Continuing tangent discussion from here.

http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...1#pid88041

So long as we're not derailing a valuable I don't mind discussing this a bit as it's an interesting topic in which there is no wrong or right (imo).

@kazelee: I was just omitting because I forgot what the other two we're and couldn't be bothered scrolling back up. We don't really have Jews in this country but one could say it's full of niggers although ONLY and I mean ONLY to someone who you know actually actively HATES black people or else anyone would take lots of offense to that. So I do get that there's a level of offense with all the words in question. You'd have to be pretty racist to say that too. This is a very multi-cultural place is what i'd rather say. Edit: Something interesting I forgot to add is one of my sisters (who has a bit of a way with words) refers to buns at the supermarket that are darker in colour than the rest as "a bit niggerish" being purely descriptive about the colour (not the quality).

Sometimes people refer to Japanese made stuff as "Jap" not being derogatory in the slightest but merely because it's shorter. Also some people refer to Japanese like that for the same reason because they feel it's more colloquial and don't realise it can be offensive.

Obviously I realise gay as an offensive word to some. My whole family uses it out of habit like that, I think lots of people do... my mum does (and she's lovely woman with nothing against gay people). TBH it's nothing more than a word to some people and far be it from those people to take every single other person into account when they speak. Guess it just depends on who you're around aswell... I don't swear in front of strangers but among family and friends I do all the time. So yeah I censor my speech out of politeness when I feel it is appropriate and that's a mature thing to do. On the internet due to there being no... face time? personal-ness? familiarity with people? I tend to default to casual instead of polite.

I have nothing against gay people. Nor do people who say offensive things always mean them in an offensive way. *shrugs* 俺は俎の鯉だと思います。

mezbup Wrote:it's an interesting topic in which there is no wrong or right (imo).

Hey, no cop outs ^^.

Keep forgetting what I'm about to type so I'll give this another stab after sleep.

My gay friends have absolutely no problem being called gay. The only time it is offensive is when it is being used as an insult, in which case the person means it to be offensive anyhow.

A couple generations ago, 'Jap' was a horrible slang term that was only used for insult. The current generation has never heard anyone use the term that way and simply uses it as a short form for Japanese. That is, until they get on the internet and people start screaming at them for an offense they didn't even commit. If they would just let it go, it would stop being an 'offensive' word.

IceCream Wrote:Or, how about when people use the term "short sighted" to mean someone who is acting without thinking things through? Should i, as a member of the minority group of myopic individuals feel that the use of this term has any personal significance to me, demeaning my personality and making fun of my disability? Or, should i be worried that, upon meeting me, people will be wary about my personality and ability to have foresight, given my obvious myopia, and the obvious negative connotations of the phrase "short sighted".

...?

That was ***** brilliant. Especially "...ability to have foresight, given my obvious myopia"

*woot 1000th post*

IceCream Wrote:sorry, but "gay", certainly in the area i live in definately has two distinct meanings. Crying about it isn't going to change that no matter what, because the phrase is so widespread. I seriously doubt that there are many people who connect their use of the word "gay" to homosexuality when they use it, the use has been around for at least 10 years now, and nobody remembers how it started, or cares.

PM, im quite surprised it isn't where you are as well, i think we live fairly close. I'm also a little surprised at nest0r's vehemency on the issue... but, oh well...

The Cambridge geek crowd is noticeably more liberal than the UK in general, I suspect :-) Also I think there's probably an age difference thing here: 'gay' in the slang sense you're using it is simply not in the vocab[*] of the late-20s to 30s people I'm most likely to be interacting socially with.

[*] and this, I think, is at the heart of my negative reaction to it : 'gay' for me means homosexuality (and in that sense is not an offensive term) and so seeing it in the context where it's obviously being used in some negative sense always brings me up short and makes me go 'wtf?'.

mezbup Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:Or, how about when people use the term "short sighted" to mean someone who is acting without thinking things through? Should i, as a member of the minority group of myopic individuals feel that the use of this term has any personal significance to me, demeaning my personality and making fun of my disability?

That was ***** brilliant.

Except that it isn't relevant. It isn't at all analogous. And if you don't understand why...

pm215 Wrote:Also I think there's probably an age difference thing here: 'gay' in the slang sense you're using it is simply not in the vocab[*] of the late-20s to 30s people I'm most likely to be interacting socially with.

