gay" was written on the board. Schneck argues that there is no evidence for a situated meaning of "its so gay" being seperate from the meaning of homosexuality because the students did not shout out any of the words they later associated with the phrase. The argument here is astonishingly fallacious for 2 very obvious reasons. 1.) In his introduction to the students, Schneck told them that he was gay, and to not hold anything back. This already puts the homosexual meaning in the front of their minds to start with, in preparation for the first activity. 2.) The noun "gay" was used, instead of the phrase. Its entirely plausible that if he had written "so gay", he would have got a different response.

That's So Gay Wrote:"I also informed them that there was no way in which they could offend me as
a gay man. The disclosure of my sexual orientation was intentional. Following one
of the first of these workshops at UHS, 5 years previous, a student remarked that she
would probably behave differently if she ever met a gay person, but she had never
had the experience of even talking to someone who identified as being gay. I asked
her if my presence in the class as a gay man had any effect on her, and she was
surprised, commenting that she had no awareness that I identified as gay. Since then
I have made a point of informing students at the start of the class that I identify as
gay, so that no student could again assert that they had never met someone who was
gay. This disclosure could have resulted in the students censoring themselves, but
whether a derivative of my comment that they could not offend me or of their
inclination to participate, revealing my sexual orientation clearly did not silence an
of the classes I recorded.
The first part of the workshop was a shout-out exercise. I informed studen
that I would be writing a word on a big piece of paper in the front of the room. I t
instructed them to "shout out" any words that they associate with the word on the
paper or words they think their peers at UHS would associate with the word, whet
positive or negative—anything that they or their peers may think of when they see
word. Next, I wrote gay at the top of the paper. It is important to note that this
exercise was conducted before we began discussing their use of that's so gay; until
that point, the only time I had used the word gay was to describe my own sexual
orientation....

The big piece of paper on which I captured the words being shouted stayed
taped to the blackboard, clearly visible over my right shoulder, for the rest of the
dialogue. Less than 4 minutes after the shout-out exercise, students asserted that the
gay in that's so gay had no association with sexual orientation, in defiance of the big
paper still hanging behind me.
How is this possible? How can gay immediately be linked with a word like
faggot—a word for which the intent has been described as having the "course of
action of.. . isolating the gay student or subjecting him to physical violence" (Smith
2005, p. 102)—but then not be associated with faggot just minutes later? How can
students, teachers, and staff members completely disavow the association with sexua
orientation? Discourse analysis answers: they can't.
Students did not invent gay at UHS. They did not brainstorm a unique, neve
before-used word to describe a specific outcome. By using a word that already
existed in language, they brought forth associations with that word, even when the
word's target may have changed. Gee (1999) writes:

Words have histories. They have been in other people's mouths and on other
people's pens. They have circulated through other Discourses and within
other institutions. They have been part of specific historical events and
episodes. Words bring with them as potential situated meanings all the
situated meanings they have picked up in history and in other settings and
Discourses. Producers and receivers may know and use only some of these
potential situated meanings. They may not activate them or only partially
activate them. But such meanings are always potentials open to being
activated or more fully activated. They are like a virus that may remain
inactive for a long while, but that is always there and potentially able to infect

people, situations, social practices, and Discourses with new situated
meanings, (pp. 54-55)
The concept of activating a situated meaning of a word is central to addressing
the idea proffered by students, teachers, and staff members, of that's so gay being
disconnected from sexual orientation. Were students to have shouted broken or
unfair during the shout-out exercise, the argument for a situated meaning apart from
sexual orientation would have been at least slightly more plausible. But with words
like faggot, homo, and queer on the big piece of paper, the students established a
situated meaning that was much closer to the surface and that much easier to activate.
The situated meaning of gay, however, is not fixed. Part of analyzing this
Discourse is accepting that the meanings of words are not stable. Words "have
multiple and ever changing meanings created for and adapted to specific contexts of
use" (Gee, 1999, p. 40). Word associations cannot be dismissed, particularly when
they are clearly as strong as the students indicated with gay.

