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

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


Hardly, the language police are the linguistic puritans on this thread who seem to think they have the right to tell teenagers that they don't know what they mean when they'r talking.

You're still missing it, I'm afraid. I am not telling teenagers what they mean. I am telling them what it means to me. They do not have to think it is offensive for it be so. It is, as I have said before, like telling your grandmother to **** off. You may not find that language offensive, but chances are your grandmother thinks it's the epitome if vulgarity. I know mine does, which is why I would never say it to her unless I intended to really offend her.

Interpretation!

Groan.... Words are subject to interpretation, but there are shared norms of correctness within speech communities, without which language would be impossible.

Yes, there are common interpretations - they are neccisary for any sort of language beyond a handful of people - but they are always subject to change acording to how the listener associates the word with different meanings and experiences. Like I have said before, language is organic and this is how it evolves.

Language is a compromise, the speaker tries to convey his feelings, and the listener interprets them, but ultimately the meaning of the word is defined by the listener. You do not, can not, tell people how to interpret words. You can only try to get them to see it the same way as you do - that is what language is all about.

Someone who uses 'gay' as a slur when he does not intend to offend gays is obviously failing this concept greatly.

No - my intention was that people who think "train driver" means "sh*head" are mistaken about the meaning of the term, as are the teen-persecutors in this thread.

Sorry, but I did understand you. I even replied to you. And, for that matter, I even explained to you why someone would have a right to be offended by the word "train driver" and how the meaning of words can change from listener to listener. If you want to keep playing, you're going to have to pay attention!

Unless you strictly meant asociating it with the word **** head - in which case, it wasn't an argument worth responding to.

[Agathon]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

You have failed to show that "that's gay" wans't meant in a negative way. You have also failed to show why authorities should not try to discourage the use of this phrase if it is found to be offensive, just as they act againt many words and phrases meant as insults or expletives. Tow days suspension, as i said at the beginning, was excessive, but some sort of lower level punishmwent was certainly in order.

And you've failed to show that it is.

The question,which you failed to answer, is why that sort of behavior seen as outlandish?

Exhibit A.

[GePap]

If Tina Turner wore that cape, would she be "flamming" as well?

It does but I think they shouldn't feel this way and that if they do it is based on a misinterpretation. My main reason for objecting is that this sort of reasoning is a typical strategy employed in debates about PC language and I think it is fallacious because it ultimately robs the speaker of the ability to mean what he says and gives all the power to the hearer to hear what he wants to.

And this is where you still fail to explain yourself: How could you NOT be INTENDING to mean "gay" as derogatory (in general) in this case? How many teenagers have you heard utter "that's so gay" of soemthing they approved? One does not have to be a mind-reader to iunderstand the negative meaning of the phrase. specially, as you point out, if its meant to replcae "lame", which was obviosuly derogatory as well.

[Az]

ROTFLMAO at liberacci pic....


poor guy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo


They don't. Granted, I didn't know all that many openly gay people in high school or earlier, but they usually didn't use "gay" as a synonym for "lame."

Where you come from "they" don't. Where Drake comes from and where I come from "they" do.

Six of one.....

And as for this:

You're still missing it, I'm afraid. I am not telling teenagers what they mean. I am telling them what it means to me.

I understand perfectly, I disagree. It is their word, not yours. If me and my friends coin a word and you think it means something to you, then that's your problem and not ours.

They do not have to think it is offensive for it be so. It is, as I have said before, like telling your grandmother to **** off. You may not find that language offensive, but chances are your grandmother thinks it's the epitome if vulgarity. I know mine does, which is why I would never say it to her unless I intended to really offend her.

Are you going to stop me from swearing in the company of my friends now?

Yes, there are common interpretations - they are neccisary for any sort of language beyond a handful of people - but they are always subject to change acording to how the listener associates the word with different meanings and experiences. Like I have said before, language is organic and this is how it evolves.

Yes but the notion of a norm implies correctness. Every interpretation is not correct. The criterion of correctness is what the speech community normally uses. If I start using "dog" instead of "cat" then I'm making a mistake. If I interpret "dog" to mean "cat" I'm making a mistake.

Language is a compromise, the speaker tries to convey his feelings, and the listener interprets them, but ultimately the meaning of the word is defined by the listener.

That is a totally ridiculous view - if it were true then there wouldn't be much sense in saying that people understood each other, because the speaker wouldn't be able to know the meaning of his own utterance.

