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

[Drake Tungsten]

We also, once again, have a case of a word that has been used in such a fashion for a very long time, at least since the 1940s. We're not at the nascent stage of its use as such.

Why does it matter? The implication will always be there and the implication is enough to make it a slur, according to you.

[Drake Tungsten]

Which dictionary is this?

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition

[Asher]

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, tenth edition

Yeah, found it online.

You left out the part about lame meaning "weak and ineffective" since the 14th century.

Hardly makes your case.

[MrFun]

Drake . . . ah, **** it. You have no comprehension of decent respect towards others of a minority group.

You may not ever understand the societal experiences that homosexuals have, but you can at least try to respect how we feel.

[Drake Tungsten]

So if you're using that example, how can you also assert that using "gay" to mean "bad" or "stupid" does not relate to the definition of gay meaning a sexual identity?

I never claimed that the new meaning of "gay" does not derive from "gay" as a sexual label. I claimed not to know how it originated, as did Agathon.

Our point is that the word, no matter how it originated, is independent of "gay" as a sexual label in its current usage. People who use "gay" as a synonym for "lame" don't associate that usage with the seperate usage of "gay" as a sexual label. They have seperate meanings, which is why it is silly to call gay as "lame" a slur...

You guys brought up the historical evolution aspect. You never backed it up either...

[Drake Tungsten]

Hardly makes your case.

My "case" was that lame was originally a word to describe the physically disabled. I think my case was made rather clearly...

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, the original use of "lame" was as a verb, which was to make something lame--in other words, to intentionally hobble it. "Lambaste" has a common root, as it is also a form of attacking something, albeit verbally rather than physically.

At any rate, it's origin was not the noun meaning the disabled. It is still not comparable, since disabled people don't identify themselves as "lame," and the use of it in the other sense is FAR more ubiquitous and common. The opposite is true for "gay," has the gay=homosexual is still by far the most common usage of the word.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
My "case" was that lame was originally a word to describe the physically disabled. I think my case was made rather clearly...

If this is true, I would disapprove of how the word originated.

Alas, I wasn't around in the 14th century.

Today, physically disabled people do not refer to themselves as "lame", while gay people certainly do refer to themselves as "gay".

Therefore, today, it is not offensive to use the term lame to mean weak, or ineffective. It's been an official definition of the word for over 700 years.

It is still offensive to use the word gay to mean bad or stupid, because gay people refer to themselves as gay and have for over 60 years, and it's quite clear that the most likely origin of the insult "gay" derives from the sexuality.

PS: I like how you avoided my post about your "lame" counterexample proving our point about the origins of "gay" as an insult...

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, the original use of "lame" was as a verb, which was to make something lame--in other words, to intentionally hobble it.

No it wasn't. The verb form came about in the 14th century, according to my dictionary.

At any rate, it's origin was not the noun meaning the disabled.

Yes it was, according to the dictionary. This meaning originated before the 12th century.

[Drake Tungsten]

Alas, I wasn't around in the 14th century.

The "weak and ineffectual" meaning is not the same as the slang meaning of "a person who is not in the know".

Therefore, today, it is not offensive to use the term lame to mean weak, or ineffective. It's been an official definition of the word for over 700 years.

Again, the "weak and ineffective" meaning is not the same as the modern slang meaning. The slang meaning is used for things that are uncool or "square". Your use of the different meaning as interchangable is disingenous...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The "weak and ineffectual" meaning is not the same as the slang meaning of "a person who is not in the know".

Of course, but I have no idea why you bring that up.

For this entire thread I've been referring to the word lame as "weak" or "ineffective" (ie: that's a lame argument), not a synonym for "square" like the 1959-definition in your websters...

Again, the "weak and ineffective" meaning is not the same as the modern slang meaning. The slang meaning is used for things that are uncool or "square". Your use of the different meaning as interchangable is disingenous...

I've been using "weak" and "ineffective" for this entire thread, for some reason you want to make me use the synonym for "square" definition so you can say it came from 1959.

It's not going to work.

In fact, I've used the VERY specific words "weak" and "ineffective" many times in this thread, and never once used "person not in the know" or "square". That was all you, buddy.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Actually, the original use of "lame" was as a verb, which was to make something lame--in other words, to intentionally hobble it.

No it wasn't. The verb form came about in the 14th century, according to my dictionary.

It was derived from the old Norse "lemja," which = "to beat"

Well this has been a fascinating etymological discussion, but nevertheless the point stands that the "lame" comparison doesn't work.

Now, the "jew" comparison DOES work, and now that you and Agathon have danced around that one for 25 pages, perhaps you'd finally like to answer:

Would it be okay for a kid to use Jew as a synonym for stingy or a cheat in school? Should it be tolerated?

Would make any sense to say, if non-Jews up and decided to make "Jew" into a new word that meant "cheat," claimed it had no relation to the old meaning of "Jew," and having a different intent, and then went around saying it everywhere, that Jews are somehow wrong to be offended by that?

Once again, how are you defining "logic," since your side would inevitably lead to the conclusion that Jews should just roll over and accept their group moniker being transformed into a word meaning something terrible?

[Drake Tungsten]

Now, the "jew" comparison DOES work, and now that you and Agathon have danced around that one for 25 pages, perhaps you'd finally like to answer

I answered it a long time ago. Go back and read it.

[Drake Tungsten]

For this entire thread I've been referring to the word lame as "weak" or "ineffective" (ie: that's a lame argument), not a synonym for "square" like the 1959-definition in your websters...

Well no wonder you haven't been making any sense. You didn't even know what version of "lame" we were referring to when we said "gay" is a synonym for "lame"...

You need to get out more, Asher.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well no wonder you haven't been making any sense. You didn't even know what version of "lame" we were referring to when we said "gay" is a synonym for "lame"...

You need to get out more, Asher.

Why would I need to get out more because I use a valid form of the word and didn't read your mind?

I've never used "lame" to mean "square" or "person not in the know" in my life.

I've ALWAYS used it to mean "weak" or "ineffective".

How was I to know that you meant it as a synonym for "square"... In fact, I've defined "lame" to be "weak" and "ineffective" numerous times in this thread, and you did not do so until just now for being a synonym of square. So it's your fault we're not discussing the same word.

The only great thing about this thread is it's so enjoyable to watch you sink to new lows, and keep coming back to try to claw your way to the top, only to fall lower...