I wonder if the "gay" and "retard" slang started earlier in North America (1970s). I remember saying "gay" in the 80s and I've heard teenagers use it more recently. In my experience, "gay" is used naively by kids and then sort of drops from the repertoire when you start interacting in the adult world. It might be a result of a growing awareness of the implications or just not wanting to be judged negatively. I mean, I cannot imagine the following scenarios:

"Son, what you said to your teacher was really gay. I want to go and apologize to her for saying such a gay thing."

"That was a really gay presentation you made. There's no way the client is going to buy our products."

But it sounds like things may be different in New Zealand and England.

IceCream Wrote:exactly. its only by using terms in different ways that stereotypes and bad connections are destroyed. If you censor the words they will forever have a bad meaning.

This may be true for words like 'Jap' that I can see turning into a neutral short term for everything Japanese as less and less people remember its negative meaning. But what do we win by having "gay"="all kinds of bad" cemented into English for future generations to use? This will hardly add anything good to the world where "gay" (as in homosexual) is seen as bad by majority. People still get put to prisons, beaten and killed for being born this way. Do we really need to enforce it?

It's true that languages change through use. But don't forget it's us who define those changes through using our languages. It's all about choices we make daily. I don't mean to preach and I'm in no position to tell you what to do with your own language. You are free to use whatever words you like but I personally choose not to push international English this way, because using the word 'gay' in negative meaning would add nothing to my life. Even being a non-native speaker of English, I still know enough vocabulary to express my frustration and disappointment in numerous other ways. It's just unnecessary.

Personally, I see words as nothing more than that -- words -- and whether or not one should be offended or bothered by the usage depends on the intent of the person. "Gay" was definitely part of my vernacular growing up, and even as an adult I use it on occasion. But there is never any point where I am thinking to myself, "I dislike this because it clearly resembles homosexuality, which bothers and offends me, so therefore I am going to insult it by calling it 'gay'."

If you want to refer to something negatively by calling it heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, transsexual, whatever, do so if you please; it does not bother me, unless you are simultaneously and purposefully implicating that one of those groups is in some way inferior.

Speaking as someone who is female, there are certain words related to females (or female body parts) that are used to imply that someone or something is inferior, but it doesn't offend me, as a woman, when someone uses them. It doesn't mean that someone is a misogynist -- and even if they are, I don't care; I can't control that -- it simply means that it is a word that is so pervasive, people use it without considering its original meaning.

Also, "lame", even now, occasionally refers to someone who is physically disabled, and yet it is very commonly used to express that something is in some way bad. And yet, I never see anyone -- even people who are against the usage of words like "gay" or "retarded" -- proclaim, "Don't use that word, it is offensive to the disabled!!!" I don't see why this word specifically is viewed as acceptable, but other words are not.

I think the fact is simply that there are people who are offended by these things, and there are people who are not. I don't think either party is in any way bad or wrong, simply that we all have very different perspectives. Some people are offended by crude word usage and do not want to be exposed to it, because they are afraid it will hurt others feelings, or continue to fuel oppression of minorities; others (like myself) want to express themselves as they please outside of formal situations without feeling as if they have to tiptoe around people's feelings or sensibilities. If you say, "Niggers should be hanged," I'll say something. If you say, "sup nigga"... whatever.

Well if you can slog through these incredibly vehement and fascist comments that I'm reposting from: http://forum.koohii.com/showthread.php?p...0#pid84920 ...

"Callings bad things 'gay', calling people you don't like 'fags', calling things you consider scornfully unintelligent or ignorant 'retarded', mocking Japanese people or cultural artefacts by using a deliberate confusion of l/r (Engrish etc., reminds me of films like A Christmas Story or Breakfast at Tiffany's), I personally consider those all to be douchebag moves, though usually I don't like people knowing I think they're a douchebag, that way I can stab them in the back when their guard is down.

Shirokuro's on the mark and I think this also applies to the whole South Park 'fag' issue (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1866), actually, though I must say it's a bit stickier when you're dealing with medical/mental issues, because it's so inchoate and vague, re: diagnoses/labels, in the first place. The same principles apply, once you're made aware of contemporary discrimination. It's up to you to decide whether to continue using it past your adolescence or adolescent behaviour, but be prepared to encounter resistance from those who don't take kindly to you using contemporary labels for them, often markers of denigration, as broad pejoratives, however unwittingly you do so. I'm sure in turn they're often willing to compromise, it just depends on how obvious/insulting you're being, and how subject to discrimination they've been.

I'm speaking generally here, BTW, i.e. a rhetorical 'you'. Just though I'd add something to shirokuro's remarks."

