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

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
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.

Most of the quote was from Donald Cory, whom Miller was citing. Point off for careful reading.

You're still blithely ignoring other arguments and persisting in your own nonsense. Why bother arguing with people when you plainly just want to see your own stuff in writing?

It's pretty obvious, to thinking people, why using gay in that connotation is going to be problematic for homosexuals. When first meeting people in any social situation, it becomes an instant issue. Your argument about intent being all that matters is stupid, because most listeners can't gauge intent so easily. Your own preconceptions may give it this innocuous intent you want it to have, but that obviously does not hold true for many people. Interpretation is indeed vastly important, since language is pretty damned difficult without it.

When I first meet someone in a social situation, I have no idea what his attitudes towards homosexuals are (assuming non-gay venues, of course). For every person who doesn't care about gays, there's another who dislikes/hates them, for whatever reason, and views them as something less than fully people. So when I hear a stranger shout out that something is gay, which am I to believe this person is? How do I know his intent? Perhaps he's one of the blithely unthinking who says such things...or perhaps he's another Aaron McKinney.

Why the **** should I risk dealing with a person who could potentially loathe what I am in this instance? Especially since he might be one of the bastards who would do something more than just express disgust. Considering the times I and others I know have been the target of attacks, what reason do I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially if, in the most extreme case, that benefit could end in my being pistol-whipped to death?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the innocuous claim. For every kid who's using it as such, there's another who probably takes delight in making derogatory remarks against homosexuals. Unless you're going to deny the intense homophobia that still permeates school environments (which wouldn't be a wise idea), you can't deny that the use of "gay" in any negative context is still going to be a source of hurt and intimidation for gay students, however subtle it may seem to be.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by 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?

In short, as things stand, my position is no. This is a long thread - don't torment yourself by reading the whole lot.

Semi-humorous? NOw, what evidence do YOU have about the true intent of its use?

The usual - hearing people use it in context. Besides my view is not the one in the dock here. In a liberal society the burden of proof is on the censors. I've already agreed that unless there is some decent empirical research on the matter the issue cannot be decided. I think that's a fair attitude to take - if the evidence came out against me I'd happily retract my claim. But Boris, et al. are in the same boat: they don't have the requisite evidence either - just what I have: personal experience and hypotheses. That's why this debate is basically dead in the water and has been for a while. Of course this doesn't sit well with them since the burden of proof is on the censors.

So far we have established that they are offended by it. But so what? You need to say more than that to justify a ban. If we banned everything that people were offended by purely on the grounds of offence it would produce ridiculous results.

[GePap]

A basic question about language:

How can intent ever be drawn out, except from context clues, other than by the agreed upon meaning of thwe word? We use language cause we can't read minds. We develop common usage, becuase otherwise all meaning is lost, if no single definition of one word is agreed upon. What else is there but how it was heard? how it was heard defines its meaning.

I could honestly, honestly believe that by calling a complete stranger in a very neutral voice (and thus removing context clues) a buddy by saying "hey, you motherfvcking imbicile!", but could I honestly expect the stranger to understand my meaning? How can you possibly garner the intent of what was said, if the only way you have to acertain it, again, besides context clues, is by asking someone what they meant? And in a situation were your answer about what you meant makes the difference between punishment and nothing, how could one trust the answer to be true?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Most of the quote was from Donald Cory, whom Miller was citing. Point off for careful reading.

Touche

You're still blithely ignoring other arguments and persisting in your own nonsense. Why bother arguing with people when you plainly just want to see your own stuff in writing?

Hardly, I've read your arguments and I find them wanting. I've told you why and if you can't come up with anything better, that's your fault, not mine.

It's pretty obvious, to thinking people, why using gay in that connotation is going to be problematic for homosexuals. When first meeting people in any social situation, it becomes an instant issue. Your argument about intent being all that matters is stupid, because most listeners can't gauge intent so easily.

Yes we can and we do all the time. The only time we can't is when we are being paranoid.

Your own preconceptions may give it this innocuous intent you want it to have, but that obviously does not hold true for many people. Interpretation is indeed vastly important, since language is pretty damned difficult without it.

But it isn't a major hurdle - and I've pointed out that allowing the interpreter to own the meaning results in a ridiculous view of how language works.

When I first meet someone in a social situation, I have no idea what his attitudes towards homosexuals are (assuming non-gay venues, of course).

If I meet a teenager who tells me that he thinks Mariah Carey is "gay" all I have to do is ask him what he thinks of homosexuals.

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the innocuous claim. For every kid who's using it as such, there's another who probably takes delight in making derogatory remarks against homosexuals.

If someone wants to make derogatory remarks about homosexuals they aren't going to use that word in that sense. Because that's not what it means. If they want to be understood they have to use a stronger word.

