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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher, are you "gay" (in either sense)?

You haven't figured it out by now?

[Drake Tungsten]

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 is not clearly taboo. Some shows use the word, some don't. The ones that don't are usually shows skewed to an older audience. The word is ubiquitous in youth culture and will show up more and more on television as this segment of society gets older. You're doomed to be offended for the rest of your life if you don't adapt to this new meaning.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld


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.

I think that interpretation won't work because it is a plain fact that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of words. I think that language is a rule governed activity and the meanings of words are their use in the language. If everyone is using a word in a deviant fashion that tells me that it is most likely that the meaning of the word has changed. I don't see what else could give a sound meaning other than the use that we put it to or what standards of correctness other than communal use one could appeal to (and looking in a dictionary is not really good enough as dictionaries record usage and do not legislate which meanings will change). This is a well developed view of mine and I'm not going to spend hours defending it here. If you want to understand it look up Wittgenstein on the web.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You haven't figured it out by now?

Oh, you once said to me that you had no trouble with women. I misunderstood you to mean that you were a Casanova.

In that case my comments for Boris apply to you too. (I assume you aren't admitting being gay in sense 2).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by 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...

Or, in other words, you are an incosiderate ******* who does not care about other people's feelings or opinions.

You know people are offended by it, and you continue to say it. You are deliberately insulting people.

Would you tell your grandmother to **** off or shut up? I wouldn't, because I realise that it is just about the most offensive thing I could possibly say to here, even though I it does not bother me at all.

[mindseye]

Part of the problem is that you use the word to describe yourselves

I think it is a part of the general lexicon. Don't straight people use the term "gay" for "homosexual" where you live?

that you have your identity wrapped up in the word.

Thank you for re-stating one of our points. Giving a new, derogatory meaning to a term already in use to describe (in a neutral manner) a pre-existing group would seem bound to offend that group. I can't for the life of me see why that is so hard to follow.

[Drake Tungsten]

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

Most of the gay people I know use the term as well. Of course, my anecdotal evidence is no more convincing than yours...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

As I said, your position in this regard does not hold water. Calling someone "gay" was once a MAJOR insult to them. I can remember it starting fights in middle school because no one wanted to be thought of as "gay." Your logic here is simply wrong. Using gay as an insult was initially much worse, as it was equating you to gay people, and everyone knew gays were sick and wrong. Over time, as society grew more accepting of homosexuals, the insult itself softened to its current form, but the origin was certainly in the vitriolic context of "homosexuals are bad." One of the reasons "***" grew as a slur was because "gay" was starting to lose it's steam as one, since being "gay" wasn't so bad anymore.

However, none of this changes the simple fact that when a word that is mot commonly used to refer to homosexuals is then used to refer to something that is stupid/bad, it is indeed offensive to homosexuals. Simple logic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh, you once said to me that you had no trouble with women. I misunderstood you to mean that you were a Casanova.

In that case my comments for Boris apply to you too. (I assume you aren't admitting being gay in sense 2).

I'm bi, I'm not gay, nor am I straight.

I have no problem with women being interested in me, or men being interested in me, and I could certainly have a relationship if I chose to. But I'm more of a "lone wolf" type personality and relationships don't bode well with me. Too confining.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

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 is not clearly taboo. Some shows use the word, some don't. The ones that don't are usually shows skewed to an older audience. The word is ubiquitous in youth culture and will show up more and more on television as this segment of society gets older. You're doomed to be offended for the rest of your life if you don't adapt to this new meaning.

Oh bull****. Watch episodes of Dawson's Creek, or any other show on network TV geared towards young people, and tell me if you ever hear gay used in this context. The ONLY shows wherein it is used are ones that are out to violate taboo in the first place, such as South Park.

At any rate, considering that once I've explained to the few people I've encountered who have used the term around me why I found it offensive, they have accepted that rationale as valid and ceased using the word that way, I'd say that your notion of it one day becoming ubiquitous is bunk. People with common sense know that when someone tells you they are offended by something, they do mean it.

[Drake Tungsten]

At any rate, considering that once I've explained to the few people I've encountered who have used the term around me why I found it offensive, they have accepted that rationale as valid and ceased using the word that way, I'd say that your notion of it one day becoming ubiquitous is bunk.

I bet they still use the word when you're not around. I'd stop saying it around you too if you were offended; it's just common courtesy. That doesn't meant I would accept your belief that the word is a slur, however.

Luckily, none of the gay people I associate with are so out of touch as to be offended by this...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


I think that interpretation won't work because it is a plain fact that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of words. I think that language is a rule governed activity and the meanings of words are their use in the language.

Where are these divine and all powerful rules that govern the laws of language?

You'll probably tell me a dictionary, or something. To save you the trouble, dictionaries come after language, and if you've ever looked in one, you'll notice there is almost always 2 or more interpretations listed for each word.

Language is organic and evolves through people's individual interpretations.

If everyone is using a word in a deviant fashion that tells me that it is most likely that the meaning of the word has changed.

ehm.... are you reading the same thread as me? It's pretty obvious not everyone uses it in that fashion.

I don't see what else could give a sound meaning other than the use that we put it to or what standards of correctness other than communal use one could appeal to.

Ah, you've almost got it! But you're still thinking it terms of rules. There are no standards in language, besides, it's the height of arrogance to think that your interpretation is the only correct one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


As I said, your position in this regard does not hold water. Calling someone "gay" was once a MAJOR insult to them. I can remember it starting fights in middle school because no one wanted to be thought of as "gay." Your logic here is simply wrong. Using gay as an insult was initially much worse, as it was equating you to gay people, and everyone knew gays were sick and wrong.

I agree up to this point.

Over time, as society grew more accepting of homosexuals, the insult itself softened to its current form, but the origin was certainly in the vitriolic context of "homosexuals are bad." One of the reasons "***" grew as a slur was because "gay" was starting to lose it's steam as one, since being "gay" wasn't so bad anymore.

OK - I just flatly (and honestly) disagree here. This is a matter of experience and growing up in different speech communities. In my experience and from what I have seen I think that the present use of "gay" as a mild slur without sexual connotations came about in the way I said. But other than a complete linguistic survey there is no way of proving who is right. So I'll drop it.

However, none of this changes the simple fact that when a word that is mot commonly used to refer to homosexuals is then used to refer to something that is stupid/bad, it is indeed offensive to homosexuals. Simple logic.

It's not about whether is offensive to them or not, this whole argument is about whether they are rationally entitled to be offended, not whether they are or not.

But enough... I can't see any real progress in the debate developing from here. I've no doubt you are sincere and not arguing for any other reason than that you believe it is so, but then so am I.

[Lincoln]

Ok, we've run this subject into the ground. Good points made by all sides. Now let's kiss and make up.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Luckily, none of the gay people I associate with are so out of touch as to be offended by this...

They live in Nebraska, they're probably offended by it but don't want to get their ass kicked for being "pussies".

I don't tell the straight guys I'm around that I'm offended by it, just because you want to be "one of the guys". If I started whining about how I found the words they're using as offensive, it'd be awkward...