Thanks a lot nest0r.

I'm really impressed by IceCream and Thora, too, for setting such a good example.

I think everyone is in agreement that we should self-censor ourselves as not to injure others carelessly. The part I disagree with is the idea we should tell others what they should say or do if they aren't using a term with the intention of causing harm.

I am a vegetarian. I think it is barbaric to eat animal flesh especially given the cruel way we kill animals in this society. Although I wish I could just shake everyone into seeing the suffering they are causing, I don't. I don't even encourage my own children to eat or think like me. They both eat meat. They are both Catholic (*cringe*) like their mothers.
When I see a man driving an expensive car, or a woman wearing flashy jewelry, a similar urge to shake them into seeing the suffering they could prevent by living simply and using that wealth in more selfless ways.

If I were to list all of my judgmental thoughts with the ways that people cause suffering through negligence and apathy, it would take me several pages of this thread (yea, I am that bad). Luckily for the world, I try to focus my judgments on my own selfish actions. We all have our beliefs about what others' moral behavior should be. The only one we actually have the power to change is ourselves, and then be an example.

bodhisamaya Wrote:I think everyone is in agreement that we should self-censor ourselves as not to injure others carelessly. The part I disagree with is the idea we should tell others what they should say or do if they aren't using a term with the intention of causing harm.

I am a vegetarian. I think it is barbaric to eat animal flesh especially given the cruel way we kill animals in this society. Although I wish I could just shake everyone into seeing the suffering they are causing, I don't. I don't even encourage my own children to eat or think like me. They both eat meat. They are both Catholic (*cringe*) like their mothers.
When I see a man driving an expensive car, or a woman wearing flashy jewelry, a similar urge to shake them into seeing the suffering they could prevent by living simply and using that wealth in more selfless ways.

If I were to list all of my judgmental thoughts with the ways that people cause suffering through negligence and apathy, it would take me several pages of this thread (yea, I am that bad). Luckily for the world, I try to focus my judgments on my own selfish actions. We all have our beliefs about what others' moral behavior should be. The only one we actually have the power to change is ourselves, and then be an example.

I'm against self-censorship and censorship, but I think we should tell ourselves what we *should* say or do, and make suggestions that others do the same, when the things they or do cause harm, especially if they weren't aware of this in the first place. I think we should talk about these things when they're marginalized due to the dynamics of minorities and majorities in society. It takes very little energy and effort to bring these matters to attention, and they won't go away if you just ignore them, except when you have the luxury to ignore them because you're unaffected by them personally.

The examples you listed, eating meat--that involves an ethical choice as well as a practical one. Same with cars, with more emphasis on practical. Nothing wrong with 'reading' the atmosphere and deciding how and to what degree to make suggestions (for instance, we could just talk about how we could talk about vegetarianism or driving vehicles, indirectly raising the issue. ;p). As we've repeatedly stated, if we make a comment when someone uses a label for a minority group as an insult, and they say 'Yes, I know it's offensive to the minority and springs from and helps drive discrimination by displaying apathy and muddying the waters of hate speech, but I don't care, I'll use it anyway/I don't care because I actually think being gay is gross/wrong', then there's not much we can do. But at least we tried. That's the ethical aspect--what about the utility aspect as with eating meat and driving cars? 'That's so gay is just so utilitarian, what else could I possibly say?'

There's also the directness and/or immediacy of the harm to the parties concerned on a personal level.

@bodhisamaya:

I know this is off-topic, and I have a habit of butting into threads randomly, but I just wanted to say that you inspire me a lot. That post is pretty much how I've felt and how I've tried to live life lately. Your general presence in the forum is calming and reassuring, if I can say that without sounding weird. Thanks for being here.

Anyway. Carry on

Here is a very rare quote by quote response. It really felt like I was mostly just re-representing things we've already said due to feeling like they were misrepresented here, or simplified. I think we've reached the clearest transmission of our 'theories' about this, the rest is up to you/me to practice. ^_^

IceCream Wrote:no, of course he wasn't simply bored. but, there was a group of around 10-15 of us who would always stick up for him, though i was only there for 1 year while he was, he avoided getting beaten up for the whole year, which was a semi-miracle given how vocal he was about it. He was one of the lucky ones i guess, who never had a particular internal struggle with it, and just always knew.

Indeed, not everyone has a strong support group. I can't imagine such a support group saying things like 'that's gay' or 'you fag' in the presence of gay friends except as part of very self-aware banter of their in-group, and likewise I can't imagine they wouldn't understand the associations that would be in their mind, especially if they're defending this person on a regular basis, thus knowing this person hears things like 'ew that's gay' or 'hey fag' very often. I don't know why they'd want to rub salt in the wound by using the same language, given those associations that even simple 'shout out' classroom experiments reveal to exist just beneath the surface.

IceCream Wrote:The problems at school age are some of the hardest to solve, i think. But i think it's really important to tackle issues directly, and get to the core of the problem to change opinions, not language. I also think that attempting to remove phrases like "that's so gay" "youtube's gay" from language, either in or out of school are simply not the best approach, and can do more harm than they appear to.

Again, no one is trying to remove them from the language, we're suggesting that you bring awareness of the problematic nature of the language in a compromising, flexible manner. Language is a part of these issues. A crucial part. Opinions take the form of language, they reveal biases and associations that can only be clarified through further communication, and without clarification can evoke genuine negativity, especially when they're actually used negatively.

IceCream Wrote:I understand that, in some of your areas, no divorce of connotations has occured. In those cases, i assume you can be a little bit more free with attacking this kind of language. For me, it has about as much connotational significance to homosexual people as "give me a fag" does - i.e. none. (is this a british phrase? it means cigarette anyway. Totally.).

