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

[Drake Tungsten]

It's offensive, and that's a simple fact you'll need to deal with.

"Niggardly" is offensive as well, according to your definition. I guess that teacher deserved to be reprimanded for using it...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
"Niggardly" is offensive as well, according to your definition. I guess that teacher deserved to be reprimanded for using it...

Huh?? How do you figure?

Niggardly isn't offensive in the slightest.

[Drake Tungsten]

Huh?? How do you figure?

Niggardly isn't offensive in the slightest.

You're saying that "gay" is offensive because you and other gay people think it is. It doesn't matter to you what the real meaning of the term is; it is offensive because you say it is.

Apply the same logic to "niggardly". The offended women didn't know what the word meant, which should make her opinion on the matter irrelevant. However, since interpretation determines meaning according to you and other people here, the word "niggardly" becomes offensive the moment some ill-informed person thinks it's offensive. We should punish teachers and students for saying it...

[Asher]

Oh my God, Drake...

"gay" is most commonly used as a reference to a sexual identity
"niggardly" is not used as a reference to identity

Some people could be offended by the word because they thought it would be "******dly", or "like a ******", which it certainly is not.

They're fundamentally different cases. One is using someone's sexual identity as an insult, the other is a word that unfortunately can be mistaken for a racial slur adverb.

[Drake Tungsten]

One is using someone's sexual identity as an insult

They're not using gay as an insult! How many times do you have to be told this? They're using gay in a totally new way, with a totally different meaning.

You're no better than the lady who thought "niggardly" was offensive. Completely oblivious to how misinformed you really are...

[Jaguar]

Drake, I usually agree with you, but you're being really gay right now. It is unacceptable to have a group's name be a synonym for "bad" under any circumstances.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
They're not using gay as an insult!

So obviously when the kids say something is gay, they're praising it.

How many times do you have to be told this?

How many times do you need to repeat it before you believe it's true?

They're using gay in a totally new way, with a totally different meaning.

No, they're not. Only a person so incredibly naive would think that...

You're no better than the lady who thought "niggardly" was offensive. Completely oblivious to how misinformed you really are...

You're no better than Albert Speer...

Really.

You honestly expect me to believe people randomly chose "gay" and thought it'd be an insult?

It's just convenient that it's most commonly used in one of the most homophobic environments? It's just convenient that it's also used to refer to a minority that tends to get picked on and rejected by people in that environment? It's just convenient that once people get out of a homophobic environment, they're less likely to say something is "gay" as an insult?

You're so hopelessly naive, Drake...

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake, I usually agree with you, but you're being really gay right now.

See, there's nothing offensive about this sentence. He's calling me lame, not calling homosexuals bad. How hard is this to understand? Can't you people recognize contextual clues...

BTW, this whole thread has become totally gay. Agathon pretty much destroyed Asher and Boris's arguments, so they've been reduced to name-calling.

[Dinner]

You guys are being gay.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
See, there's nothing offensive about this sentence. He's calling me lame, not calling homosexuals bad. How hard is this to understand? Can't you people recognize contextual clues...

Can't YOU realize that using a sexual identity word to equate "bad" is insulting, regardless of intent?

BTW, this whole thread has become totally gay. Agathon pretty much destroyed Asher and Boris's arguments, so they've been reduced to name-calling.

Agathon's up to his usual tricks, and he only wins the argument to people who have no clue what's going on and are impressed by his lengthy spammy posts which ignore issues, ignore logic, and generally act like a condescending, insensitive twit.

[Drake Tungsten]

You guys are being gay.

Yes we are. Frankly, I'm a little ashamed about being sucked into this gay ass discussion once again.

[GePap]

Drake:

Niggard [[ ME negarde, prob. < Scan, as in ON hnoggr, Norw dial. nogg, afraid stingy < IE base *kneu (var of *ken, to scrape) > OE hneaw, sparse, stingy]]

In short, the word niggardly comes from an old Anglo Saxon meaning of stingy, while ****** comes from Negro, or black.

Niggardly then is in no way racsist, unless you have some problem with stingy vikings, that is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Yes we are. Frankly, I'm a little ashamed about being sucked into this gay ass discussion once again.

It's standard behavior psychologically.

Get your ass kicked in a debate, try to win by clinging onto someone else's arguments. Even when everything's stacking up against you, ignore it and keep repeating what you've already said, because you know if you say it enough you can convince yourself you were right and everyone else is the one that's being stupid.

[Drake Tungsten]

To Glonkie...

If you can address the points made in this post, then we can debate. If you can't, then I'll know that your arguments are indefensible and stop wasting my time.

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

[Asher]

Re: To Glonkie...

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If you can address the point made in this post, then we can debate. If you can't, then I'll know that your arguments are indefensible and stop wasting my time.

It's VERY simple.

Your and Agathon's entire argument sits on very thin ice about the "context" of the word being said.

It appears both you, and Agathon, are completely incapable of being sensitive and seeing things from other people's perspectives.

Your whole argument comes crashing down once you realize the FULL context of the word's use -- its origins and its implications, as well as who is saying it and why.

Whenever the word is used to equate "bad", it is insulting. It's as simple as that.

That's simply not up to debate. You'll just have to believe people when they tell you it is insulting, and be a considerate human being and think "Hey, maybe we should stop using it so carelessly?"

That point was demolished a long time ago, by the way, it just so happens that you and Agathon manage to keep ignoring that fact and asking people to demolish it again and again, hoping that we get bored and leave so you can "win".