"That's so gay" - enough to get twelve-year-olds suspended

[mindseye]

you have to show us how the insult affects you.

I am gay. Hearing someone use "gay" to mean "bad" offends me. Others here say the same thing.

If someone says they are offended by your language, do you require some sort of further proof that they are in fact offended?

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you see shows on network TV depicting anyone using that form of the word?

So a word is obviously offensive if they don't say it on "Everybody Loves Raymond"?

Citing a show designed to offend everyone imaginable as an example of why the word shouldn't be considered offensive is pretty, erm, lame.

It isn't used for shock value on the show; it's normal dialogue as that is how today's youth speaks.

But why am I wasting my time? It's rather absurd to expect an opera singer and a Canadian hermit to truly understand contemporary youth culture...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mindseye
If someone says they are offended by your language, do you require some sort of further proof that they are in fact offended?

No, instead of actually trying to empathize with gays and realize why they get offended, they'd rather accuse them of being the ones who're doing something wrong by being offended so they don't have to worry about modifying their behavior or admitting that they've done something to offend someone.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you kidding?
'gay' is not hateful.

Of course it isn't! Jesus!!!

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

There's the understatement of the year...

[Lincoln]

I'm confused. I thought people who were gay liked the word 'gay' because it has a more positive meaning. Now that you have all hijacked the word what is the problem? Is the word good or bad? Why don't you all make up another word if this one has been turned around now? Or, why don't you stop being so gay about it?

[mindseye]

No, my position is that "gay" isn't an offensive slur

Yet gay people are here, right now, telling you that they are offended!!!

If you are not offended by it, that's fine - but gay people are.Personally, I don't know any gay person who thinks otherwise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Of course it isn't! Jesus!!!

Did you not read the rest?

Seriously, explain to me the rationale behind arguing in favor of the word "gay" as an insult.

You say it's changed its meaning so it shouldn't be offended. Why you keep saying that -- I'm not sure. From this thread, so far 100% of the gay population tells you they consider it offensive when it's used as a general insult.

And I assure you those figures are not going to change much if you survey other gay people.

So I'm just really confused. Why do both you and Agathon keep digging your holes? Why do you keep trying to rationalize something that is clearly offensive? Why do you think that "proving" it has nothing to do with sexuality will change the fact that people are still very offended by it?

Why don't you and Agathon both do the right thing and admit that the term "gay" is needlessly offending and alienating a large portion of today's youth that are already putting up with more bull**** than you and your girlfriends had to go through.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Do you see shows on network TV depicting anyone using that form of the word?

So a word is obviously offensive if they don't say it on "Everybody Loves Raymond"?

What a way to change the meaning of your own argument. The point was that you claimed the terminology was used practically ubiquitously in culture, and I pointed out that this is simply untrue, as by our strongest measure of culture (television), it is cleary taboo.

It isn't used for shock value on the show; it's normal dialogue as that is how today's youth speaks.

I spend a good deal of time exposed to today's youth, being the son of a teacher and roommate with one, as well as doing some tutoring and mentoring myself. I can honestly tell you that the youth I encounter don't use it as standard speech. At any rate, that still is reinforcing my point that rather than being part of out culture, it is fairly isolated to a minority subset.

Since another minority subset (white supremacists) use the word "******" in their common speech, does that mean it is a part of our entire culture to use it so?

But why am I wasting my time? It's rather absurd to expect an opera singer and a Candian hermit to truly understand contemporary youth culture...

As much as I'm wasting my time trying to explain to a narrow-minded Nebraskan heterosexual why gays get offended when "gay" is used to refer to somethin bad...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

There's the understatement of the year...

You try growing up as anything other than straight in an environment where you hear "gay" used as an insult 20 times a day, when people tell you that you can't get married, when people tell you that you can't give give blood, when people tell you that you can't show affection in public with your SO.

It really does set me off when people try to rationalize clearly unacceptable behavior because they're too lazy or too stupid to change their behavior for the benefit of the people being tremendously hurt by it.

[Ben Kenobi]

mindseye:

In real-life? No. I don't use the term because there are better ways to express the same idea.

If I know someone is gay, I will refrain from the word for the same reason.

Part of the problem is that you use the word to describe yourselves, that you have your identity wrapped up in the word.

Now with a word such as, '******', you did not see black people using the word to describe themselves, so the intent was clear. The only people who used the word used it to denigrate blacks.

If the word causes problems, why not stop using it amongst yourselves?

The word itself is not, but using the word as an insult for everything is a hateful concept in and of itself.