You do not, can not, tell people how to interpret words.

Yes you can. Teachers do it all the time. So do parents when they teach their children to speak.

You can only try to get them to see it the same way as you do - that is what language is all about.

No - it's about communicating thoughts to others. When I tell my friend that there is a a beer in the fridge I am not trying to get him to see it the same way as I do. I'm reporting a a fact to him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
If Tina Turner wore that cape, would she be "flamming" as well?

Yep. And just as worthy of a laugh.

And this is where you still fail to explain yourself: How could you NOT be INTENDING to mean "gay" as derogatory (in general) in this case? How many teenagers have you heard utter "that's so gay" of soemthing they approved?

There's a difference between negative (and we are talking mild negativity here) and negative-associated-with-homosexuals. Teens mean "lame" by "gay" and last I looked "lame" didn't mean "homosexual".

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Azazel
ROTFLMAO at liberacci pic....

He looks like a psychedelic gay Dracula, doesn't he?

Ah, you gotta have balls to go out in public dressed like that.

[Ramo]

Look, take all those people who were using "gay" as a synonym for "lame" in high school or junior high (i.e. a whole lot of people), and see how much they use the expression in a less homophobic environment, say a college. They stop using the expression. They recognize that using the expression only makes asses of themselves.

[Drake Tungsten]

Look, take all those people who were using "gay" as a synonym for "lame" in high school or junior high (i.e. a whole lot of people), and see how much they use the expression in a less homophobic environment, say a college. They stop using the expression.

No they don't. I don't know what kind of college you're at, but people here use the word "gay" all the time. It was in the campus paper today, for god's sake.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

I take back anything bad I ever said about you, Agathon. Excellent post; it really cut to the heart of the matter.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
There's a difference between negative (and we are talking mild negativity here) and negative-associated-with-homosexuals. Teens mean "lame" by "gay" and last I looked "lame" didn't mean "homosexual".

Ohh lord...

What you seem to wilfully ignore is why use "lame" and "gay" in the first place. Using the definition of lame:

From Websters New World dictionary:
lame: [adj. MElama, akin to Ger. lahm, ON lamilem, to break > Russ lomat' to break] 1. crippled;disabled; esp., having an injured leg or foot that makes one limp 2 stiff and very painful [a lame back] 3 poor, weak,unconvincing, ineffectual, etc. [a lame excuse.

Interestingly enough, look how they handle the slang term: [slang] a person who is conventional, conservative, old-fashioned.

but then comes lame-brain:
[Colloq] a slow-witted or stupid person;dolt;numskull.

I disgaree with how they define the slang meaning of lame, but it is still interesting reading. Why thn use lame? could it be because it denotes something crippled? something for some reasonm abnormal and hence inferior? How is this in any way positive? and if you kep claiming "gay" now just means "lame", are you willing to admit that "lame" was inherently negative?

And what about gay?

adj. [[ ME gai gahi, swift, impetuous, akin to Ger jaeh]]
1 joyous and lively;merry;happy; lighthearted 2 bright, brilliant [gay colors] 3 given to social life and pleasures [a gay life] 4 wanton; licentious [a gay dog]- n a homosexual; esp. a homosexual man .

Comparing the two words which yo state have become synonimous, how is something crippled like somehting happy, merry? Surely you don;t think our teenagres were foolish enough to link those two parts fot eh definition together, now are you? So which oart fo "gay" did modrn teenagers want to associate with the notion of "lame", or crippled and disabled?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I take back anything bad I ever said about you, Agathon. Excellent post; it really cut to the heart of the matter.

Cheers.

I can't recall you ever saying anything bad. Most of the insults directed at me come from Asher. Anyway, just because people disagree doesn't mean they have to hate each other.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

What you seem to wilfully ignore is why use "lame" and "gay" in the first place.

This is my point. "Lame", as used by teens, doesn't really have those connotations about disabled people any more. It has a variety of uses and the intended meaning of this one is not offensive to any particular group. Hell, I'll bet there are plenty of folks in wheelchairs who unthinkingly say, "Man, 'Joe Millionaire' was so lame."

[Drake Tungsten]

I can't recall you ever saying anything bad.

Neither can I, but I just wanted to cover my bases.

[St Leo]

Do you mean to say that disabled people were once known as "lame"?