Given that this word choice is both charged with meaning and active, the
question then becomes, why gay! After establishing that language is incapable of
being neutral, the answer to this question becomes a little clearer, and again is
brought into focus by critical discourse theory. By using gay to describe something
as broken and unfair, students are doing something more. They are enacting a powe
structure that extends far beyond the object that is being described. Somewhere

By using gay, the student is both subscribing to and participating in a
Discourse in which the negative associations with gay people are so strong that gay—
arguably the least negative word one can use to describe same-sex orientation—is the
same word that can be substituted for a range of negative descriptions. This
perception of individuals who identify as being gay is part of the cultural model of
this Discourse.

It should be noted that this cultural model of viewing gay people negatively
and its manifestation in students' language is not a hidden or unconscious concept
within the minds of UHS students. Aside from the shout-out exercise in which these
associations came freely, without provocation or leading, some students were able to
directly make this connection in an extremely short amount of time."

IceCream Wrote:3.

study wrote:

The notion that the phrase is used without
thought and "doesn't mean much" is also disproved by the students' consistent use of
the phrase outside of the presence of teachers and staff, which indicates that students
have some sense that use of the phrase within earshot of the adults in the school
environment might have some undesired consequences. Clearly the students, on some
level, know that the phrase is imbued with meaning and is more than a neutral idiom.

In the study, there showed that, incredibly, nearly 100% of students had heard the phrase "it's so gay" used in the last 48 hours, and over 50% of them had actively used it. However, the teachers responded, about 50% of them saying they had heard it used "sometimes", and the other 50% split between often and regularly.
Again, the interpretations are fallacious. The students themselves provide answers that they say it under their breath about the teachers. The students were also allowed to report their saying it from any time, not just in school time. But, the most obvious thing, is that, like most teenagers, they probably simply use slang a lot less openly in front of adults than they would otherwise. Knowing that they are using the phrase as an insult is a seperate thing from that insult being to do with homophobia. And the teachers do still hear them say it a lot, regardless. Unfortunately, no questions were asked to determine whether similar difference between perceptions and use existed for other slang terms.

IceCream Wrote:4. He uses the words from the shout out excersise to attempt to show that the students situational meaning for "gay" are pretty much all negative connotations. I think this is significant in showing a good amount of homophobic atmoshpere within the students, but again, his logic determining it is fallacious. No excersise was given to the students about their beleifs about homosexuality. It's only based on this shout out excersise that determines this homophobic atmoshpere. Its entirely plausible that, lacking decent education about gay people, the majority of the nouns they know connected to homosexuality would be homophobic. I'm pretty sure i had never even seen the rainbow flag 10-12 years ago when i was that age, let alone heard of "gay pride". I would have been hard pressed to associate positive words quickly. However, given a beleifs study, the results would have been very different. Finally, his own ideas about Discourse analysis and situational meaning disproves his method in this case. The first 3 words to be shouted out in all the classes were "faggot" "homo" and "queer". Once these words have set the context, you would expect more negative nouns to follow, on his theory.
I don't think that the fact that almost all the words were negative is insignificant. But, i don't think its linked in the way he beleives to the phrase "its so gay" either.

IceCream Wrote:therefore, his conclusion:

study wrote:

Students may not be calling the boring teacher a faggot or the broken computer a
queer, but the situated meaning of their words, coupled with their explicit associations
with gay, effectively convey the same connotation as if they were using those words
as undeniably homophobic.

in my opinion, is totally unfounded.

IceCream Wrote:There is one other point that he raises that i think is significant, but again, not for the reasons he does. He states, rather broadly, that:

study wrote:

In many of these examples, the respondents
almost exclusively focused their explanations on what the phrase did not mean,
foregoing any clarification of what it actually did connote

In his study, he identifies a number of different general catergories of uses of the phrase "it's so gay". In fact, the examples he gives all fall into 1 of the use categories he defines, though he usefully ignores this. This category is "use of gay as a trigger", which means when the students used "gay" as a personal insult to illicit a response from them. For the rest of the categories, gay meaning broken, unfair, or as a general negative statement, the students did seem to me to clarify what it did connote, rather than denying that it was about homophobia. The last category, "use of gay as related to gay people" mainly concerned the stereotyped gay fashion, etc. (and a misplaced trigger example).
I find it interesting that the use as trigger, being the one with the most obvious homophobic connection (at least in my understanding) was the one met with vehement "i wasn't reallllly calling him homosexual" responses, while the rest were simply defined as is.

kk, i know i haven't said anything particularly interesting yet, but i'm moving on to the meaning thing next...