"I would argue that 'retarded' gets its negativity, however unwitting/unwilling the individual using it is, from being an insulting word for a 'class' of people (however protean), and your individual usage feeds back into this larger, contemporary, very real context of discrimination in events and in language that reflects those events and inflicts emotional suffering. I am against some sort of top-down ban of words, but only because I think that makes the labels rigid rather than understanding them as symbols. Rather, I suggest being literate in those symbols and what they represent and perpetuate when you spread their negative roots around. At best you're an unwitting tool of discrimination, perhaps self-conscious and thinking, without proof, that using 'retarded' to mean 'stupid' for everyone somehow declaws its specialized usage (and too bad for others in the meantime), at worse selfish and lazy and prone to insensitively using the words because you feel like it and have some 'it's just words, don't be PC, that's gay, ha ha' mentality. Again, rhetorical 'you' here. ;p"

"As I said, I'm against suppression of words. Some words have illusory power born of actual discrimination, as they reflect that discrimination. Their negativity stems from it, however indirect. Taking that associated, negative resonance and applying it to other areas that one considers negative, in a contemporary context where it still has its original meaning with very real discrimination backing it up, this perpetuates those associations and inflexible generalizations. In this context, very few people who use the word 'retarded' or 'gay' to mean 'stupid' and 'bad' are unaware of the meanings they stem from and continue to feed into when they're not used in a particular, explicitly isolated or satirical way. And even if 'for a while', until someone 'enlightens' them, they truly are unwitting, it doesn't change the fact that other people *are* aware and/or affected, and it doesn't excuse continued usage. Once you know, you're making the choice whether or not to negotiate meanings, knowing that it has a collective meaning that can be influenced by individual usage. If you want to deprive these words of power and maintain an anti-PC mindset, I'd argue the best way to do this is to actively try to be aware of your language, rather than lazy and childish, with the aforementioned particular ways incorporated. Compromise and awareness is key, as I emphasized before. It should be taken as read, hence my use of the word 'compromise' and my previous comments, but I'll add this goes both ways, and if you say 'that's gay' to mean 'that's bad' in front of a gay person or 'sup nigga' to a black person, I'd hope they won't punch you in the mouth, unless of course they were particularly subject to discrimination growing up, in which case they get to punch you and then you can apologize to one another. ;p"

IceCream Wrote:@Thora: 1. i don't understand why that's not analogous. Please enlighten me.
2. You are conflating formal / casual with adult / child.
Its true that many adults don't use it as much... just like they don't use the 50k other slangy terms everyone uses as a teenager. But, adults still do use it in casual situations among friends.

I think it may have something to with the fact that near-sighted individuals aren't oppressed and/or discriminated against on a daily basis. I could be wrong but I doubt anyone has ever been killed simply because he/she wore glasses. One probably can't be a fighter pilot yet, in general, glasses are seen as a mark of intelligence. In many culture even the reference to being gay is enough to get your ass kicked.

This word, like nigger, literally has blood on it.

marina Wrote:If you say, "Niggers should be hanged," I'll say something. If you say, "sup nigga"... whatever.

Are these two even the same word? I used to think so. After studying language for a bit and seeing how one syllable can drastically change the meaning of word, I'm not sure anymore. Anyway, I used to use nigga all the time when I was younger. Lately, it is a shocker to even see it, let alone hear it.

I think the problem is that by using the word in a negative sense and saying that it's okay.... you're saying that it's okay. Ignore the fact that it's usage is a direct reference to being different, in a shocking or unwanted way (or weird). Ignore the rampant discrimination that happens to people of the group on a daily basis (even in the most "liberal minded" countries). You, personally, mean no harm, so it's okay. But the usage is a direct reference to the negative/stereotypical aspect of a group of people. So, how can be okay to continually invoke this reference?

Quote:Personally, I see words as nothing more than that

This idea is very dangerous. Words don't have power until you realize the power of words. They can be used to make a person feel good him/herself, or they can be used to "destroy" a reputation. There are some labels (words) that when attached to a person forever changes their lives. If you think I'm being vague here, just think, for a moment, of the massive number of individuals who are being released from prison after being falsely accused of rape.

Just as gay changed from its meaning of "happy" to "homosexual" it's now changing to something akin to "lame"

English has other cases where two words are spelled the same but have different meanings. (Homo milk anyone?) It's all about context. You'd think that people learning Japanese would be very cognizant that similar sounding words can have different meanings.

