Jarvik7 Wrote:Who gets to decide when the disconnect is sufficiently large? The fastest way for the disconnect to develop is to increase the disconnected usage.The thing is, you might not actually be encouraging a disconnection of the meanings. You could be doing the opposite. What you could actually be cementing in the language is that homosexuality is inherently negative.
IceCream Wrote:...I don't see how racist words are any more direct than words referring to homosexuality. The only difference is that you chose to pic up a homophobic term and start using it causally, claiming it's now abstract and ok as far as you don't consider yourself a homophobe. Because you and some people around you think it is fine. It doesn't matter that good amount of other people thinks it's not. It could've happen with any racist term just as easily. Why can't I use the N word to describe things as sh't? Shouldn't it be ok if I don't really feel hate on black people? Wouldn't it get this cool new abstract meaning after a while? Then we could use it a bit longer to take any connotations with black people from it. And dark skinned folks will get another lesson of how to be tough and think-skinned. Wouldn't it be cool?
Jarvik7 Wrote:Who gets to decide when the disconnect is sufficiently large? The fastest way for the disconnect to develop is to increase the disconnected usage.I think my very first comment on the topic was to ask for proof that this is so, that it 'declaws' the word when the word currently has direct associations with homosexuality and the negative resonance stems from and feeds into a larger context of negativity towards homosexuality. I followed up by suggesting that this evolution can't occur because there's an ongoing process of a particular bigotry that pervades our culture and that informs these symptoms. I think rather than suppression or willful ignorance from either side, awareness and compromise about the language we use is better, trying to get past them to understand these dynamics and how they can be spread and be negated through communication. It's the little things that add up. Because marginalization of minorities is somewhat defined by the fact that it makes itself invisible to the majority, it's creating this atmosphere of awareness that helps over time.
bodhisamaya Wrote:Since when do people not understand that "You suck!" (or any of the other similar phrases) metaphorically means performing fellatio.One day people who perform fellatio will no longer be beaten within an inch of their life by roving bands of cunning linguists.
IceCream Wrote:how do you think the meanings got divorced in the first place shiro?!? thats ridiculous, sorry.I recommend reading the article that I linked to in the "Japanese Names" thread. You might also want to look at the Online Etymology Dictionary's entry for "suck."
Seth Stevenson Wrote:Sucks is the most concise, emphatic way we have to say something is no good. As a one-syllable intransitive verb, it offers superb economy. Granted, some things require more involved assessments (like, say, James Joyce: I find his early work unparalleled in its style and its evocation of emotion, while his later writing became willfully opaque in a manner that leaves me cold). But other things don't require this sort of elaboration (like, say, John Grisham: He sucks).So "sucks" is actually a really useful word. "Gay" isn't. "Gay" used in this way isn't even particularly descriptive, since it's fairly ambiguous. Not only that, it's based on contempt and prejudice that is still very real today. The same can't really be said for people who perform fellatio nowadays.
bodhisamaya Wrote:Since when do people not understand that "You suck!" (or any of the other similar phrases) metaphorically means performing fellatio.Those meanings have been divorced in modern English for many native speakers. See the article I linked to above.
Jarvik7 Wrote:@nest0r: If you think that crippled people don't face a lot of discrimination, you are sadly mistaken.As far as I know, there are more direct and immediate words that refer to being 'crippled' that are used thoughtlessly, rather than 'lame'--personally I've used the word 'lame' twice on the forum, both times being parodic of an immature or knee-jerk person (yes, I did a forum search for nest0r/ruiner ;p). I can't think of any other places I've used that particular word in the past decade. I also think we should be considerate and avoid callous use of such words, though often they're easily overlooked because of the varied and specific possibilities of disabilities to the human body. In other words, there's a diffuse, utilitarian feel to such words that allows for layers of abstraction away from a particular group of people, but I suppose shirokuro covered that area.
Jarvik7 Wrote:1) I am extremely anti-censorship. I think it makes people stupid, discourages thought/discussion, and has no positive benefit to society.I am also very opposed to censorship. But this isn't censorship. I'm not saying it should be struck from the language; I'm encouraging people to stop using it themselves, since it contributes nothing to their speech and writing, and has serious potential for harm. Similarly, I hope you wouldn't encourage people to address minority ethnic groups using ethnic slurs because of your opposition to censorship and arguments about it making people "stupid."
Quote:2) Politically correct speech (and censorship) in general just masks symptoms of the problem and doesn't address the problem itself. If someone hates janitors they are still going to look down on them even if they are called sanitation engineers. You should be happy that many people no longer see being gay as a bad thing and therefore do not see the connect between the "youtube is gay" usage and the attacks on homosexuals. Language changes at a rapid pace.Once again, I am not talking about politically-correct language. I have said this at least twice already in this thread.
Jarvik7 Wrote:Like Japanese->Jap.It's about membership in the in-group. They might get offended if you used "Jap," and out of consideration, I think you should avoid it. But they're going to be more OK with them using it themselves. The same is true for many reclaimed words.
