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

[Asher]

And I must say that Agathon's assertion that the term gay as an insult is "innocent until proven guilty" easily debunks your entire side's arguments for the incredible stupidity of it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by 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.

Niggardly is from the old Norweigen and the only reason I know that is because of the incident where the President of the NAACP freaked out on a speaker who used the word "Niggardly" in a speech. It was in all the news about how this guy over reacted over a word simply because it sounded similiar to another word.

[Drake Tungsten]

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.

The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about. You are clinging to an argument that depends on historical developments that are not proven (and probably not known). That's what Agathon's second point clearly states.

In the absence of any clear knowledge of the historical evolution of the new meaning, we are forced to take the contemporary usage of the term at face value. Contemporarily, "gay" is not used as an insult toward homosexuals, but as a synonym for "lame". To call it a slur is a misinformed and untenable position.

You are wrong, Asher. You should just admit it, but I know you won't do that. You'll just keep talking until I get tired and quit, then you'll claim victory. Knowing this, I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm out...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about.

That's PRECISELY why it doesn't matter.
It's open to interpretation, and the majority of people assume it came from the sexual orientation.

Case closed.

You are wrong, Asher. You should just admit it, but I know you won't do that. You'll just keep talking until I get tired and quit, then you'll claim victory. Knowing this, I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm out...

I'm certainly not wrong, you're the one that's clearly in the wrong.

You're trying to rely on "evidence" and general stupidity to explain why people are not offended, when they clearly are.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about. You are clinging to an argument that depends on historical developments that are not proven (and probably not known). That's what Agathon's second point clearly states.

In the absence of any clear knowledge of the historical evolution of the new meaning, we are forced to take the contemporary usage of the term at face value. Contemporarily, "gay" is not used as an insult toward homosexuals, but as a synonym for "lame". To call it a slur is a misinformed and untenable position.

And what does it mean to call something lame? I provided the definition of lame above. Please point to me the positive connotations that can com form calling something lame, synonims: crippled, handicapped, just like sopmeone with a "lame" brain is an idiot.

[Boris Godunov]

Agathon stated nothing knew, just merely continued to iterate the ignorance of your point of view. What harm is there in calling bad things "gay?" Let's see.

Most of the terms used to describe homosexuals and homosexuality have been biblical, legal, or clinical origins, none very positive: invert, pervert, deviate, pederast, sodomist, sodomite, homosexual... even the word lesbian developed negative connotations over the years, As Donald Webster Cory pointed out in his book, "The Homosexual in America," first published in 1951, "Needed for years was an ordinary, everday matter-of-fact word that could express the concept of homosexuality without glorification or condemnation.

"How, when, and where this word originated, I am unable to say. I have been told by experts it came from the French, and that in France in early as the sixteenth century the homosexualy was called gaie... Psychoanalysts have informed me that their homosexual patients were calling themselves gay in the 1920s, and certainly by the 1930s it was the most common word in use among homosexuals themselves...

Gay! The words serves so many purposes. It is like the Z. of Tchaikovsky's diaries and letters, a secret code that will always be understood by some, never by others. "There was much Z," Tchaikovsky wrote in his diary about a party he attended on April 23, 1884, and the diarist of today would express it in almost the same words: "The party was so very gay!" Not only is correspondence quite safe from being understood in the event of interception, but even conversation can be held in which the homosexuals in a room use a language which they alone understand, but, unlike the situation prevailing were a foreign tongue being spoken, the others present are unaware of their ignorance...

Within homosexual circles, the use of the word is almost universal, but its acceptance is often with reluctance. Some object to its ambiguous meaning, which is precisely what the group has found most advantageous about it. An advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual. Even Lesbian would be an impossible word to use in this connection, hence the femal inverts are beginning to use the word gay, although less frequently than the males....

The homosexual society requires a word like gay so that conversation can be free and unhampered; the fetters of conventional condemnation have not yet relegated this word to the realm of the outlawed nor associated it with a stereotype...

- Out of the Past, by Neil Miller, 1995.

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent ****** and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.

[SnowFire]

I'll agree with the defense crowd that even if the context was different, the usage of "gay" as an insult, even one not related to homosexuals, is not a good thing. That said, isn't a suspension a little harsh? Suspensions should be reserved for serious misbehavior- getting into fights and things like that. This is reprimand-by-teacher worthy, and perhaps a detention if the behavior continues.