I don't believe there's any area where there's a divorce of connotation. Even in cultures where English is a secondary or tertiary language or where many or even most of the idioms are different. I just can't see, despite the claims of some, how it's possible to be aware of the word 'gay', 'fag', etc. as terms and slurs for homosexuals, to be aware of homophobia, and to use the words 'gay' and 'fag' negatively without understanding the associations. I think that it only occurs through temporarily thoughtless use and satirical use, and both would be dealt with on a case by case basis. I can't imagine that more than 1 or 2 of nonhomophobic people out of a million would spend very long arguing about how they should get to use it absolutely without question, and when people gently or jokingly suggest that it's not cool for them, that they're being oversensitive and trying to censor them.

IceCream Wrote:Here are some of the reasons i think the harm from trying to do that is at least worth thinking about:

For the record, I indicated that I thought through many of these already, in my very first post and in subsequent posts.

IceCream Wrote:＊ presentation. How do you present to people that a phrase that they are using, that, to them, represents nothing about homosexuality, is bad?
If you say to them that it's because some gay people are hurt by you using it, you'll get the more sensitive and empathetic people to respond. But on the other hand, you reinforce the stereotype of gay people being weak, delicate, and efeminate. It makes it sound like gay people are oversensitive about the use of language, basically.

If you say to them that it's a direct attack on homosexuality, you seriously risk undermining the far more problematic uses of the phrase, as well as the more serious issues gay people have to face. I'l go into that in a little more detail in a minute.

You present it to people on a case by case basis. If you know them well, perhaps you'd counter with your own joke, use humour. Perhaps you'd ignore it because they were being ironic. Perhaps you wouldn't do anything because you personally don't care. Perhaps you'd just wait and see if they do it again, or just don't consider them enough to bother.

If you in some form say to them--'what do you mean, do you have a problem with homosexuality or are you just using the language born of homophobia because you're being thoughtless/ironic?' and they indicate okayness with homosexuality, perhaps a form of that inquiry alone is enough--'hey, people get confused when i talk this way', but perhaps you'd press further with the counters above. I don't think only some particular, rare form of sensitive/sympathetic people would respond, I think average human beings would respond. I don't think showing that you have self-respect, a sense of compromise and intelligence, or frown on thoughtless use of discriminatory language will reinforce a stereotype, unless that person is the type to stereotype and attribute common sense and consideration with feminine behaviour, which is not only a form of gender stereotyping but somehow 'bad' for the person in question. At most, I can imagine that some people, especially online, will just feel embarrassed and defensive and make excuses. You can't know until you try, and clearly that kind of person would require another approach anyway.

By pointing out this phrase, as I've said before, you don't undermine the more problematic uses of the phrase, you help bring awareness to the insidious uses of the phrase and the processes behind them, because those processes are precisely what is occurring, and that's where they get their power, through marginalization, what goes unnoticed, and especially through language, which can be a nasty form of abuse. As the dissertation I linked to before indicates, it makes it difficult for allies to look out for homophobia, reflects negative stereotypes, and just generally creates a bad atmosphere in the larger context--because you can't control every context of your words, only regulate your own use. It takes extremely little effort to do so, and certainly doesn't require a full-blown focus to the detriment of all else.

IceCream Wrote:＊ teenagers, and the people you want to address in general, are some of the first people to complain about freedom of speech issues. They've just learnt the concept and freely apply it. Most people will fully understand that directly attacking people and hurting them is a bad thing.

Yes, that's another big reason I've stated I'm against censorship and think it's important to focus on school--when homophobia is strong, emotions are high, skins are still thin, values are developing, the pressure's on, eye-rolling is high--to be active in such areas as there and online in getting people to be aware of their language when they're speaking into the chaos/ether when thoughtlessness comes more easily, and highlight the awkwardness of using such language to many outside of the user's little sphere in life. But even children will avoid using 'gay'/'fag' around teachers or people they know are gay, unless they simply are homophobic or callous. That's because they know it's insulting, or will be misconstrued. I think a big reason people use 'gay'/'fag' in that way is precisely because it feels socially transgressive, but many won't indulge themselves beyond that impulsive rebellious desire once they mature or have even a slight change of context or awareness. Most people, again, have a common sense about this stuff, or develop one as long as the environment is unfriendly to bigoted language. That's why it doesn't take much effort to try and offset it, and it can often be ignored. All in moderation.

IceCream Wrote:There's only a select group of people who really can't understand that, and come to terms with it for whatever reason.

Yes, and as mentioned, we'd best deal with them differently, even if it simply meant ignoring them. They aren't the ones we're addressing here, but instead we're speaking of friends and 'allies'. But it's hard to know, isn't it? And when all you have is negativity and words like 'gay' or 'fag' to go on...

IceCream Wrote:But there's a far wider group of people who will see anything outside of direct attacks as a direct and pointless attack on their right to use certain aspects of language.

Indeed, but we aren't speaking only of direct and pointless attacks on their use of slurs and the like, we're talking about how you would deal with with the use of homophobic language, in determining the intent behind its use, in reacting to the negative feelings it brings about, by questioning its use, by pointing out its associations, with humour or directness or however you like, on a case by case basis. You can't stop it all, there's many approaches, and it's possible and important to deal with them. There are always going to be people that see any criticism of or comment on their slang as an oppressive attack, not much you can do about it except wait for them to grow up, but that doesn't mean you should be apathetic or pretend it doesn't matter as a blanket strategy.

IceCream Wrote:Again, i think this case is a pretty specific one, because the relation to homosexuality is only by connotation in this kind of use. So, when you directly go about attacking this kind of language use, you have to be prepared for the fact that your support group is going to be far far smaller than it would be if you were focusing on the more direct uses like "uuurrrrr he's gay" or "hahah your a fag" or the gay-queen stereotyping and mimicry.

＊ not only is your support group reduced, but, i strongly think that you undermine the much more real painful issues and bullying that gay people face. And, the more strongly you fight against the uses like "youtube's gay", the worse the effect becomes.

I'm glad you acknowledge there's an association with homosexuality in this kind of use. I think the potential support group is far, far larger, precisely because it reflects the majority usage that springs from apathy and marginalization. I consider it extremely worthwhile to raise awareness of this--and really rather than 'more and more strongly fighting it' all it takes is each person who cares doing it once every hundred times they hear it, with subtlety, to have an effect on awareness and usage, to get to the bottom of it to the dynamics beneath--it's a powerful pathway to those dynamics. You just need to teach one person how to fish, as it were. And they can do the same if they wish, and so on.

