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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
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.

Just proof that even in the face of being shown something you say is offensive, you'll still blithely go on using it because, hey, you just don't care. How nice.

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

Another possible explanation is that, living in a region not known for tolerating homosexuals in the first place, they may not want to rock the tolerance boat any further by sticking up for themselves over it.

Or maybe they aren't the kind of folks prone to thinking really in-depth about something. Wouldn't surprise me, considering their friends...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

Where the hell did you get that idea?

The argument certainly is NOT about whether it's "rational" for them to be offended.

Emotions are anything BUT rational!

The argument is the use of the term. Some people have tried to argue, unsuccessfully, about how "rational" it is to use the term.

You've lost sight of what the debate is about. It's about the use of the term, and you've been arguing about how rational it is to use it and irrational for people to be offended by it like it proves a damn thing.

[mindseye]

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...

So by your arguement, it would be okay for the white majority to use "******" in a derogatory manner? Right?

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

Even were your musings true (and I for one, don't buy them), your argument still runs completely aground on the fact that members of the pre-existing group already commonly identified by the word in question find the new, derogatory usage insulting.

The origin is not important. It's that the term was already in common use to describe, in a neutral manner, a social group. To take a term that defines a social group and give it a new, derogatory meaning, is going to be offensive to members of that group. Is that hard to understand?

What if people started using "Latino" to mean "useless"? Who cares if the origin in fact referred to the Latin language as "useless", not to Hispanics. Would you be surprised if Latinos were offended by the new, derogatory usage? Would you tell them they were wrong, and that they should simply accept it?

[Drake Tungsten]

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

Like you have any room to talk; Alberta is really a haven of cosmopolitanism.

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...

Then why do the lesbians I know use the word too? Are you really saying that these women fear me, that I'm going to kick their ass if they don't talk like me?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld

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

That's like asking, "Where are the points that hockey teams have won kept?"

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.

Meanings. Not interpretations. And I made this remark about dictionaries earlier.

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

But not every interpretation is correct.

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

Don't get on your high horse. I've been claiming that teens are a semi-separate speech community.

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 hight of arrogance to think that your interpretation is the only correct one.

I didn't say that my interpretation is the correct one. And language is so rule governed. :P - it's why "goat stag horse" isn't a meaningful sentence: it breaks the rules of sentence formation. There is nothing magical about this - we do it every day and when we get it wrong others correct us. The rules are ours as far as we know and we can't break them. Indeed if we break them it isn't as if we are breaking them so much as we are changing the rules.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Like you have any room to talk; Alberta is really a haven of cosmopolitanism.

It's Canada -- it's better than Nebraska by any means socially. But it's still not as "liberal" in that sense as somewhere like Quebec, unfortunately.

Then why do the lesbians I know use the word too? Are you really saying that these women fear me, that I'm going to kick their ass if they don't talk like me?

I have no idea, everybody is different.

Most people will be offended by someone using a word, which is most commonly referred to as someone's sexuality, as an insult.

[Drake Tungsten]

Another possible explanation is that, living in a region not known for tolerating homosexuals in the first place, they may not want to rock the tolerance boat any further by sticking up for themselves over it.

Just for the record, Lincoln has one of the highest percentages of gay population in the US (second to San Francisco IIRC). Your (and Asher's) ignorant stereotypes don't reflect well on you...

edit: Lincoln is third in the US, after San Francisco and New York. My bad.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mindseye

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

Even were your musings true (and I for one, don't buy them), your argument still runs completely aground on the fact that members of the pre-existing group already commonly identified by the word in question find the new, derogatory usage insulting.

The origin is not important. It's that the term was already in common use to describe, in a neutral manner, a social group. To take a term that defines a social group and give it a new, derogatory meaning, is going to be offensive to members of that group. Is that hard to understand?

What if people started using "Latino" to mean "useless"? Who cares if the origin in fact referred to the Latin language as "useless", not to Hispanics. Would you be surprised if Latinos were offended by the new, derogatory usage? Would you tell them they were wrong, and that they should simply accept it?

Again - this argument isn't about whether they do find it insulting, but whether they are entitled to. I'm constantly mystified why people think they have a right to be offended at everything which offends them. I mean I find tabloid newspapers deeply offensive, but I don't think I have a right to stop them being published.

[MrFun]

Um -- last time I posted here, this thread was only three pages if I recall correctly!

Anyway, I tried catching up by reading some of the more substantial posts by Agathon, Boris, and a couple of other guys.

Here are my two and a half cents:


All minority groups use words among themselves for bantering and joking, that would be found to be offensive if anyone outside that particular minority group used them in a deragatory manner. This is one reason, for example, that black rappers have used the "N" word.

I often joke with my gay friends in ways that if someone outside the minority group, who has no first-hand experience of the hardships of being gay would use them, would turn out to be offensive to many gays.

This is one reason why minority groups have this privilege among themselves in using words that if other used them, it would likely be offensive -- those minority group members already have the first-hand experiences.

Because heterosexuals do not have any first-hand experience on what it's like to be discriminated against for being gay, they have no ground on which to argue why gays should not be offended by deragatory remarks.

[General Ludd]

Then why do the lesbians I know use the word too? Are you really saying that these women fear me, that I'm going to kick their ass if they don't talk like me?

Generally speaking I've found that, gay and lesbian are pretty different terms. I know there was a big distinction when I was in grade school. Gay was for boys, Lesbian was for girls. But they where both used as slurs.

Maybe if you started using the lesbian slur around them you'd notice something. Next time a woman gives you lip, call her a lesbian. See an unatractive woman and yell 'what an ugly ****!" and see how your lesbian friends react.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Again - this argument isn't about whether they do find it insulting, but whether they are entitled to.

Again, no, it's not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

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

A conservative bisexual in Alberta? [coughs] It must be a bit rough, eh?

At least you aren't like my friend who describes himself as a tri-sexual (he'll "try anything" - groan).

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.

Ah, I remember a young man who once said that....

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon


Again - this argument isn't about whether they do find it insulting, but whether they are entitled to. I'm constantly mystified why people think they have a right to be offended at everything which offends them. I mean I find tabloid newspapers deeply offensive, but I don't think I have a right to stop them being published.

Whoa, this doesn't make sense. The first sentence is about the right to be offended, the last about some form of censorship over something that gives offense. Non sequitur, anyone?

You have, frankly, no right to dictate to a group whether or not they should be offended by something. How much of a condescending ***** does that make you?

No one here is saying the use of the word "gay" in this context should be made illegal, merely that it since large numbers find that context offensive, it isn't appropriate in polite society. Since schools have policies of not tolerating offensive comments, this should not be treated any differently.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


Again - this argument isn't about whether they do find it insulting, but whether they are entitled to. I'm constantly mystified why people think they have a right to be offended at everything which offends them.

Wow, I'm speachless. Thanks for some new sig material, atleast.

I mean I find tabloid newspapers deeply offensive, but I don't think I have a right to stop them being published.

Eh? we stoped talking about censorship ages ago.

What makes you think you have a right to be offended by tabloids, anyways?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
A conservative bisexual in Alberta? [coughs] It must be a bit rough, eh?

All of my friends are, amazingly, left-wing bastards.

But seriously, college is a very socially-liberal atmosphere. I know lots of people who are conservative like me and fully support motions like legalizing gay marriages/civil unions and the like.

Ah, I remember a young man who once said that....

I know lots of people say that, but not many people can lock themselves in the house for months on end and be perfectly content alone.

It is a gift...or a curse...

I consider it a gift because it doesn't suck my wallet.