Unless you're going to deny the intense homophobia that still permeates school environments (which wouldn't be a wise idea), you can't deny that the use of "gay" in any negative context is still going to be a source of hurt and intimidation for gay students, however subtle it may seem to be.

As I said before, if people are going to be intimidated because they (mistakenly) think they are being showered with the mild derision usually reserved for unfashionable clothes then I think the problem lies elsewhere.

Anyway, that's enough from me - you can have the last word if you like. This is getting nowhere in terms of argument. As I said I don't use the word (I'm too old for a start), and I don't feel antagonistic towards homosexuals or wish to see them beaten up or punished by God or anything like that. If this thread continues it looks to me as if it is just going to degenerate into worse name calling and insults and attract the attention of the Merciless One or one of his cohorts (this page seems to be starting to get that way). I don't see any point in this because it looks like we will continue to disagree and neither of us has enough independent evidence to convince the other.

So no hard feelings from my side anyway.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap
A basic question about language:

How can intent ever be drawn out, except from context clues, other than by the agreed upon meaning of thwe word? We use language cause we can't read minds. We develop common usage, becuase otherwise all meaning is lost, if no single definition of one word is agreed upon. What else is there but how it was heard? how it was heard defines its meaning.

OK - one last thing on this point since it is a general point about language and unlikely to produce howls of outrage.

My answer is that its use determines its meaning. E.g. we use certain terms to denote things and there is a shared norm as to which ones are used for which. In fact there is basically broad agreement over meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to interpret enigmatic utterances - this is because when you say something ambiguous I know what sort of questions to ask you in order to disambiguate your usage. Usage is nice and neutral between speaker and hearer because the normal case (i.e. the vast majority of communication) occurs when transmission of the thought occurs flawlessly. If we made meaning dependent on the hearer alone then there wouldn't be any way of formulating the notion of misunderstanding since that is precisely when the speaker's meaning isn't picked up by the hearer even though what the speaker said may have perfectly meaningful.

There's a lot of thinking behind my view of language and I won't bore you with the rest, so that's enough.

I could honestly, honestly believe that by calling a complete stranger in a very neutral voice (and thus removing context clues) a buddy by saying "hey, you motherfvcking imbicile!", but could I honestly expect the stranger to understand my meaning? How can you possibly garner the intent of what was said, if the only way you have to acertain it, again, besides context clues, is by asking someone what they meant? And in a situation were your answer about what you meant makes the difference between punishment and nothing, how could one trust the answer to be true?

In verbal communication tone and gesture are actually part of fixing the meaning. That's why, as everyone knows, we have more trouble understanding people over the phone or (worse) through email. I don't buy into views which make communication mysterious since it successful communication is the norm and we actually don't ruminate over interpreting most of the utterances we hear. Of course the exceptions are really important to us like my old favourites, "Would you like to come up for a cup of coffee?" or "would you like to come back to my place?"

I think I'd understand you if you called me that (weird that Apolyton censors the I-word), although I'd be puzzled at your tone of voice, since our conventions on insulting people are that we do it loudly or sarcastically, etc.

Anyway, if someone wanted to start up a "nature of language" thread I suppose a few hard bitten people could contribute (and bore others to death).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
Hardly, I've read your arguments and I find them wanting. I've told you why and if you can't come up with anything better, that's your fault, not mine.

And I've explained why your own arguments hold no merit, and yet you just reiterate them as if they did...

Yes we can and we do all the time. The only time we can't is when we are being paranoid.

Malarky. If guaging intent was so easy, there'd be a lot less friction in this world. I can think of at least a dozen examples offhand from this very board where the intent of a poster was misinterpreted by many, if not most readers.

But it isn't a major hurdle - and I've pointed out that allowing the interpreter to own the meaning results in a ridiculous view of how language works.

It is far more ludicrous to assert the speaker owns the intent. I could arbitrarily decide to change the meanings of the words "******," "kyke" and "wop" to mean something totally different. If I then went around using them casually, would it be the fault of listeners if they got offended? If I decide to start using "Jew" in place of "stingy," without intendind any offense to Jews, then do Jews have no cause to be offended? That's simply ludicrous.

If I meet a teenager who tells me that he thinks Mariah Carey is "gay" all I have to do is ask him what he thinks of homosexuals.

Not being a homosexual, you don't realize that this isn't as easy for gays as you make it sound.

If someone wants to make derogatory remarks about homosexuals they aren't going to use that word in that sense. Because that's not what it means. If they want to be understood they have to use a stronger word.

Oh bull****. This is patently stupid. What ignorant bigot is thinking "well, even though my friends use 'gay' commonly to mean something not associated with homosexuals, I won't use it that way, because I don't want them to confuse my saying that with my expressing my contempt for homosexuals." Come on, this is the most ridiculous assertion made yet in this thread.

As I said before, if people are going to be intimidated because they (mistakenly) think they are being showered with the mild derision usually reserved for unfashionable clothes then I think the problem lies elsewhere.