IceCream Wrote:Again, this is about how you phrase it. Can you really call it hate speech, harassment, bullying, etcetc? Even though it's non-direct, and, for many people, has no connotations of homophobia, many non homophobic people use it, etc.
People only have a certain amount of time and energy for issues that they themselves don't face. Once you start causing the roll-your-eyes, get a grip reaction, you've seriously harmed your cause, i think.
If you use words like harrassment, bullying, and hate speech for non directly offensive uses like this one, when you want to talk about far more central issues related to the harassment, bullying, and hate speech towards gay people, ones that cause real serious harm, people will listen to you less. They start connecting gay people's rights with side issues like this one, and just switch off.

I've only seen those stronger words used here to explain the association and overall environment, and underscoring the seriousness precisely by explaining how it's linked in many minds--I'd even say most or all minds, and that's not going to change as long as bigotry and homosexuality continue to exist in the same world, which of course isn't going to go away, only be addressed when it has negative effects, including language, including unwittingly homophobic language. Even late in the thread when more direct associations of 'hate speech' with 'that's gay' were given, it was after we'd repeatedly explained what we meant, and was offset by further explanations. It's precisely because people have limited time that it's a sound strategy to attack the mainstream, common things that take little energy, pointing out how it's precisely because they don't face them that a few of them might argue it's best to just ignore them. I can't imagine why anyone would say 'that's gay', realize it sounds homophobic or stems from and feeds into homophobia, and then roll their eyes because their charity has run out, but I don't think those people would have been very reasonable or helpful anyway. Now, if people were very rabid and unreasonable about attacking 'that's gay', then I'd tell them to calm down, they're giving lazy/apathetic/homophobic people more ammunition/excuses to ignore them. And this isn't a 'side issue' as I've tried to explain. It's pervasive and insidious and linked intimately to homophobia and marginalization, and can be easily countered.

IceCream Wrote:＊ you give homophobic people plenty of great anti-pc arguments to hide behind. i covered this yesterday, i think it speaks for itself, and probably a lot of you have heard these arguments just as often as i have.

I think non-homophobic people saying it's okay to say 'that's gay'/'you fag' are giving homophobic people plenty of pleasure and doing more harm than good, however unwitting, to the gay-friendly views they espouse if asked after using such language (the ones that don't need to be asked most likely aren't using such language anyway, because they have that awareness already). Anti-PC arguments take many forms, but the ones used here are old hat and don't need much excuse to be tossed at anything people feel like. It's like the phrase 'this is not the time to score political points'.

IceCream Wrote:＊ at best, you are attacking a symptom of a far deeper problem without going anywhere near the core.

Actually, you're using the symptoms to become aware of and diagnose deeper problems, because they're actively linked to and exacerbate them, and you can get more easily to the core through them (except there isn't a core, it's more like an onion or decentralized web), depending on the person, which is determined on a case by case basis.

IceCream Wrote:You might get people to stop using a word, but if it seems irrational to them, that doesn't go any way towards changing their opinion. At worst, you're attacking people who fully support gay people in general, which, well... its not gonna help.

If you get someone to stop using it by drawing attention to their language use somehow, it's because it was rational, commonsensical to them. Anything else I'd consider useless or only partially useful self-censorship or censorship, and best avoided, as we've repeatedly stressed. Once you identify whether someone is saying 'that's gay' because they're slightly uncomfortable with homosexuality, overtly or secretly anti-gay, or simply joking/being thoughtless, and this identification is by no means, once again, something you need to rabidly investigate every time it's used, I don't think 'attack' is necessary, although if some of them want to continue to argue a theoretical point, feel free to continue explaining yourself to them for, say, 10 pages.

IceCream Wrote:＊ Given all the harmful things i've mentioned, to me, the balance of trying to stop the use of phrases like that is tipped to the point i argue, don't do it, when you consider the effects of other methods. Suppose you direct your attention only towards direct attacks on homosexuality, of which there are plenty. As opinions change, one of the following things is going to happen: a.) uses of phrases like "that's so gay" will stop by themselves b.) the connotation divorce will occur in places it hasn't already.
And, if either of those things happen, you will have acheived exactly the result your looking for right? And yet, you haven't had a harmful effect while doing it.

No, the result we're looking for is that people don't use homophobic language because they don't think it's appropriate. We're looking for people to be more aware in general of such language and not to summon those associations. That awareness of associations is tied to the marginalization of minorities. The use of the language is a strong vessel of discrimination. Discrimination isn't going to go away, but you can deal with its myriad forms and try to raise overall awareness in many ways. Until you do this, bigots will use insulting language, people who don't care will spread it, and it will enter the mainstream. There isn't a displacement happening, there's an uneasy coexistence that causes discomfort and makes targeting homophobes and more direct forms of discrimination more difficult. At most, there's a pocket of dissociation that makes the majority more comfortable with ignoring discrimination, but hurts others. That's the marginalization at work. You can't entirely avoid it, and you shouldn't try to censor people, so some compromise is necessary. From both sides, which means not using the homophobe's language and adding salt to the wounds if you can avoid it, and not raising a fuss if someone jokingly or calmly points out that you just inadvertently insulted them or their friends and loved ones or whatever.

Discrimination occurs in many ways, and single-minded, narrow attacks or defenses of one area is limitedly effective. Language acts as a vessel, transmission of negativity can be dormant/recessive, and that needs to be dealt with just as much as other forms of addressing discrimination, because the cycle isn't about specific words, it's about how they're used, both hatefully and apathetically, in all areas of life. The apathetic area forms the largest part, not the smallest, and it nourishes the more particular and damaging areas through blindness to the issues. You're calling for this rigid, radical strategy of completely ignoring 'that's so gay' and similar forms, rather than investing a modicum of effort in asking people to be considerate, and that's after someone manages to fuzzily identify whether they're even insulting gays or claim they're just non-homophobically using a label/slur for them as broader insult, or a little of both.

