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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Arrian
This is pretty straightforward for me:

"gay" as used in "xyz is so gay" has a negative connotation. Not necessarily a nasty, evil, hateful one, but a negative one nonetheless. Additionally, gay people are offended by that useage.

Therefore, I try not to use "that is so gay" anymore. I never meant it as a slur vs. gay people, but indirectly, that's what it is. So I've been trying to break myself of it.

The suspension was harsh, though. Unless, of course, the kid had already been talked to about it by a teacher/guidance counselor.

-Arrian

And this is, pretty much, the best summing up of the case.

[Starchild]

The school board's a bunch of limp-wristed poofters. The kid should have been beheaded in the parking lot.

[GePap]

2 day suspension for the use of offensive language is too much. Detention or calling for a parent teacher conferences for verbal offenses sounds more reasonable.

Having attempted to read the whole slag of arguments that make up pages 4-11, i must say Boris and asher makes the vastly superior argument. If "gay"'s new meaning is the same as "lame", but lame has only one negative connotation (unhip, outdated) while gay has connotations of identity, why use "gay" and not lame? That is, unless you want to draw some connetion between the negatibe connotation of "gay" as was used here and the contemporary meaning of gay, which no longer has anything to do with gaity, but with Homosexuality?

[Drake Tungsten]

When you tell gay people they shouldn't be offended by something because you just don't find it offensive,

I said that gay people, if they are offended, are misinterpreting the meaning of the word, as it is not intended to be an insult to homosexuals. You have every right to be offended, but I think you are misguided.

Comments about "pathetic" and "low standards" seem pretty meaningles to me when they come from someone who freely admits to using derogatory slurs as part of his everyday speech.

It's not a derogatory slur; that's what I'm trying to tell you. I wouldn't use the word if I thought it was a derogatory slur.

Why can't you understand that words have different meanings and that the intent behind a word is what's really important? Your out-of-touch interpretation of the word does not make it derogatory, as most people who use the word don't intend for it to have any relation to homosexuality.

[Drake Tungsten]

If "gay"'s new meaning is the same as "lame", but lame has only one negative connotation (unhip, outdated) while gay has connotations of identity, why use "gay" and not lame?

Who the hell knows? Languages develop in strange ways...

[GePap]

Who the hell knows? Languages develop in strange ways...

This phrase it not that old..just a few years old really.

Who knows? language does develop in strange ways, but they are always in ways that can be followed. Why would someone one day decide: "hey, I want to say that is lame, stupid, whatever..but I don;t want to say it is lame, stupid whatever..what could i say to denote my disapproval of it that is 'new'? Well, what about 'gay'? Hmm, if I say..'that's so gay', then obviously they will know it is bad, cause gays..."

For the phrase "that's so gay" to have been understood as a negative connotation (as oppose to hey that's phat' of some time ago), does it not strike to you that the word "gay" needed to be seen as having some sort of inherently negative connotation? If not, then the first using of that phrase might have gone somehting like this:

"Yeah, look at that dork, hes so lame!"
"Yah., buttmunch!"
"That's so gay!"
What do you mean?"
"well, you know, gay..."
"Not really..."
"Oh come on, it gay"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
"Well, I am saying that his behavior is typical of what a homosexual does, and obviously homosexuals are wrong."
"Is that so? How do you figure, it is just a different sexual orientation. Why would a difference in sexual orientation somehow come to mean that some sort of action is lame?"
" Wel....."

Now, maybe is just my spidersense kicking in, but I hardly doubt that the first itme someone started saying "thats gay", it was taken as a sign of approval. The word in this contexct has clearly negative connotations, connotations not tied to its now obselete meaning of "happy, frivolous" but its new meanign as "homosexual".

[Drake Tungsten]

The word in this contexct has clearly negative connotations, connotations not tied to its now obselete meaning of "happy, frivolous" but its new meanign as "homosexual".

I've yet to see any proof of this. Agathon's theory that the new "gay" is a reference to the outlandish, "flaming" stereotype seems more likely to me than a blanket condemnation of all homosexuals. Variations like "Liberace gay" seem to support this theory; the word doesn't condemn homosexuality, but pokes fun at the completely over-the-top, stereotypical gay persona.

In the end, none of us know where it came from, which is why I'm not dealing with its historical evolution. I'm dealing solely with it current connotation, which has little to do with homosexuality...