Saying something is "so gay" is a world away from describing someone's sexual orientation. For starters, people aren't "SO gay, they're just "gay" or "homosexual" if you prefer. Homosexuals also have other words for themselves within their community.

Never could get into Genshiken, but this is how I felt when I read there were people here that were 'okay' with using gay as a general insult: http://mangable.com/genshiken/chapter-14/12/ (assuming the potential feminist reading of this has been covered by actual Genshiken fans, so)

Quote:Are these two even the same word? I used to think so. After studying language for a bit and seeing how one syllable can drastically change the meaning of word, I'm not sure anymore. Anyway, I used to use nigga all the time when I was younger. Lately, it is a shocker to even see it, let alone hear it.

I think the problem is that by using the word in a negative sense and saying that it's okay.... you're saying that it's okay. Ignore the fact that it's usage is a direct reference to being different, in a shocking or unwanted way (or weird). Ignore the rampant discrimination that happens to people of the group on a daily basis (even in the most "liberal minded" countries). You, personally, mean no harm, so it's okay. But the usage is a direct reference to the negative/stereotypical aspect of a group of people. So, how can be okay to continually invoke this reference?

I do believe it is the same word; it is just, rather, a word that has evolved from its original meaning, just as the other words we are discussing have. Does "gay" = "happy" mean the same as "gay" = "homosexual" mean the same as "gay" = "lame"?

When you use words such as "idiot", "idiotic", "moron", "moronic" or "dumb", you are, similarly, in effect, ignoring the original meaning of the word, as well as the discrimination that happens to mentally handicapped and deaf people every day. When you use words such as these, you are essentially saying, "You have the intelligence of a mentally handicapped person, and that is a bad thing," or "You seem about as bright as someone who is deaf--the latter of whom clearly aren't bright at all." The fact that these words have already evolved from their original meaning does not matter; using them at all is basically a way of saying, "Even though these words used to refer to oft discriminated classes of people, the meaning has evolved, so now it's okay to use and we can completely disregard their previous pain and suffering." ...How is that any different from "gay" or "retarded"? Because it hasn't completely evolved "yet"? So if we come to a point where "gay" and "retarded" have evolved to the point of "idiotic" et.al., then they'll be okay to use, and we can disregard whatever discrimination these people have had to face?

I simply fail to see the logic in that, entirely.

Quote:This idea is very dangerous. Words don't have power until you realize the power of words. They can be used to make a person feel good him/herself, or they can be used to "destroy" a reputation. There are some labels (words) that when attached to a person forever changes their lives. If you think I'm being vague here, just think, for a moment, of the massive number of individuals who are being released from prison after being falsely accused of rape.

I think you misunderstood what I mean, or perhaps I expressed myself poorly; I don't disagree with what you are saying, necessarily. Words are a powerful means of expressing yourself, but at their very core, they are simply letters put together to form a sound or meaning. That meaning widely varies depending upon the how a person is expressing themselves, as well as the mindset of the listener. Certainly, the dictionary attempts to define the word "gay", but every single one of us perceives that word differently. Even a completely neutral word, such as "Jew", can become positive or negative depending on who is using the word, what they're saying, and how they're saying it. If we ask people to stop saying words because they could offend someone, then we might as well just ask people to stop speaking.

Perhaps it is the writer in me saying this, but I'm absolutely against any and all forms of political correctness, because I think people should be able to use whatever words they please to express themselves fully and completely in an informal setting, without being silenced in any way, or feeling that they should be. The way we use words is a form of self-expression, and -- especially on the internet -- one of the best ways in which we can communicate ourselves to others. Personally, I would much rather people say, without fear and hesitation, what they truly want to say, because it would let me know who to avoid and who I want to share my company with. As stated above, if someone is throwing around the word "Jew" like it's some kind of insult, I want them to feel, fully and freely, that that is okay. I will then know that I don't want to associate with that person.

IceCream Wrote:@Thora: 1. i don't understand why that's not analogous. Please enlighten me.
2. You are conflating formal / casual with adult / child.
Its true that many adults don't use it as much... just like they don't use the 50k other slangy terms everyone uses as a teenager. But, adults still do use it in casual situations among friends.

Shortsighted is used as a very logical metaphor. We're not taking the word, fuelled with our contempt for the class of people it represents, and using it to express pure negativity. For gay to work in anything like the same way, you'd pretty much have to consider homosexuality to be the embodiment of annoyance, stupidity, shitness, etc. Even people who hate gays don't actually think like that, so it's far from comparable. If you then take into account the history of 'gay' that kazelee mentioned, then I'm sure you'll see why the two terms aren't analogous.