IceCream Wrote:I understand that some of you think that there's no reason that attacking this use can be one small part of a solution, but, again, i don't think its a path i'd follow as long as there are so so so many more important issues to deal with. Like the presentation of gay people in the media. Or the apathetic response of schools and teachers to direct bullying, or the kind of playful direct attacks on being gay teenage boys do to each other without thinking that one of them might actually be gay. Or the stereotyping and pointedly making fun of gay people that goes on. The lack of, and resistance to, education of preteenagers about gay rights (this could help a huge amount). The lack of support in schools for gay teenagers, the list is endless, really.

Yes, and one easy, simple solution to get started and that will, say, make the jobs of those teachers easier, is to avoid using the same language as homophobes as general insults. But again, it's not an either/or equation, it's all connected and requires different strategies, some minimal, some extensive. It just so happens that a little bit now can go a long way in the future.

IceCream Wrote:If you really want to attack people's use of phrases like "it's so gay" or "youtube's gay", consider doing it through humour and comedy instead of a lecture. People laughing at the use of language is a far more effective tool that rarely creates problems like the ones i've stated above, and gives a far more valid way and effective way of responding to anti-pc arguments. Its probably the most effective tool there is in effecting change, i think. Like the nohomo video nest0r posted. that was pretty funny, though i've never heard the phrase. (shame about some of the other videos on there though...)

As I've been saying, there's many ways to address the situation, humour is one that we've already mentioned, simple, subtle stuff is all that's needed. Then there's threads specifically made for lengthier discourse, like here. So you think humour's the most effective tool? I'm glad you agree, but make sure to include a 'seam' somehow to show it's humour, and hopefully there'll be an actual point besides inducing laughter, because sometimes it's easy to just laugh at someone rather than with them.

PS - I've been searching Twitter for 'that's gay' and similar phrases. Interesting to see how closely linked the negativity and homophobia is, including those who feel angry or hurt by the usage.

IceCream Wrote:I think that indicating that im one of these 1 or 2 people out of a million who is clinging to my own ignorance on the issue of what counts as homophobic language is probably a little bit shortsighted. I understand that you're saying that it is any negative language that possibly could have that connotation that is at issue, but, perhaps we simply have a fundamentally different view on what the meaning of language consists in. Personally, i don't think that the meanings of negative or slangy language works in any different way than positive language does. Certainly its not how my brain works. So, i think the rejection of your terms for targeting this kind of language will be wider than you think it is, whether or not someone argues for 10 pages or simply internally disagrees, waves it aside, and moves on to the next conversation.

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.

IceCream Wrote:Remembering that the amount of people within the groups who could be affected who will actually feel like you are rubbing salt in their wounds or targeting them through the use of non directly offensive language is much smaller than the group as a whole, and that there will also be people in those groups who will have the opposite view from yours on the use of such language is also important, i think. The in-group / out-group thing that was mentioned earlier in the thread works in the reverse way too at times. People in such an in-group won't necessarily enjoy the use of non-direct language being targeted for much the same reasons as i gave earlier.

Indeed, compromise is important. But I like to think that the 'not necessarily enjoying it' of the in-group is of less concern to the group than the obvious logic of why they'd even use it in the first place, knowing what it means overall and how it affects someone when it could easily be avoided. And because they're the least affected, could easily change this bigoted language, and they're in the majority, I'd imagine they'd feel very little burden in being more aware. And because they're all friends and allies, I'd scarcely imagine that the affected party would be in their face and cursing at them, unless they'd just gotten beaten up/spent the day being verbally harassed.

IceCream Wrote:Besides that, i think what you've written is excellent in terms of strategies for dealing with such situations on level that people can do for themselves. I think the only difference we really are really talking about is a small, but significant, difference in scope. That's not to say that somehow i think the indirect language that you dislike, but i don't see a problem with can't be changed. But, at least acknowledging that there IS, or, at the very least, that at least a good number of people DO see a difference between the two types would probably be a good start towards making sure you use the right method to try to deal with it. I don't think simply brushing off the problems i stated will help in that respect. (not trying to indicate that you did btw.)

Yes, there are multiple types of associations. Some of them can be avoided pretty easily by the party with the least to lose, if they wish. If not, that's up to them, but there's only one way to find out.

OK...
To make this productive, for every sentence you guys type in English, you also have to translate it into Japanese.

Man this thread is so g- Uh, wait a sec... not the right time?

*runs away in fear of impending wall of text battle™ from nest0r and icecream*

Well, that's settled then. Now, on to world peace.

IceCream Wrote:lololol
wall of text battle™ i like it.

i wonder how many people have resisted the urge to write that at some point... ；）

バトルウォール™

This thread has become too mendoukusai for me to continue participating.

That is one way to win an argument

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.

IceCream Wrote:I also think that you are frequently mixing up the more personal effects on individuals with the larger scale impact of the use's connotation value in your arguments.

No, I never mix them up, certainly not frequently. I explain that they get mixed up. The person who uses them can't control how they're responded to, but nonetheless they understand the possibilities of interpretation, or those possibilties can be explained to them. Because whether they know or not, other people, the larger context, do know and can feel quite hurt by it and see how it relates to the overall homophobic dynamic that they're struggling against. The person can claim over and over that they don't mean it that way, but it doesn't change the immediate associations that come to mind for many, because it's not only that person's literal ignorance, their by definition abstract/indirect thoughtlessness/personal, authorial absence of association in that moment that matters. The association is there, beneath the surface, and can be triggered with something as simple as knowing the person listening is gay or an 'authority' figure without any other direct cues whatsoever.

IceCream Wrote:How the damage is actually insidious is hard to pinpoint.