I mean, a far simpler method of disrespect, to give this something to compare to, is cursing while talking to a teacher (not cursing AT the teacher). This is hardly something you'll get a medal for, and is horribly rude, but I'd say that a detention is about the max I'd be willing to go for it. And this is just as offensive in a different way.

[GePap]

Kudos to Boris, kudos!

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


I've admitted no such thing, much less a moral authority. My argument is with people who take the moral authority to censor other people's speech because they think it means something it doesn't.

There you go again, wandering into new conversations that don't exist.

I have not said anything about censorship... Oh, wait, I have - I said I don't agree with it. All I've been saying is that people who say this are being rude and inconsiderate. You can be a jack ass all you want, just don't look shocked when someone calls you to it.


And, as far as this specific incident goes, I don't care about it. High schools are probably the most close minded places in our societies, if they are going to censor something it might aswell be this.

[MrFun]

It's amazing how some heterosexuals in this thread claim to know more about what it's like to face discrimination and insults for being gay than homosexuals do.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent ****** and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.

You know someone would have to believe everything that someone called Neil Miller wrote if Boris copied it and posted it in this forum.... That's a point off for plagiarism.

I know "gay" comes from the OFr "gai" but that is merely of historical interest. None of this has given me any reason to reconsider my arguments, since it's a moot point whether the "good" use of the word is being confused by anybody. Now you're annoyed because some spotty teenagers have borrowed the word for their own (hardly nefarious) purposes, even though no sane person could confuse the two. If you are deeply worried about this, given that today's teens are the least homophobic in history then I'm inclined to groan: especially since moaning about it will only encourage the little buggers to use it more.

I bet there are lots of people in this world who can easily see the difference between the teens use of "gay" and the use you describe above. People aren't as dumb as you think - so it would be nice if you gave them a bit more credit.

If a bunch of teens use the term "gay" to describe clothes or records they have a mild or semi-humorous dislike of (repeat: not a strong and virulent contempt for, or willingness to burn, kill or persecute) it must be only a matter of time until society marches all the "deviants" to the plaza and burns them at the stake. Indeed using "gay" to describe Mariah Carey's latest film obviously displays a deep and abiding hatred towards the homosexual community: just like I, when I say that TV is lame these days, express an evil form of disrespect to disabled folk (who use the word just like everyone else does).

[Uncle Sparky]

I think rather then suspend the student, he should have had to write a 500 word essay on the social implications of South Park.

I think chicanery in our schools gyps the students of a good education. How will we ever be able to compete with the gooks then ?

All words depend on the context, too. For example, a person working in the distribution department of a candy manufacturing company might legitimately be a fudge packer...

[Getao321]

lemmie get this straight:


According to this thread, I can tell my mother, my relatives, anyone, to "****" off, or stfu, because in my mind, it's just telling them to "be nice and give me some apple pie please"? Even though it has been known for years, even longer, as a way to tell people in a very rude way to be quiet and leave me alone. But of course, according to my views, it is obviously a nice saying, and my intent is nice, and as such, I am in the clear and everyone else is a bunch of ignorant thought police officers out to stop the evolution of language?


Cool!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

- Out of the Past, by Neil Miller, 1995.

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent ****** and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.

completely agree

And why are there some heterosexuals who think they know more about what it's like to suffer discrimination or insults for being gay than homosexuals?

[GePap]

If a bunch of teens use the term "gay" to describe clothes or records they have a mild or semi-humorous dislike of (repeat: not a strong and virulent contempt for, or willingness to burn, kill or persecute) it must be only a matter of time until society marches all the "deviants" to the plaza and burns them at the stake. Indeed using "gay" to describe Mariah Carey's latest film obviously displays a deep and abiding hatred towards the homosexual community: just like I, when I say that TV is lame these days, express an evil form of disrespect to disabled folk (who use the word just like everyone else does).

Semi-humorous? NOw, what evidence do YOU have about the true intent of its use? You keep avoiding the point, a point Boris's post makes rather clear. as it stands, gay is, besides homsexual, the only word to use when describing individuals with that sexual persuation. Turning that word into a derogatory word (no matter how mild you care to view it) is not somehting that should be encouraged or tolerated. You talk about the "language police", well the fact is we have the right to try to shape usage and meaning, specially if a word is being missused.

You make light of it, but the point is beyond that: should we tolerate this word, which is so completely tied now to homosesual identity to become a derogatory term, and I say no. Clearly, teens will be able to find another word to use. I know, they can use Quizibuck, and finally give Duke Phillips the meaning of it.

Now, does any boy deserve two days suspension for any verbal offense? No, but some punishment was not uncalled for.