[General Ludd]

Don't bother with Drake, he simply isn't capable of comprehending that there are opinions and ideas other then his. You are misguided if you do not think like him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, what about 'gay'? Hmm, if I say..'that's so gay', then obviously they will know it is bad, cause gays..."

I love this. Still going and people still want to say that it's derogatory to homosexuals by ignoring what the word in this context means. It's wonderful when people metastasize their personal desire to prohibit something, into a fact about the meaning of a word. The fact that you are offended by something is not a sufficient moral reason, on it's own, to justify prohibiting it or punishing people for doing it. This should be obvious to any thinking person.

Unless (1) the term "gay" as used by teenagers like this guy is specifically derogatory to homosexuals - in other words, that's what "gay" means in this context (which it doesn't), or (2) that this usage of the term was coined specifically to get at homosexuals (which no-one has proved) you have no case.

(1). Cannot be made as a case because the meaning of a term is the use it is put to in a speech community. In this case it is equivalent to "lame" - that is what the people who coined it use it to mean - that's what it means. You don't own the meaning - the speech community (in this case teenagers) do - it's their coinage, whatever interpretation you put on it is your business, not theirs. The fact that the same phonemes are used homonymously is irrelevant. If you are going to provide some other criterion of meaning then go ahead - I'd like a good laugh.

(2) There is no conclusive evidence presented by anyone here (including myself) that this use of the term as a mild form of general derogation either did or did not come about because of a contemptuous attitude towards homosexuals or that it was coined to get at gays. Such evidence would require a professional empirical study of the development of the use of the word and no one has presented anything other than hypotheses based on their own peculiar experiences (that's pretty much all we are capable of). In the face of such a lack of evidence the people who argue that they are offended by the term have precisely that as their case - and that's not sufficient reason for publicly sanctioned punishment.

In other words "gay" is innocent until it is proven guilty.

If someone wants to come up with genuine evidence rather than just repeatedly saying "I know it" then that's fine. Otherwise it is just a waste of time.

And you know what? If people make a big fuss about this word, then just like most of the other advice from the bosses, it will make teens want to use it more.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld
Don't bother with Drake, he simply isn't capable of comprehending that there are opinions and ideas other then his. You are misguided if you do not think like him.

That's not fair. Opinions are like a**holes - everyone's got one. You could at least do him the credit of responding to his with argument rather than mere assertion.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


That's not fair. Opinions are like a**holes - everyone's got one. You could at least do him the credit of responding to his with argument rather than mere assertion.

What argument? He's simply covering his eyes. So are you.


We have some 250 odd posts arguing about whether the use of gay as a slur is offensive, and he has the gull to say that he's seen no evidence that it's offensive. What the hell is this thread, then?

If it wasn't offensive, this thread would've died a long time ago because there would be no argument.


Oh, but of course, the people who feels it's offensive are misguided fools who have no right to feel the way they do because Drake and Agathon have delcared so.

[Agathon]

And another thing the language police should note.

At some time in the past the word "gay" was like "***": it had unambiguously negative connotations for everyone who spoke English. Then the connotation of the word changed to being a simple natural kind word for "homosexual". This is like if the word "dog" used to have the connotation "cur" but then became a mere denoter of the species.

If the language police are right then this new use of "gay" should have been mercilessly stamped out because people who didn't realise the word had taken on a new meaning were offended. Now that's ridiculous - almost as ridiculous as insisting that a word must always carry its negative connotation with it no matter how the meaning changes, when in fact one of the changes that can take place is the loss of old connotations and the acquisition of new ones.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld


What argument? He's simply covering his eyes. So are you.


We have some 250 odd posts arguing about whether the use of gay as a slur is offensive, and he has the gull to say that he's seen no evidence that it's offensive. What the hell is this thread, then?

If it wasn't offensive, this thread would've died a long time ago because there would be no argument.


Oh, but of course, the people who feels it's offensive are misguided fools who have no right to feel the way they do because Drake and Agathon have delcared so.

One could as easily say that if people had attended to the actual meaning of the term instead of imposing their own biased interpretations on it, this thread would have ended a long time ago.

The argument has occurred because both Drake and I have some experience of the way the word is used - and that is not as a derogatory term for homosexuals. If you want to claim that we are just deluded, then we could claim the same about you. That gets us nowhere. The problem here is that people on the other side have admitted that the term as used does not literally connote anything bad about homosexuality. They want to argue that the history of the word counts. I don't think it does as the previous history of the word "gay" shows.