No, it's insidious because the damage is hard to pinpoint. It's hard to even acknowledge for some who don't want to leave their comfort zone to acknowledge that they're saying something unintentionally negative about others, even indirectly through associations not entirely their own. The reason it's insidious, as in harmful but hidden, is because it does harm by being a recognizable product of bigotry and through perpetuating the associations of that bigotry and stereotypes, by lending itself to the oppressive 'gay = bad' atmosphere as part of anti-gay language that can't immediately be differentiated but which all sounds negative around the neutral, specific, and actual term that means 'homosexual'--and the only clear negativity is that which is anti-gay, because the rest is just vague negativity that could be the product of homophobia or the product of thoughtlessness or of seamless joking directed at various objects, but all this is hidden from those who don't have as vested an interest in it, even if nominally such people are anti-homophobia. They have the luxury of furthering the marginalization, embracing and embodying it, by overlooking the harm. It's thus insidious and that's why you'll rarely see outright angry, irrational attacks against it, but because the motivation isn't lashing out against homophobia, it's more of a 'wtf?'

IceCream Wrote:Where a use reinforces a definate stereotype, i can totally understand this. But where the use must presuppose a homophobic view to even make sense that it would connote that in the first place, i think you are really wrong.

Precisely. Sometimes it reinforces stereotypes, even if the person just thinks 'gay is negatively abnormal/odd/bad' and so is this object. Sometimes they mean nothing by it, but the people who encounter their use have strong associations of homosexuality and homophobia tied up in the words 'gay', augmented by the sense of negativity. I'm not 'really wrong', this is what I've been saying. The presupposition isn't solely in the intent of the user, it's in the listeners, and the user, as someone who is communicating, needs to take that into account, especially if they don't intend to offend, especially if it's a simple thing they have little need to defend.

IceCream Wrote:I think there are many things expressed in this thread that support this view, one of them being the definitional uncertainty of what this negative meaning of "x is gay" actually means in relation to homosexuality. If you try thinking of the term used in different situations, you find that there doesn't seem to be a fit-all definition that really makes sense. In some cases you have to presuppose the stereotypical view, and in some cases you don't. This conforms roughly to what i'm calling indirect and direct.

This is what we've all been calling direct/indirect. It's the definitional uncertainty of the broad catch-all use that's entirely negative that clearly reveals the origins of the word as meaningless outside of the negativity associated by homophobes with being 'gay' or the slur of 'fag', and leave it open to interpretation as such with zero utility that isn't replaceable with words like 'suck' that don't perpetuate an atmosphere of marginalizing gay folk or indicating apathy towards homophobia-driven language use into the mainstream.

IceCream Wrote:Put simply, i still don't think that anything more than assertion has been made on the validity of the widespread impact of indirectly offensive terms.

Widespread impact? What does that mean? The assertion has been made that these words come from homophobia. That they are used to further homophobia by people who think being gay is bad. That even when they're not used to mean that homosexuality is bad and this item is by association, that it's difficult to tell if that's what they mean when we don't know them from Adam and we have those associations anyway, because those other meanings are in the language, sharing the same superficial vessel left open to interpretation by vagueness and negativity. In fact, rather than widepsread impact, the crux of my argument is that what's widespread is the majority being unaware of the minority, thus the impact is on the minority and those tied to it. The whole issue of being vocal about our knowledge of these associations and the difficulties they cause in identifying homophobia and creating a non-homophobic ecology is that it's hard to get through to those sheltered from these associations, the widespread non-impacted majority.

IceCream Wrote:Take the "i got raped" example you gave earlier in the thread. I think its hard to argue that the use of this phrase has any impact at all on the people hearing or using it's actual opinion on how awful a thing rape is, makes people take it less seriously, or undermines it as an issue at all. Again, this is an indirect phrase that does not require a working stereotype as a presupposition to make sense. Of course, it can have a personal impact. But, this is a seperate issue.

A separate issue from what? I'm saying that it's insensitive to use 'u got raped' to indicate shameful victimization around rape victims, knowing that it gets that meaning from sexual assault, as if there's something shameful about being raped and victimized, and that this usage should also be considered in general to avoid treating flippantly a subject that many in hearing range or just in general feel on an immediate visceral level, especially knowing how much rape goes unreported due to feelings such as shame, and that such use is typically regulated to remain within gamer culture precisely because people understand that instinctively there's an association there. Yes, there's the personal user's level. There's also all those persons that make up society. It's not a separate issue, you decide what values you want to associate with in your language, negotiating it against the utility of your words and the convenience to you, your own values.

IceCream Wrote:nest0r wrote:

Indeed, compromise is important. But I like to think that the 'not necessarily enjoying it' of the in-group is of less concern to the group than the obvious logic of why they'd even use it in the first place, knowing what it means overall and how it affects someone when it could easily be avoided. And because they're the least affected, could easily change this bigoted language, and they're in the majority, I'd imagine they'd feel very little burden in being more aware. And because they're all friends and allies, I'd scarcely imagine that the affected party would be in their face and cursing at them, unless they'd just gotten beaten up/spent the day being verbally harassed.

i have to disagree here. i don't think it is a case of "not necessarily enjoying it".

Those were your words. Go with your first instinct. ;p

IceCream Wrote:Again, i think you are underestimating the problems i brought up with the impact of indirect language, and how forceful people's opinions can be about it. For one thing, i would be furious to hear someone arguing against it's use while stateing that they represent me, because i do feel that it marginalises and pushes aside the real issues, in some cases making the thing itself even more foreign, unthinkable, and unspeakable to people not affected by it, which obviously causes further seperation of the affected group.

Why would anyone state they represent you, rather than themselves or their friends/loved ones affected by discrimination? You've stated that you think it marginalizes the real issues, but I still don't see why you think it's an either/or equation, except where you say that you think there's many people who would be so offended when someone asks them not to say 'that's gay' that they'd project gay stereotypes onto them, roll their eyes, whatever. As I said, I really don't think those are the type to be very helpful or reasonable anyway. Frankly I'm surprised you'd be 'furious', your perspective seems highly abstract and radical to me. I think it's far more likely that the only people who would feel strong emotions when called out on using indirect, unwitting slurs would be those who simply feel embarrassed.