IceCream Wrote:OK. you know what? i actually can't be bothered now. Nest0r, you think your really clever, but you refuse to listen to the points im trying to make. You repeated the same arguments again and again assuming i simply don't understand the things your saying, and never listening properly to the reply. It's really quite sad, yknow, because, seriously, i would have liked to have been proved wrong about this. I'm not sure how you ever intend to convince anyone of anything, with the attitude you take.

As for your point you keep repeating about the meanings lieing just under the surface, it's far from obvious that this isn't just a duck-rabbit situation. Hence, the more you prod someone, the more they see the connections, and the more they are reinforced.

Here are the initial logical problems with just your first paragraph of that reply you gave me. I was going to explore each in depth, show you some theories of meaning, and explain the points youve been missing with regard to the direct / indirect distinction. Then i was going to talk about practical stuff and look again at my assumptions. But, it seems like you aren't even reading the things i write, and are just responding rather randomly to satisfy your own desire to not be wrong. You aren't interested in finding out where the difference lies. And i can't remember the last time i slept for more than a few hours at a time.

So, i'm done, sorry.

nest0r Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:nest0r wrote:
It certainly works differently when we're talking about using negative slangy words that represent intensely negatively viewed, stereotyped minorities. It becomes even more an issue not only of fluid personal associations, but of the larger social fabric that it springs from and into and through.
i'm not sure that "certainly" is the best way to say this.

No, certainly is the right word. 'Gay' is the bridge between the vaguely negative use and the homophobic negative use. You aren't merely evoking personal 'that negative thing is gay' connotations, to varying degrees you're evoking larger and/or alternative ones as well. The only question is to what degree. But the thing is, you can't control the types of associations people have in their mind, and you can't change the fact that the 'that's gay/you fag' language you're using is representative of discriminatory processes occurring in culture, where bigoted words are treated with gradients of apathy and acceptance until they become mainstream. This pedestrian, surface apathy is what we're targeting because it traces back to the complex web of associations, subtle as spider silk. There's no 'best' area, only areas of immediacy and intensity. Those with the least association with the words, then, would be those with the least association with the homosexual/homophobic elements involved.

There are a number of things here, which are initially problematic.
＊　The first is that, clearly, you are presupposing the very thing which you are trying to set out to prove, which is that "gay" in the negative meaning, is related intimitely with "gay" in the homosexual meaning. (with "representative of discriminatory processes occuring in culture".)
＊　The second is that you are throwing into 1 category the exact things my argument is seperating, without justification, by saying "that's gay / you fag".
＊　The third is whether or not you are making a category mistake about what a word really is. whether you think that there exist, somewhere outside of speakers / listeners minds, things which literally are "bigoted words".
＊　The forth follows from the third, in that, if you aren't making a category mistake about what a word is, following the words-as-listener's meaning that you seem to pursue throughout your argument, the listener's apathy and acceptance are thereby called into question, since a listener accepting something can easily be identified with it simply *being* the listener's meaning.
＊　The final problem is that, in your argument later on, which seeks to solve the problem from the 4th problem, you again presuppose the word having 1 centralised meaning. This is far from obvious, for one thing. And for another, it makes your argument wholly circular, which is problematic.

i'm sure you'll have another random response to these problems. congratulations, you made at least one person really not care enough to ever think about it again.

IceCream Wrote:i can't beleive you accuse me of "no it isn't" responses.
your psuedo intellectualism / repeating the same tired old points obviously aren't going to suddenly make the problems with logical holes in your argument, or not bothering to even think through your responses go away. you might also want to look up the etymology of "gay" at some point.

at least i can understand the perspective iAurora comes from, but, to be honest, i can't even understand why you participated in the thread to begin with.

gl with your strategy in future.