Asher:

What if used among people who are not gay? Is the intent of the word to slander and denigrate homosexuals?

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

Asher, no prob. You are not the one throwing insults.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yet gay people are here, right now, telling you that they are offended!!!

I don't judge words based on the interpretation of a few people, but on how society views the word. My segment of society views "gay" as a non-offensive word. If you don't agree, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to stop using the word "gay" just because you can't adapt to its new meaning...

Personally, I don't know any gay person who thinks otherwise.

I do.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monkspider
Hmm, pretty good debate, aside from the name-calling. I think Ag's strongest point is the "contemporary use" arguement, which is very strong. But at the end of the day, I find my self siding with Boris and co. The "Jew" or "******-rigged" arguement is hard to ignore. Props to Ag though.

OK - I've made my point and this is my last on it.

I'll address the "Jew" argument because I think this is a false analogy with "gay".

If people just decided one day that they would use "Jew" to mean "stupid" for whatever reason then I think it would be wrong.

But I have maintained that this is not the case with "gay". Due to the mild nature of the insult I think it is best understood as an historical development from the time when the meaning of "gay" forked into two meanings: one being (a) "silly and effeminate" and the other being (b) "homosexual". Of course there are still some people who believe it means the original which was (c) "silly and effeminate homosexual" but they are in the minority.

My position is that the current teen use evolved from (c) via (a) rather than from (c) directly, after (a) had lost most of its negative connotations and well after usage meant that it was possible to distinguish (a) from (b). The main evidence for this is that it is a mild term of derision rather than the strong term that one would expect from a direct evolution from (c) (e.g. if people started using "***" as an adjective). The other evidence I have is simply my own experience of being a member of the English speech community and my observations of the change. But short of sharing memories that's not going to help much.

Anyway

If the foregoing was true of "Jew" then there would have to have been a historical split in usage from "Jew" used pejoratively to "jew" used to indicate some feature that was formerly negatively associated with Jews (say - miserliness) and then came to signify a much milder form of that feature with no specific reference to actual jews (such that Jews began use it along with everyone else). That there hasn't been one is what gives the "Jew" argument its superficial force since we shudder from the thought of using "jew" to mean "miserly" - but there is no a priori reason why this could not have happened. That's why I think the argument doesn't work.

Anyway, I'd like to say that my interest in this is, surprise surprise, primarily philosophical. I've only being doing this to defend my belief a la Wittgenstein (ironically himself a gay man!) that meaning is use and the consequence of this view that interpretation is not ownership of the term (a fallacy that I think infects discussions of PC language - hence my interest in this debate). If I've come on sounding like I want to get at gays or defend bigotry, I apologise - that was not my intent - I was really trying to defend a dead 20th century Philosopher of Language. I hope there are no hard feelings (although Asher tends to get angry quick).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


This has been dispensed with. The meaning of a word is not its interpretation; it is is normal use by a speech community, which can change.

Comunity?

We are talking about language, one on one communication, and you think that is some how defined by community?? it is completely the opposite!

I am sorry, but when someone says something to me I do not create an internet poll asking for opinions on what it means. I do not have to have an entire community to help me have a conversation.

It is simply mind blowing how you can not understand how this works. How language works.


It is purely, 100%, absolutely, completely, interpretation that gives a word meaning. Hell, the sheer fact that we are even having this conversation is undeniable proof that words have different meanings to different people. If you can not respect that, then you are failing to grasp the concepts of language and, frankly, are being a completely inconsiderate *******.



However you do almost have a point. Obviously, if a common interpretation is tought to a community of people, that will become the most understood - that is how a common language is created. But even then interpretation is peramount. People will put different values into words, and associate words with personal experience or images, creating new definitions. This is why some people are offended by certain words while others are not.

That is the problem here, there is a conflict of 'common interpretations' with the word gay. One refers to a sexuality, an identity, a life syte. The other is used as a slur. Can you see where a problem might arise from such a situation? I really hope you can.

And I really, really hope you don't expect the people who identify themselves with the word to give it up and let it be used as a slur.

[Agathon]

Asher, are you "gay" (in either sense)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I'm confused. I thought people who were gay liked the word 'gay' because it has a more positive meaning. Now that you have all hijacked the word what is the problem? Is the word good or bad? Why don't you all make up another word if this one has been turned around now? Or, why don't you stop being so gay about it?

You could at least be creative in your trolling, since we already dispensed with the nonsense notion that homosexuals "hijacked" the word "gay" at any point in time.