Once again, if people don't know the intent and beliefs of the speaker, they are being safe rather than sorry to assume the more negative connotation and avoiding people who say such things. Your lack of empathy with gays in this regard is rather baffling. Seeing as how you weren't a gay teen exposed to this kind of thing, it is pretty condescending to tell me I was just overreacting and being paranoid when I would hear such things and get a knot of fear in my stomach.

You really need to try and see it from the perspective of a closeted gay kid who is terrified of being outed to understand why such usage really does carry a hurtful impact.

[Asher]

Agathon, is this debate representative of the kind of crap that goes on with philosophy professors in today's public universities?

If so, I may have to bump that old thread with a new exhibit.

I mean, clearly, this has no grounding in reality and you're just blowing a bunch of hot air of what people are allowed to be offended by.

It's complete bull****, and you know it, but you're so used to dealing with other people who will agree with your bull**** that you have no idea how baseless it is.

[Jarvin]

Isnt this cencorship really getting out of hand? He wasnt actually harrassing an outed homosexual, so if he used the word gay in a negative way that's really just his opinion. Last time i checked people were allowed their own opinions, even if they dont agree with the PC crowd.

Since when did free speech only apply to minorities?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jarvin
Isnt this cencorship really getting out of hand? He wasnt actually harrassing an outed homosexual

So?
He's insulting homosexuals in general by using "gay" as a slam against something, equating the identity with "lame" or "bad".

so if he used the word gay in a negative way that's really just his opinion. Last time i checked people were allowed their own opinions, even if they dont agree with the PC crowd.

Since when did free speech only apply to minorities?

So it'd be okay for a white boy to express his opinion that all "******s" work as slaves, as long as he's not harassing a black person in specific, in a public school?

[GePap]

Just as with drake, there is a basic point of view that i find at best idfficult to understand:

You admit that the use of "gay" in this circumstance is negative, only you state that the virulence of it is low, if any, so even if its derogatory, its is just lightly derogatory but that's OK. Well, the fact is that it is derogatory and no matter how mildly or not a pseaker intents it to be, it remains derogatory.

Maybe some kids don;t really mean it, but the fact is that i hardly see actually gay people, or those that are non-homophobic use it. The times I hear it, it has always been said by people who also have an open distrust or disgust of homosexuality, and keeping the phrase around only makes it worse.

You keep saying language chnages: yes, yes it does, and we can pu active pressure on it to make certain "changes" not happen, like turnign "that's gay" into an acceptable term. I am sure the kids are quite capable of coming up with a term for the though that is not offensive to any sinificant group, much like, I don;t know, saying : that's stupid.

And no, there is no large "stupid lobby" out there (knowing this board, insert political group here).

[Uncle Sparky]

But seriously though-

I have black friends that use the term ******; gay friends who call each other *** and queer; a 1st nations friend of mine uses the word squaw.

If you were to throw a pointy white sheet over your head and hurl these words at people, many would consider you to be non PC, or worse.

However, if you use them in the company of friends, are you doing anything wrong?

Some words, like chicanery and gyp have remained as an accepted part of the English language, though they started as slurs. Gay used to mean "happy". It was co-opted in the 1960's to mean homosexual. If society decides over time to attribute another meaning to it, so be it. Being over 40, I don't understand most lyrics in hip hop...and I don't care !

English is a living language.

Do you feel that if someone uses the words chicanery or gypped, they should be punished?

If not, why do you hate Mexican Americans & Romany ???!!! Bigot !!!!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Gay used to mean "happy". It was co-opted in the 1960's to mean homosexual.

How many times do I have to prove this wrong?

Homosexuals were using the term "gay" to refer to themselves commonly in the 1930s. The usage of "gay" for homosexuals was NOT immediately derived from the meaning of gay to be "happy." It is many orders removed from any such meaning.

[Uncle Sparky]

The word 'gay' for homosexual male came into general usage in the late '60's. Prior to this, 'gay' was used by the majority of the public as a synonym for "happy".

Tomorrow, it might mean something altogether different.

Chicanery used to specifically mean what was then thought of as typical thieving and unscrupulous behavior by Chicanos. The ethnic slur attached to the word has faded, and chicanery is commonly used, without consequence.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
The word 'gay' for homosexual male came into general usage in the late '60's. Prior to this, 'gay' was used by the majority of the public as a synonym for "happy".

It only came into general usage for the general public...gays had been using it for decades. That isn't "co-opting" anything.

And again, it isn't directly derived from "gay = happy."

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


How many times do I have to prove this wrong?

Homosexuals were using the term "gay" to refer to themselves commonly in the 1930s. The usage of "gay" for homosexuals was NOT immediately derived from the meaning of gay to be "happy." It is many orders removed from any such meaning.

Seriously, what is it derived from, if not "happy"?

Teach me something.


ACK!