Jarvik7 Wrote:It's a duck.

A gay duck.

nest0r Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:OK. you know what? i actually can't be bothered now. Nest0r, you think your really clever, but you refuse to listen to the points im trying to make. You repeated the same arguments again and again assuming i simply don't understand the things your saying, and never listening properly to the reply. It's really quite sad, yknow, because, seriously, i would have liked to have been proved wrong about this. I'm not sure how you ever intend to convince anyone of anything, with the attitude you take.

As for your point you keep repeating about the meanings lieing just under the surface, it's far from obvious that this isn't just a duck-rabbit situation. Hence, the more you prod someone, the more they see the connections, and the more they are reinforced.

Here are the initial logical problems with just your first paragraph of that reply you gave me. I was going to explore each in depth, show you some theories of meaning, and explain the points youve been missing with regard to the direct / indirect distinction. Then i was going to talk about practical stuff and look again at my assumptions. But, it seems like you aren't even reading the things i write, and are just responding rather randomly to satisfy your own desire to not be wrong. You aren't interested in finding out where the difference lies. And i can't remember the last time i slept for more than a few hours at a time.

So, i'm done, sorry.

nest0r Wrote:No, certainly is the right word. 'Gay' is the bridge between the vaguely negative use and the homophobic negative use. You aren't merely evoking personal 'that negative thing is gay' connotations, to varying degrees you're evoking larger and/or alternative ones as well. The only question is to what degree. But the thing is, you can't control the types of associations people have in their mind, and you can't change the fact that the 'that's gay/you fag' language you're using is representative of discriminatory processes occurring in culture, where bigoted words are treated with gradients of apathy and acceptance until they become mainstream. This pedestrian, surface apathy is what we're targeting because it traces back to the complex web of associations, subtle as spider silk. There's no 'best' area, only areas of immediacy and intensity. Those with the least association with the words, then, would be those with the least association with the homosexual/homophobic elements involved.

There are a number of things here, which are initially problematic.
＊　The first is that, clearly, you are presupposing the very thing which you are trying to set out to prove, which is that "gay" in the negative meaning, is related intimitely with "gay" in the homosexual meaning. (with "representative of discriminatory processes occuring in culture".)
＊　The second is that you are throwing into 1 category the exact things my argument is seperating, without justification, by saying "that's gay / you fag".
＊　The third is whether or not you are making a category mistake about what a word really is. whether you think that there exist, somewhere outside of speakers / listeners minds, things which literally are "bigoted words".
＊　The forth follows from the third, in that, if you aren't making a category mistake about what a word is, following the words-as-listener's meaning that you seem to pursue throughout your argument, the listener's apathy and acceptance are thereby called into question, since a listener accepting something can easily be identified with it simply *being* the listener's meaning.
＊　The final problem is that, in your argument later on, which seeks to solve the problem from the 4th problem, you again presuppose the word having 1 centralised meaning. This is far from obvious, for one thing. And for another, it makes your argument wholly circular, which is problematic.

i'm sure you'll have another random response to these problems. congratulations, you made at least one person really not care enough to ever think about it again.

Yes, we want to prod people, make them see the connections and reinforce them so that they won't continue to associate homosexuality with negativity unless they actually mean it. We need them to do that.

*The discriminatory processes being represented through 'that's gay' are twofold--that the origins of the phrase, coexisting alongside homophobia, stem from that homophobia, and that other people understand that association because it's not just 'non homophobes' who use it, and they can't immediately tell, because it's language that's entering the overall media ecology.

*That's gay = 'that's bad. 'You fag' = 'you're a jerk'. See the South Park reference in my first comment or the 'Dude, you're a fag' link in a later comment. Those represent the same processes of general insults for homosexual/homophobic words, justified as 'they don't mean gay gay'.