Whether or not the word is okay is a different issue. Personally, I think it still sounds offensive, and what's more very immature. I feel more of move away from using the word because of these reasons, rather than the "change" people are mentioning. Seems like you might as well just let it die, since it sounds kind of douchey anyway.

mirina Wrote:[quo
I do believe it is the same word; it is just, rather, a word that has evolved from its original meaning, just as the other words are discussing have. Does "gay" = "happy" mean the same as "gay" = "homosexual" mean the same as "gay" = "lame"?

When you use words such as "idiot", "idiotic", "moron", "moronic" or "dumb", you are, similarly, in effect, ignoring the original meaning of the word, as well as the discrimination that happens to mentally handicapped and deaf people every day. When you use words such as these, you are essentially saying, "You have the intelligence of a mentally handicapped person, and that is a bad thing," or "You seem about as bright as someone who is deaf--the latter of whom clearly aren't bright at all." The fact that these words have already evolved from their original meaning does not matter; using them at all is basically a way of saying, "Even though these words used to refer to oft discriminated classes of people, the meaning has evolved, so now it's okay to use." ...How is that any different from "gay" or "retarded"? Because it hasn't completely evolved "yet"? So if we come to a point where "gay" and "retarded" have evolved to the point of "idiotic" et.al., then they'll be okay to use, and we can disregard whatever discrimination these people have had to face?

I simply fail to see the logic in that, entirely.

Forgive me, ruiner has a more prickly and impulsive personality:

Why would we get to the point that 'gay' = bad but not homosexual? How would it evolve to that point? Because homosexuals should stop insulting themselves by using words that mean 'bad' to describe themselves? Guess they can't call themselves gay anymore, because people started (totally innocently, I'm sure) using 'gay' to mean 'bad'. Or wait, homosexuals can still refer to themselves as 'gay', or be referred to in that way, they should just have clear mental blocks erected so they're not troubled when someone to their left says 'that's gay! oh not you buddy, I mean this abnormal, bad thing over here'. Homosexuals shouldn't be deterred in this process by the person standing to their right who at the same time says 'hey that's gay! yes you, the homosexual, i mean it's gay like you. god hates you, go die. good luck with the military/marriage/aids in hell. maybe we are now going to bash you until you die/verbally bully you or even someone who isn't homosexual until you commit suicide.' (Children who commit suicide from verbal bullying are so weak anyway though, they're just words, and I'm sure if they're bullied with the word 'gay', then if non-bullies use the word 'gay' as an insult, they won't be so PC that they'll be bothered by it in the slightest.)

And of course, after all this, homosexuals or those in similar positions should hope that once they 'stop hitting themselves' with the word 'gay', that their friends don't start using their new label as an insult after the bigots have converted the new word's meaning into a broader disparagement amidst real-world discrimination.

ruiner Wrote:

mirina Wrote:[quo
I do believe it is the same word; it is just, rather, a word that has evolved from its original meaning, just as the other words are discussing have. Does "gay" = "happy" mean the same as "gay" = "homosexual" mean the same as "gay" = "lame"?

When you use words such as "idiot", "idiotic", "moron", "moronic" or "dumb", you are, similarly, in effect, ignoring the original meaning of the word, as well as the discrimination that happens to mentally handicapped and deaf people every day. When you use words such as these, you are essentially saying, "You have the intelligence of a mentally handicapped person, and that is a bad thing," or "You seem about as bright as someone who is deaf--the latter of whom clearly aren't bright at all." The fact that these words have already evolved from their original meaning does not matter; using them at all is basically a way of saying, "Even though these words used to refer to oft discriminated classes of people, the meaning has evolved, so now it's okay to use." ...How is that any different from "gay" or "retarded"? Because it hasn't completely evolved "yet"? So if we come to a point where "gay" and "retarded" have evolved to the point of "idiotic" et.al., then they'll be okay to use, and we can disregard whatever discrimination these people have had to face?

I simply fail to see the logic in that, entirely.