IceCream Wrote:Perhaps it doesn't hold as much in the case of "gay" as it does for other terms that have been or could be brought up though. I don't think that it's as simple as saying that this kind of language targeting is only part of a much bigger picture, because i think it does have an actual negative effect.

I think homosexual slurs, particularly 'gay', is the main one I'm discussing. I personally think that's the most salient one precisely because it's both specific on the discrimination end and vague on the colloquial pejorative end. It's not at all simple to say it's part of a much bigger picture, that's actually a realistic and complex view. I have no idea, again, why you think fail to think that having an ecology where all these negativities are mixed up simply because of homophobia and apathy is something that can be addressed through taking different approaches to different elements.

IceCream Wrote:Again though, it really does depend on the method and strength with which you oppose it, which is why i think extra care should be given to this indirect / direct distinction. I'm pretty sure that practically no member of an in-group would argue against fighting directly offensive language.

Yes, it does depend. OK then. ? Give extra care, yes, we've already covered that. So we should address it, glad we agree. And again, yes, we know that you're not homophobic and your theoretical in-group also is not homophobic and would probably be vocal in calling out homophobes. Some of us also find it worthwhile to devote a modicum of attention to that thoughtless slurs that are unwittingly passed around as well, however, because of what they represent overall and how they feel personally. And I'm fairly certain none of us would accuse such people of being homophobic simply for saying 'youtube's gay'. Has anyone said otherwise?

Edit: But ah, you do later admit it 'can be okay', so I'll take what clear statement I can. I can't keep up with any more deletions and editings, so I'll just go with that. Do either of us really have anything new to add?

Jarvik7 Wrote:This thread has become too mendoukusai for me to continue participating.

That is one way to win an argument

That's what Hitler said about your mom.

Even ice cream needs to sleep.

IceCream

It was very nice of you to take a critical look at your own posts. Seeing the one you deleted actually made me smile. It was not because I felt you admitted losing anything to me or 'my side' in this argument (I know you didn't admit anything like that) but because I felt that you won a little and did it quite gracefully, so I was glad for you personally and this discussion as a whole. I hope you have no hard feelings for me either, as I definitely didn't mean to offend you in any way throughout this conversation. Although I can't deny that some things said in this thread made me really upset.

As I said previously, I'm not a theorist that much, and it's especially hard for me to hold this kind of discussions in the language I have zero contact with outside of this virtual reality, plus nest0r does it just so much better anyway But I'd still like to point out some more practical aspects of it that may be will explain where I come from a bit better.

-------------

Please try this simple exercise. Come up with few important parts of your identity (those could be gender, religion, nationality or even name) and then close your eyes and try pronouncing 'This is so *part of your identity*' significant amount of times using all shades of disgust, disappointment and hate you can come up with. I find it hard to believe you feel nothing if you took this exercise serious enough. I know I do feel a good deal of anger and stress just upon hearing those things regardless of who says them and why. It just puts one under great pressure on subconscious level. Hearing it multiple times a day from people that don't mean will still make you want to move to some inhabitant island. And knowing that good half of them actually means it and hates you with passion for who you are, having to face various indications of that including physical abuse - all this would make it just so much worse. Why would we want to do this to someone?

It should not be an offending party to decide what is offensive and what is not. It should be a dialogue at least. Otherwise it's good old bullying: 'Let's start calling them names and they'll have to learn to live with it as, being weaker, they don't have any choice anyway'. I don't know a single gay person that will be comfortable with this usage of the word 'gay'. And I know quite a few of them, including someone living in a country where homosexuality is a crime you can go to prison for.
If I start calling you names and you feel offended, I'll be quite a bully, regardless of how funny and innocent I think it is. It's just not me to decide it single-handedly.

It's not something I feel proud to share, but I do hear racist remarks in my own close family. They come mostly from my father. And I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean it. Some people he uses racist terms for he actually takes good care of, being the one in charge at work, others he never met in his life and knows very few about. He just picked those words up from his environment and uses without being fully aware of how offensive they can be. He is my father. And a very kind man overall. Does it mean I should not ask him to pay attention? I definitely wouldn't want my children to grow up hearing those from the person they love and look up for. I don't want those words to become a part of common language even if these kids get to learn them without ever realizing their offensive nature. This doesn't sound like progress to me at all. It's more of a step back where strong could do to the weak pretty much anything he wanted, including using offensive language casually.

I do believe this issue is important enough to discuss it here, as language can affect attitudes. You can guess that this 'new bad non-homosexual gay' will be the one kids learn first, long before they are able to fully understand what homosexuality is. If it happens to be this hard to go from neutral or non-existent background to healthy attitude towards gays, how much harder will it be to accept something different having a habit of pronouncing the name of it with strictly negative meaning? This really isn't making the future of homosexual people any brighter.

I do see quite a few points you are coming from. But I guess we can divide this discussion into 2 separate questions:
1. Normality and acceptability of using the word this way
2. Censorship and enforcing some kind of opinion on others

Why I can agree with some of the points you make for the 2nd one, it's your inability to see the problems with the 1st one that really bothers me. I just don't understand why you'd want to contribute to something that has so many cons and pretty much no pros (are there any I'm missing?)

@iAurora I really don't think it can be made any clearer than that. Well done. I re-read a post Thora made much earlier and realized it covered everything else very well.

IceCream Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:Do either of us really have anything new to add?

possibly not, but i'd like you understand that there is a validly different point of view, rather than thinking that you just have to explain things a little more clearly to me before i understand what you're saying. I'm taking into account your points, reading them thoroughly, and giving a lot to you in form of compromise on my personal opinion in the first place. It would be nice if you didn't start from the assumption that what i'm saying is simply a less well thought through version of what your saying. Though, of course, what we are disagreeing on is mainly academic here, it does have practical implications.

nest0r Wrote:No, certainly is the right word....

well, no. it's not the right word. Like i said, it really depends on your picture of meaning. Unfortunately, your picture of meaning is logically muddled, and your conclusions span between different views. If you want me to go through your post and pick those up, i can. But it would mean using a rather aggressively logical style. Please let me know...