*The only words we can address are the ones where we 'listen'/'read' them. Someone is talking to us or writing on a forum, whatever, and to them the word isn't offensive, but to us it is, even when we temper it, after investigating, with the speaker's intent, before deciding on a course of action. The listener's interpretation, as we've repeatedly stressed, isn't one thing. We understand that the person isn't necessarily being homophobic, and we're also only semivoluntarily factoring in our own interpretations as influenced by personal experience and the culture at large. People shouldn't have to make it a one-sided process, where they do their best to ignore the problem and that's it, not when simply voicing concerns is possible.

*And again, we aren't presupposing one central meaning. We're acknowledging there are many meanings coexisting, it's simply that one meaning is vague and negative, and the others all refer to homosexuality, a coevally discriminated against segment of society. Yes, it's far from obvious--to the person thoughtlessly using it. That's because they're part of the majority and can afford the apathy others can't. It's that process of marginalization that allows discrimination to continue and exacerbates it.

Hope that clears things up for you.

IceCream Wrote:OK. you know what? i actually can't be bothered now. Nest0r, you think your really clever, but you refuse to listen to the points im trying to make. You repeated the same arguments again and again assuming i simply don't understand the things your saying, and never listening properly to the reply. It's really quite sad, yknow, because, seriously, i would have liked to have been proved wrong about this. I'm not sure how you ever intend to convince anyone of anything, with the attitude you take.

As for your point you keep repeating about the meanings lieing just under the surface, it's far from obvious that this isn't just a duck-rabbit situation. Hence, the more you prod someone, the more they see the connections, and the more they are reinforced.
http://www.seabury.edu/faculty/akma/duckrab.gif

Here are the initial logical problems with just your first paragraph of that reply you gave me. I was going to explore each in depth, show you some theories of meaning, and explain the points youve been missing with regard to the direct / indirect distinction. Then i was going to talk about practical stuff and look again at my assumptions. But, it seems like you aren't even reading the things i write, and are just responding rather randomly to satisfy your own desire to not be wrong. You aren't interested in finding out where the difference lies. And i can't remember the last time i slept for more than a few hours at a time.

So, i'm done, sorry.

nest0r Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:nest0r wrote:
It certainly works differently when we're talking about using negative slangy words that represent intensely negatively viewed, stereotyped minorities. It becomes even more an issue not only of fluid personal associations, but of the larger social fabric that it springs from and into and through.
i'm not sure that "certainly" is the best way to say this.

No, certainly is the right word. 'Gay' is the bridge between the vaguely negative use and the homophobic negative use. You aren't merely evoking personal 'that negative thing is gay' connotations, to varying degrees you're evoking larger and/or alternative ones as well. The only question is to what degree. But the thing is, you can't control the types of associations people have in their mind, and you can't change the fact that the 'that's gay/you fag' language you're using is representative of discriminatory processes occurring in culture, where bigoted words are treated with gradients of apathy and acceptance until they become mainstream. This pedestrian, surface apathy is what we're targeting because it traces back to the complex web of associations, subtle as spider silk. There's no 'best' area, only areas of immediacy and intensity. Those with the least association with the words, then, would be those with the least association with the homosexual/homophobic elements involved.

There are a number of things here, which are initially problematic.
＊　The first is that, clearly, you are presupposing the very thing which you are trying to set out to prove, which is that "gay" in the negative meaning, is related intimitely with "gay" in the homosexual meaning. (with "representative of discriminatory processes occuring in culture".)
＊　The second is that you are throwing into 1 category the exact things my argument is seperating, without justification, by saying "that's gay / you fag".
＊　The third is whether or not you are making a category mistake about what a word really is. whether you think that there exist, somewhere outside of speakers / listeners minds, things which literally are "bigoted words".
＊　The forth follows from the third, in that, if you aren't making a category mistake about what a word is, following the words-as-listener's meaning that you seem to pursue throughout your argument, the listener's apathy and acceptance are thereby called into question, since a listener accepting something can easily be identified with it simply *being* the listener's meaning.
＊　The final problem is that, in your argument later on, which seeks to solve the problem from the 4th problem, you again presuppose the word having 1 centralised meaning. This is far from obvious, for one thing. And for another, it makes your argument wholly circular, which is problematic.

i'm sure you'll have another random response to these problems. congratulations, you made at least one person really not care enough to ever think about it again.