Forgive me, ruiner has a more prickly and impulsive personality:

Why would we get to the point that 'gay' = bad but not homosexual? How would it evolve to that point? Because homosexuals should stop insulting themselves by using words that mean 'bad' to describe themselves? Guess they can't call themselves gay anymore, because people started (totally innocently, I'm sure) using 'gay' to mean 'bad'. Or wait, homosexuals can still refer to themselves as 'gay', or be referred to in that way, they should just have clear mental blocks erected so that when someone to their left says 'that's gay! oh not you buddy, I mean this abnormal, bad thing over here'. Homosexuals shouldn't be deterred in this process by the person standing to their right who at the same time says 'hey that's gay! yes you, the homosexual, i mean it's gay like you. god hates you, go die. good luck with the military/marriage/aids in hell. maybe we are now going to bash you until you die/verbally bully you or even someone who isn't homosexual until you commit suicide.' (Children who commit suicide from verbal bullying are so weak anyway though, they're just words, and I'm sure if they're bullied with the word 'gay', then if non-bullies use the word 'gay' as an insult, they won't be so PC that they'll be bothered by it in the slightest.)

A person who uses the word "gay" to refer to something as "lame" does not necessarily think that a gay person will go to hell, or that it's okay if children commit suicide. It's hard to take what you are saying seriously when you make such grandiose exaggerations that don't at all reflect reality for most individuals.

To respond to your actual point, however, if one calls a dog a "bitch", is one also implying that the dog is a rude, unpleasant woman?

If a black man calls another black man a "nigga", is he implying that the other man is inferior to whites?

Is it an insult to call a horse with a broken leg "lame"?

ruiner Wrote:And of course, after all this, homosexuals or those in similar positions should hope that once they 'stop hitting themselves' with the word 'gay', that their friends don't start using their new label as an insult after the bigots have converted the new word's meaning into a broader disparagement amidst real-world discrimination.

You can't stop the evolution of a language, no matter how much you may dislike it. It's futile, in my opinion, to get upset about it or try to stop it. Even if people don't say "gay" in front of you, they'll use it while you're not around. All that results in is disingenuity.

mirina Wrote:To respond to your actual point, however, if one calls a dog a "bitch", is one also implying that the dog is a rude, unpleasant woman?

If a black man calls another black man a "nigga", is he implying that the other man is inferior to whites?

Is it an insult to call a horse with a broken leg "lame"?

None of these are the same thing. Female dog is the original meaning of "bitch", whereas "bad" is not the original meaning of "gay". Your second example would be like one homosexual calling another one a faggot, not a heterosexual using "gay" to mean "bad". Third is the same as the first.

I never understand the resistance that people put up to avoiding the word "gay", from people who otherwise seem to be reasonable people. Is it because they feel like if they admit they shouldn't use it, that they have to also admit they've been using an insulting word for a while? (At least so far there haven't been any comparisons to Nazi book burning or thought police, which often comes up in these debates.)

As a gay male, I feel like I should offer my perspective on this issue.

This is a matter of being considerate. This is a forum. You don't know everyone on here. There's a diverse readership, and I think that more important than being "PC" is being sensitive. As iAurora said, there's no need to use "gay" in a negative way. It's completely unnecessary, and it can be very hurtful.

My heart sinks when I read words like "gay" being used in this way. The negative connotations, to me, are through association with people like me who don't belong to the heterosexual majority. In my view, you are actively perpetuating homophobia and contempt for the queer community at large by using words like "gay" in such a way.

Honestly, it should be enough to know that you are offending people on here when you use words like "gay" in this way. It's really not something I want to read on here. Please don't use it. Thank you.

IceCream Wrote:@iAurora: sorry, i just don't see how calling a piece of glass on a road "gay" for puncturing my tire, or the bus "gay" for being constantly late, or whatever other random situation someone might use the term in is actively contributing to some homosexual person somewhere getting beaten up or killed.
(*in fact, the term isn't even used to refer to objects being gay, but situations in general, so it's even further removed. How is it even possible for that to be related to "gay" as in homosexual?)

Just think where this 'new' meaning for gay came from. The origin of it is hateful attitude towards group of people. This new word is basically projecting the same attitude on other things. It doesn't really matter what those things are. It's still 'I hate this person/thing/situation as much as I hate gays'. You are may be (most definitely even) not thinking about it 'that way' but it still doesn't change the fact that this is where 'new meaning' came from and that a lot of people still mean it 'that way'. By using it you are further spreading the idea that connecting 'gay' to 'bad' is totally cool and fully acceptable. It's not really a crime, I just honestly don't see it as something to hold onto.