Certainly is the right word, because 'certainly' applies to 'it really depends on your picture of meaning'. You might think 'really' is a better word, that's fine. My picture of meaning outside the unwitting, temporary usage of a particular individual is something that might confuse you, but it couldn't be more clearly explained than we've all tried to repeatedly, and I think you're the only person here that finds it 'muddled'. My conclusions span different views because they're filled with nuance and compromise based on that awareness of meanings.

And you're right, I really think each time you make a new post, your points are based on things we've already said while acting as if we didn't already say them, and they seem to make inconsistent, extreme advocations based on peculiar, abstract, hypothetical examples that feel shaped to justify your claims. And that's based on what I can make out from remembered, now deleted comments where the only words I remember are 'talking wank', among other problems of presentation. I'm glad, at least, that we're past the 'no YOU are' period.

Jarvik7 Wrote:This thread has become too mendoukusai for me to continue participating.
That is one way to win an argument

Hey, I'm getting better at figuring out meaning of words from context!

mendoukusai: relevant, reasonable, and not all about Jarvik7.

Nest0r: Thanks for contributing your time to "project awareness". Seriously. But...what are doing? (Thought I might as well at least be an impartial interfering self-righteous jerk). I enjoy your learned wit, satirical bent and occasional dark humour. Sometimes you veer uncomfortably close to unnecessarily harsh, though. (I know...I'm hardly one to talk.)

IceCream: Expecting compromise from Nest0r might be a tad idealistic, don't you think? I did detect a temporary abatement of that famously sharp tongue, though. So celebrate incremental progress and march on if you want! ... with patience. You're a brave lass. :-)

btw: According to Jay Smooth in the "Old Person's Guide to No Homo" link earlier, only folks who are part of a targeted group can reclaim a word. So this is the solution to the "Its so gay" problem! Gay folks should start saying it more often so that the word "gay" becomes completely divorced from the meaning of homosexual. But only gay people can say it, so they'll have to say it a lot. A lot a lot. I guess it's kind of a new type of reclamation - using the word to give it a worse meaning. (Maybe it'll be more effective than efforts to reclaim "nigger" and that C-word.)

And when "gay" = "bad" in absolutely everyone's mind, then they can change the name of all the organizations related to gay rights and community and revise all the documents and send out a memo to everyone informing them of the new word to identify themselves and their community. They might also have to engage in a bit of hypnotism or brainwashing to fully eradicate remnants of the historical usage of "gay" exist in people's minds.

And when people start using the new word as a general insult, they'll just start over! And so on...

And this plan has a potential side benefit! With gay people intentionally and proudly using "That's so gay!", there will be less of the "suck it up", "grow up", "grow a spine", "stop being so insecure", "you're too sensitive", "you've never experienced real oppression", "you're hurting your kind", "you're annoying" and "you've just lost me as an ally" stuff.

So heteros - stop saying it, get out of the way, and let gay folks get to work. So simple! Solved!

Is this long enough for this thread?

Wrong, mendoukusai means wall of text. It's some new 2ch slang or something.

Thora Wrote:

Jarvik7 Wrote:This thread has become too mendoukusai for me to continue participating.
That is one way to win an argument

Hey, I'm getting better at figuring out meaning of words from context!

mendoukusai: relevant, reasonable, and not all about Jarvik7.

Nest0r: Thanks for contributing your time to "project awareness". Seriously. But...what are doing? (Thought I might as well at least be an impartial interfering self-righteous jerk). I enjoy your learned wit, satirical bent and occasional dark humour. Sometimes you veer uncomfortably close to unnecessarily harsh, though. (I know...I'm hardly one to talk.)

IceCream: Expecting compromise from Nest0r might be a tad idealistic, don't you think? I did detect a temporary abatement of that famously sharp tongue, though. So celebrate incremental progress and march on if you want! ... with patience. You're a brave lass. :-)

btw: According to Jay Smooth in the "Old Person's Guide to No Homo" link earlier, only folks who are part of a targeted group can reclaim a word. So this is the solution to the "Its so gay" problem! Gay folks should start saying it more often so that the word "gay" becomes completely divorced from the meaning of homosexual. But only gay people can say it, so they'll have to say it a lot. A lot a lot. I guess it's kind of a new type of reclamation - using the word to give it a worse meaning. (Maybe it'll be more effective than efforts to reclaim "nigger" and that C-word.)

And when "gay" = "bad" in absolutely everyone's mind, then they can change the name of all the organizations related to gay rights and community and revise all the documents and send out a memo to everyone informing them of the new word to identify themselves and their community. They might also have to engage in a bit of hypnotism or brainwashing to fully eradicate remnants of the historical usage of "gay" exist in people's minds.

And when people start using the new word as a general insult, they'll just start over! And so on...

And this plan has a potential side benefit! With gay people intentionally and proudly using "That's so gay!", there will be less of the "suck it up", "grow up", "grow a spine", "stop being so insecure", "you're too sensitive", "you've never experienced real oppression", "you're hurting your kind", "you're annoying" and "you've just lost me as an ally" stuff.

So heteros - stop saying it, get out of the way, and let gay folks get to work. So simple! Solved!

Is this long enough for this thread?

Oh that nest0r!

Don't worry Thora, after gay/fag/homosexuality are completely divorced from everyone's minds, at that point in the cycle, having devoted elsewhere the modicum of energy they would have spent trying to clue people in that it's uncool (and alienating their allies, as we're like beggars on the street who desensitize people and prevent them from donating to charity, or nonsmoking signs and throat-clearing [*ahem*] that make people want to smoke around babies and people with lung cancer), they will have cured homophobia, erased the apathy of the majority by dealing only with specific issues, and thus the homosexual community won't need to change their name again. And all it took was for them to pretend like displacement occurred rather than coexistence, via the semantic drift of homophobic words into the world of the sheltered, sensitive majority that we must protect like a fragile ecosystem.