Although a large number of Japanese Canadians that I know use Jap. Ex: "Want to come over this weekend? I'm cooking Jap food".
bodhisamaya Wrote:How long before Homosexual is offensive? (It already is if you shorten it)This comment is so homosexual. By homosexual I mean bad, not homosexual. ;p
Hmmm. There are several non-offensive words that become offensive if you shorten them for some reason.
IceCream Wrote:@ shiro: pretty much the central point of that article you used seems to be that language does develop and move on, and leave behind the original connotations. Isn't that what you're claiming doesn't happen?Yes, it is that meanings change. But it's also that words need to be judged based on their utility. I don't think "gay" as a generically negative modifier is very useful, and I think it does more damage than it does good. A lot of people on here agree.
shirokuro Wrote:But if I did that it would make people stupid. There is no point in encouraging people to stop using slurs. One should instead educate people so that they don't hate different races. The slurs would stop without any additional effort. Just attacking the language produces no positive effect and just hides the problem.Jarvik7 Wrote:1) I am extremely anti-censorship. I think it makes people stupid, discourages thought/discussion, and has no positive benefit to society.I am also very opposed to censorship. But this isn't censorship. I'm not saying it should be struck from the language; I'm encouraging people to stop using it themselves, since it contributes nothing to their speech and writing, and has serious potential for harm. Similarly, I hope you wouldn't encourage people to address minority ethnic groups using ethnic slurs because of your opposition to censorship and arguments about it making people "stupid."
Jarvik7 Wrote:Actually I had a discussion with them about it once and what they said is basically what I've been saying. Intention is what matters. They would have had no problem with me using it either.OK, cool, that's interesting. Being part of the in-group often does make using terms that can be considered highly offensive seem more acceptable, such as how Douglas Janoff (a gay writer who writes about homophobic violence) uses "queer" in Pink Blood.
Quote:That said, I don't use gay, lame, retarded, jap, etc as I try to portray a bit more mature image (same reason I don't use dude radical extreme sup werd, etc). I will defend their right to be used though since I am, like I said, strongly anti-censorship.It's not a question of censorship. It's a question of opposing hate speech.
bodhisamaya Wrote:How long before Homosexual is offensive? (It already is if you shorten it)"Homosexual" can already be objectionable or offensive, as this usage note explains:
Hmmm. There are several non-offensive words that become offensive if you shorten them for some reason.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Wrote:Usage Note: Many people now avoid using homosexual because of the emphasis this term places on sexuality. Indeed, the words gay and lesbian, which stress cultural and social matters over sex, are frequently better choices. Homosexual is most objectionable when used as a noun; here gay man and gay woman or lesbian and their plural forms are called for. It is generally unobjectionable when used adjectivally, as in a homosexual relationship, although gay, lesbian, or same-sex are also available for adjectival use.(From here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual)
shirokuro Wrote:Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!bodhisamaya Wrote:How long before Homosexual is offensive? (It already is if you shorten it)"Homosexual" can already be objectionable or offensive, as this usage note explains:
Hmmm. There are several non-offensive words that become offensive if you shorten them for some reason.
Jarvik7 Wrote:Hate speech isn't hate speech when there is no hate.But the use of terms known to be offensive or objectionable shows carelessness or callousness, if not hate. With "gay" it might not be clear to you, but what about a more obviously negative term like "nigger". Would you say that it would be OK for a non-racist white person to use the term "nigger" to refer to a black person if they honestly did not feel any hatred or discrimination towards black people when they used it (and if the black person gets offended, it's their fault)? [And if you're tempted to say this is a different case because "gay" is not being used in reference to an actual homosexual here, then how about terms like "nigger rich" or "nigger luck" that don't specifically target black people but are clearly based on negative stereotypes.]
Jarvik7 Wrote:nest0r and yudantaiteki have already covered this really well, but I just wanted to add that I disagree here with your argument about allowing language based on hatred and contempt as positive because it highlights the existence of prejudice. Bigots and narrow-minded people will find ways to express their hatred even without such language with absolutely no difficulties, so I don't think your argument really holds any water here.shirokuro Wrote:But if I did that it would make people stupid. There is no point in encouraging people to stop using slurs. One should instead educate people so that they don't hate different races. The slurs would stop without any additional effort. Just attacking the language produces no positive effect and just hides the problem.Jarvik7 Wrote:1) I am extremely anti-censorship. I think it makes people stupid, discourages thought/discussion, and has no positive benefit to society.I am also very opposed to censorship. But this isn't censorship. I'm not saying it should be struck from the language; I'm encouraging people to stop using it themselves, since it contributes nothing to their speech and writing, and has serious potential for harm. Similarly, I hope you wouldn't encourage people to address minority ethnic groups using ethnic slurs because of your opposition to censorship and arguments about it making people "stupid."
If people were allowed to say n*gger at will, we would realize that a lot of racism still remains that is currently invisible to people who aren't the target. The censorship (self or enforced) makes us all ignorant.