I'm not a big fan of abstract arguments on such matters, so terms like 'political correctness' don't mean much for me. All I know is I wouldn't use it as derogatory term in front of my gay friends just like I wouldn't use 'nigger' in front of black person. And when I don't say something to someone's face, I try avoiding to use it behind their backs as well. It's kinda as simple as that.

mirina Wrote:

ruiner Wrote:Forgive me, ruiner has a more prickly and impulsive personality:

Why would we get to the point that 'gay' = bad but not homosexual? How would it evolve to that point? Because homosexuals should stop insulting themselves by using words that mean 'bad' to describe themselves? Guess they can't call themselves gay anymore, because people started (totally innocently, I'm sure) using 'gay' to mean 'bad'. Or wait, homosexuals can still refer to themselves as 'gay', or be referred to in that way, they should just have clear mental blocks erected so that when someone to their left says 'that's gay! oh not you buddy, I mean this abnormal, bad thing over here'. Homosexuals shouldn't be deterred in this process by the person standing to their right who at the same time says 'hey that's gay! yes you, the homosexual, i mean it's gay like you. god hates you, go die. good luck with the military/marriage/aids in hell. maybe we are now going to bash you until you die/verbally bully you or even someone who isn't homosexual until you commit suicide.' (Children who commit suicide from verbal bullying are so weak anyway though, they're just words, and I'm sure if they're bullied with the word 'gay', then if non-bullies use the word 'gay' as an insult, they won't be so PC that they'll be bothered by it in the slightest.)

A person who uses the word "gay" to refer to something as "lame" does not necessarily think that a gay person will go to hell, or that it's okay if children commit suicide. It's hard to take what you are saying seriously when you make such grandiose exaggerations that don't at all reflect reality for most individuals.

To respond to your actual point, however, if one calls a dog a "bitch", is one also implying that the dog is a rude, unpleasant woman?

If a black man calls another black man a "nigga", is he implying that the other man is inferior to whites?

Is it an insult to call a horse with a broken leg "lame"?

ruiner Wrote:And of course, after all this, homosexuals or those in similar positions should hope that once they 'stop hitting themselves' with the word 'gay', that their friends don't start using their new label as an insult after the bigots have converted the new word's meaning into a broader disparagement amidst real-world discrimination.

You can't stop the evolution of a language, no matter how much you may dislike it. It's futile, in my opinion, to get upset about it or try to stop it. Even if people don't say "gay" in front of you, they'll use it while you're not around. All that results in is disingenuity.

I think you should re-read what I said, emphasis on the phrases 'to their left/right'. It's part of a continuum. The bulk of the negativity stems from a demonization of homosexuals to varying degrees, regardless of the neutrality towards homosexuality/generalized negativity everywhere else that people who use 'gay' to mean 'bad' claim to have. To misread my comment then dismiss it as 'grandiose exaggeration' is rather striking, but frankly I don't see that I can say anything new that hasn't already completely countered your arguments, so I'll leave my comments to speak to/for those I personally consider to be more... reasonable.

Just typed a large amount of information and acciddently erased it.

Perhaps the stars saw fit to make sure it never saw the light of day.

mirina Wrote:To respond to your actual point, however, if one calls a dog a "bitch", is one also implying that the dog is a rude, unpleasant woman?

If a black man calls another black man a "nigga", is he implying that the other man is inferior to whites?

Is it an insult to call a horse with a broken leg "lame"?

Working backwards there, no?

Quote:So if we come to a point where "gay" and "retarded" have evolved to the point of "idiotic" et.al., then they'll be okay to use, and we can disregard whatever discrimination these people have had to face?

I simply fail to see the logic in that, entirely.

The short version of what I wrote:

I generally do not insult people. I know the real reason why we do it. That said, communication is largely influenced by the proximity of ideas. The native aspects of the slang term gay are extremely proximal to negative aspects/stereotypes of homosexuality. Much the same the negative aspects of retard are more proximal to being mentally handicapped. This is why these words, as insults, evoke much more negative response than idiotic, et al.

Quote:As stated above, if someone is throwing around the word "Jew" like it's some kind of insult, I want them to feel, fully and freely, that that is okay. I will then know that I don't want to associate with that person.

It's not okay. Exclusion from the group is non verbal way of saying, "it's not okay." Prison and banishment are real-life examples of this idea at work.

Forgot the rest.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

mirina Wrote:To respond to your actual point, however, if one calls a dog a "bitch", is one also implying that the dog is a rude, unpleasant woman?

If a black man calls another black man a "nigga", is he implying that the other man is inferior to whites?