We mustn't let on that what they say is a product of bigotry, and that when we hear it, it calls to mind homophobia and insults to things we or those close to us identify with, because we deal with intense negativity about it every day, even if they don't and thus have only less vivid context-sensitive associations of the negativity of the broad pejorative with homosexuality and homophobia. It's not confusing at all to mix these uses together. It makes the jobs of teachers easier. As iAurora said unless I misread, when a child grows up hearing 'that's gay'/'you fag' then learns about homosexuality, there's no confusing negativity there at all. We must not encourage any kind of further self-regulation through the slightest suggestion, because that would be censorship.

The apathy that allows minority issues to be swept aside is a good thing, see. Or it's bad, just not when it's linguistic. Or it's bad when it's linguistic, just not when you're apathetically using a minority's name/slur as an insult, because there's no possible way this can be addressed without losing allies' support, without investing enormous amounts of energy heavy-handedly that should have been directed elsewhere, always, no matter what. ^_-

Whew, I might need to go back later and make sure everything was inverted properly.

Hmm, let's see if I can make this work:

*Does a search for common American use of 'a japanese' without 'person' at the end, tries to figure out why this use wouldn't be negotiated by the tacit, differing uses of others, and if it was outright negative but 'not related to Japanese-ness' why it would be worse to discourage it with subtle cues rather than having the apathy/negativity encouraged*

IceCream. It's one thing to get it and disagree. But it seems like you don't get it. Sorry. I'm not sure what more can be said though - or if you even want to hear it.

Perhaps rethink your idea of "presupposes a homophobic meaning." Or read the parts on "meaning" in Nest0r's linked paper (situated meaning.) Or rethink Kazelee's "jewed" or YDTT's "nigger" examples. Recall what Nestor said about kids knowing better than to use the 'benign' "That's so gay" in front of teachers. Your "pink shirt" example tells me that your focus of stereotype is a bit misplaced here. As is the notion that intent or a direct victim are necessary. fwiw I'll try to reread your posts and see if I can figure out either what you're missing or how I'm misunderstanding you.

It's true that internet can bring challenging diversity. But all the more reason not to base language decisions on one's own narrow peer group. :-) While I think Nestor could perhaps have used more tact in raising the issue, I don't share your view that raising it is wrong. We can only ask. I support that.

The worst that can happen is they ignore the request. Even someone rolling their eyes is better than nothing imo. It might mean they're now aware of the concept of indirect harm, whereas before they had assumed it only applied to directly insulting a victim within earshot. They might be more aware that word associations help perpetuate a harmful social climate - rather than focusing solely on the meaning of the word itself. Gay as Other is more significant than the Gay as pink shirt, imho. lol This awareness might get triggered in the future.

Besides, we're not advocating some kind of militant "That's so gay" hunting. I think Nestor made that clear in the scenario described.

I just don't see how hearing objections to "That's so gay" would cause people to forget past media coverage of gaybashing and choose to ignore future ones. I don't think it creates or increases animosity against people who identify as gay. (More likely lost causes voicing complaints.) I don't think it causes people to think that gay rights advocacy is focused entirely on language issues. What makes you so convinced of this? It strikes me as a weak argument to rely on. But this has been pointed out at least 3 times already, so I suppose this is a non-negotiable for you. :-)

hmm, seems hard to write short posts on this topic.. [corrected:homosexual-> homophobia]

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.

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*

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:

Thora Wrote:IceCream. It's one thing to get it and disagree. But it really seems like you don't get it. Sorry. I'm not sure what more can be said though - or if you even want to hear it.

Perhaps rethink your idea of "presupposes a homosexual meaning." Or read the parts on "meaning" in Nest0r's linked paper (situated meaning.) Or rethink Kazelee's "jewed" or YDTT's "nigger" examples. Recall what Nestor said about kids knowing better than to use the 'benign' "That's so gay" in front of teachers. Your "pink shirt" example tells me that your focus of stereotype is a bit misplaced here. As it the notion that intent or a direct victim are necessary. fwiw I'll try to reread your posts and see if I can figure it out either what you're missing or how I'm misunderstanding you.

the key is in the distinction between direct & indirect words. this is something that people seem to not understand, that is really the central concept. it's going to take me hours to reply to nest0r make sure everything is logically sound, & i might sleep & go out in the middle. i don't want to make a philosophy essay only for it to be fallacious, as its a waste of time. i will rethink the racist arguments while doing that, as well as the different definitional interpretations of "gay", which, one way or the other, are probably key to the misunderstanding.
Just for now, kids also know better than to use most slang language in front of teachers. It's not restricted to words that you're deeming to be offensive / hate terms.
i gave the example of the pink shirt to try to make something of the distinction clear, not to show that i think such a coarse stereotype is the main issue.
Also, imprtantly, since the notion of intent and direct victim are important terms in law, im not sure why they wouldn't be in society. That doesn't mean that i think that everything the law doesn't cover doesn't count. But, surely it should play a role in how we determine our own actions, if we don't want to end up acting outside the law. i.e. if someone indirectly hurts someone, you cannot, in most cases, press charges (unless there some other direct link). However, if you directly ask them to stop hurting you, charges can easily be brought against you. This is one of the reasons i am expressing a similar view with respect to dealing with how someone indirectly hurts you, on your own.

I'l be back tomorrow, then. Sorry for dragging it out nest0r, but im sure youd also like it if i come to the conclusion you are right

I'm fairly certain that kids are perfectly willing to say 'oh crap' or 'that's lame' or 'that sucks' in front of teachers and people they know identify as gay, but not 'that's gay', or they will think twice about it. The more serious clandestine tendencies, yet still related to homosexuality, would be with 'fag' equating more along the lines with 'sh!t' or 'f*ck'. If you want an example of how people will understand the associations immediately, then think of some of the posters who commented how they wouldn't use it around those who identify as gay, unless they were friends with them and knew they were 'okay' with it. But if you read that paper, you'll understand better how it works including other examples, perhaps that will get through better than what we've been trying to explain.

So now you're saying that making a comment like 'wtf?' or 'What do you mean 'that's gay'?' or 'Could you not use that language around me?' that it's similar to some kind of obscure legal process? I'll let Thora tackle that one... ;p