Anyway, so if Agathon and Drake declared that people have no right to be offended by the word "train driver" because they somehow think it means "sh*thead" we would be so wrong and be deemed fools by the linguistic elect?

Give me a break and respond to the actual argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I've yet to see any proof of this. Agathon's theory that the new "gay" is a reference to the outlandish, "flaming" stereotype seems more likely to me than a blanket condemnation of all homosexuals. Variations like "Liberace gay" seem to support this theory; the word doesn't condemn homosexuality, but pokes fun at the completely over-the-top, stereotypical gay persona.

In the end, none of us know where it came from, which is why I'm not dealing with its historical evolution. I'm dealing solely with it current connotation, which has little to do with homosexuality...

I find the "proof" argument absurd. Do you have any proof that it is NOT OFFENSIVE? if not, then why are you against removing the usage if some find it offensiv,a s some clearly do? Tht makes no sense to me. "Ho, some people find it offensive, but even if we have qords that can express the very same idea without giving insult to anyone, lets use it, even though I can;t show you that it is not meant as an affront to being homosexual." This to me is what you are saying..I can't prove to you it isn;t mean to slander gays (you can;t, you constantly ask for any explination of how this came about), obviosuly (as we see form this thread) people do find it offensive, but all you can say is"well, so what, suck it up...". Well, that to me is the least defensible agrument of all.


We may not know where it comes from, but language develops in patters, patterns that can be reasoned out. For example, before gay, you say there was lame. OK, why lame? Why that word and not, lets say, tall? Both are just adjectives to explain some physical condition. Isn;t one as good as the next? And yet..we use the one that reffers to a physical problem, a defect and not the one that is generally neutral, to describe soemthing negatively.

And lest explore Agathon's notion, that it refers to "flamming gays". Please explain to me why this is not still offensive? Why is attacking and individual for their manner of dress and act? Did Liberace hurt anyone? Why was his behavior to be mocked? Even if ,as you say Agathon is stating, it reffers to the "flammers", inherent in the critism is an attack against males acting in some method seen as female, and being effeminite is one of the most basic attacks against homosexuals.

Anyway, so if Agathon and Drake declared that people have no right to be offended by the word "train driver" because they somehow think it means "sh*thead" we would be so wrong and be deemed fools by the linguistic elect?

Give me a break and respond to the actual argument.

I find this answer absurd. "Somehow we think gay is ebing used to denote something negative?". Please Agathon, i beg you, post some place in which someone said "that's so gay!" when aproving of something.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon
And another thing the language police should note.

Excuse me, you seem to be confused. It is you and Drake that are acting as the 'language police' and dictating to us what words mean, what we are justified in thinking, and what we have a right to interpret things as.

If the language police are right then this new use of "gay" should have been mercilessly stamped out because people who didn't realise the word had taken on a new meaning were offended.

If the language police are right, we wouldn't have the word in the first place because we'd be siting around waiting for words to magicaly form and develop, without giving them any meaning on our own.

One could as easily say that if people had attended to the actual meaning of the term instead of imposing their own biased interpretations on it, this thread would have ended a long time ago.

Thanks, another lesson on interpretation! This quote can be interpreted either as the meaning you intend or, to people who share a differeing opinion and view on the subject, as saying that we wouldn't be having this argument had people not turned a reference to sexuality and identity into a slur.

I can see what you intend to say in this case because of your previous comments, but when I read it I see the complete opposite of what I know you're trying to say.

The argument has occurred because both Drake and I have some experience of the way the word is used - and that is not as a derogatory term for homosexuals.

There are two uses for the word. One is a reference to sexuality, lifestyle, and personal identity. The other is a slur.

Do the math.

Anyway, so if Agathon and Drake declared that people have no right to be offended by the word "train driver" because they somehow think it means "sh*thead" we would be so wrong and be deemed fools by the linguistic elect?

I am having a hard time sifering out your intentions in this one, though. I think what you are asking is if it is alright for someone to be offended by the term "train driver", and yes, it absolutely is. Infact, I know for a fact that certain people would be offeneded at this because train driving is menial and low-wage job. A pompous aristocrat would no doubt look down apon train drivers for that reason and associate it with negative meanings. Welcome to the world of language!