Is it an insult to call a horse with a broken leg "lame"?

None of these are the same thing. Female dog is the original meaning of "bitch", whereas "bad" is not the original meaning of "gay". Your second example would be like one homosexual calling another one a faggot, not a heterosexual using "gay" to mean "bad". Third is the same as the first.

I never understand the resistance that people put up to avoiding the word "gay", from people who otherwise seem to be reasonable people. Is it because they feel like if they admit they shouldn't use it, that they have to also admit they've been using an insulting word for a while?

...What?

"Bitch" originally referred solely to a female dog in heat, and yet now also refers to an obnoxious, unruly woman. It started out as a completely neutral term, but spawned a completely different meaning independent of the original word. However, "bitch", referring to both female dogs and rude woman, are still present and used. Dog breeders have not stopped referring to their dogs as "bitches" because other people use it to mean something else. And as far as I know, there is not female dog discrimination running rampant.

"Lame" did and still does refer to an animal or person who is physically handicapped, but, like "bitch", refers to something that is bad.

"Gay" is a neutral term referring to homosexual people. It evolved further, independent from its original term, to now mean something akin to "lame."

How is that not the same thing? All of these words were once neutral, but now also have a meaning separate from the original. To refer to a rude woman as a "bitch" is not an insult to female dogs. To think so, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

People are to feel bad that they use terms such as "gay", but not if they use "idiot", "lame", or "moron"? All of these are insulting terms that originally referred to oppressed peoples. But, okay, I see, we're just not supposed to care about those people anymore because now the word has evolved enough that it's okay. But we can't let the same thing happen to "gay", because somehow that's entirely different.

ruiner Wrote:To misread my comment then dismiss it as 'grandiose exaggeration' is rather striking, but frankly I don't see that I can say anything new that hasn't already completely countered your arguments, so I'll leave my comments to speak to/for those I personally consider to be more... reasonable.

The latter half of your comment was a grandiose exaggeration; I am sorry you do not see that. I do not mind at all if you disagree with me; I respect your opinion. However, I do think it is a little surprising and, truthfully, closed-minded, to imply that someone is "unreasonable" simply because they disagree with what you believe.

kazelee Wrote:Working backwards there, no?

Pardon?

kazelee Wrote:The short version of what I wrote:

I generally do not insult people. I know the real reason why we do it. That said, communication is largely influenced by the proximity of ideas. The native aspects of the slang term gay are extremely proximal to negative aspects/stereotypes of homosexuality. Much the same the negative aspects of retard are more proximal to being mentally handicapped. This is why these words, as insults, evoke much more negative response than idiotic, et al.

Isn't it not the word then, but other people's perceptions and hang-ups that are then the problem? If I am speaking to a like-minded person and use the word "gay", that person will not be offended, nor will they think that I in any way dislike gay people. The problem occurs when you have two people who are not like-minded, and cannot understand one another's viewpoints. In my opinion, neither person should feel the need to bend to the other. If you want to demand that I stop using the word "gay" because it makes you uncomfortable (in a hypothetical situation, of course; this is a private forum, so there can be, at any time, limitations placed on what we can freely say), while I understand that it is something you see as wrong, I refuse to curtail my speech. The problem is simply that I don't think "gay" meaning "bad" is in any way connected to "gay" meaning "homosexual", but you do. What I'm basically trying to say is: we don't see these words in the same way, because we see the world differently. You see a relation between two words that I don't see. These "proximity of ideas" you speak of are your own. They are not mine.

kazelee Wrote:It's not okay. Exclusion from the group is non verbal way of saying, "it's not okay." Prison and banishment are real-life examples of this idea at work.

Forgot the rest.

I don't fully understand what you're trying to express here, but I don't want to make you write out everything again so I'll just let this part be.

mirina Wrote:"Gay" is a neutral term referring to homosexual people. It evolved further, independent from its original term, to now mean something akin to "lame."

That's the thing. More than likely, it did not. If you look at other culture related slang terminology you'll see a pattern.

In part of my post which was erased by accident I made a comparison. Here is an example sentence to give you an idea.

Jew - Jews are stereotypically, greedy, sneaky, dishonest peddlers.

After being ripped by a salesman the customer says, "I just got Jewed."

The customer doesn't hate Jews, but the costumer does associate the word Jew with the negative stereotypical ideas of Jews. Therein lies the point of consideration.

If you re-read nest0r/ruiner's post again, you'll see this is what he/she was getting at, even if there was an air of exaggeration.