BBC says "gay" is OK!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
My idiot roommate has a confederate flag flying in his room.

What a numbskull.

Flying? What, does he have a fan in front of it?

[Drake Tungsten]

Damn, only 105 posts. I had higher hopes for this thread based on its early pace...

[Sikander]

It just goes to show that no one owns words, though there are plenty of hypocrits out there who mindfully appropriate established words only to change the meaning, and then cry like stuck pigs when someone else does the same thing.

With so many anti-disestablishment-re-deconstrunctionists out there doing their best to change the meanings of words in order to make their typically lame arguments sound reasonable (or at least confuse the issue) we are left with intent rather than content as the final arbiter meaning. Good luck intuiting that.

[Asher]

It just goes to show that no one owns words, though there are plenty of hypocrits out there who mindfully appropriate established words only to change the meaning, and then cry like stuck pigs when someone else does the same thing.

"Gay" first obtained sexual connotations in the 1600s.

By the time "gay" became an insult, in the late 1980s/1990s, it was very clearly a word that was mainly indicative of homosexuality. The insult was to call something homosexual. That is insulting, intent or not -- it has detrimental effects to an overly homophobic society, intent or not. In the most homophobic aspects of society -- jr. high and high schools -- it is most rampant as an insult.

I cannot believe you can be as sincerely stupid to call people "hypocrits" and insinuate "they" changed the meaning of a word centuries ago and therefore "they" can't whine when people use a descriptive term of their sexuality as a casual insult.

Your post, right there, shows what's insulting about this whole thing. You have no clue whatsoever the ramifications of using the word "gay" as an insult, and the fact that you've even tried to justify what's happening because "they" changed the meaning centuries ago is incredibly insulting to me, personally, and I'd hope to the intelligence of most people reading this thread.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Asher

"Gay" first obtained sexual connotations in the 1600s.

By the time "gay" became an insult, in the late 1980s/1990s, it was very clearly a word that was mainly indicative of homosexuality. The insult was to call something homosexual. That is insulting, intent or not -- it has detrimental effects to an overly homophobic society, intent or not. In the most homophobic aspects of society -- jr. high and high schools -- it is most rampant as an insult.

I cannot believe you can be as sincerely stupid to call people "hypocrits" and insinuate "they" changed the meaning of a word centuries ago and therefore "they" can't whine when people use a descriptive term of their sexuality as a casual insult.

Your post, right there, shows what's insulting about this whole thing. You have no clue whatsoever the ramifications of using the word "gay" as an insult, and the fact that you've even tried to justify what's happening because "they" changed the meaning centuries ago is incredibly insulting to me, personally, and I'd hope to the intelligence of most people reading this thread.

I'm not talking about one word in particular, merely commenting on the fact that those who purposefully engage in redefining the language for political advantage are often same people who scream racism / sexism / heterosexism / bigotry at the drop of a hat whenever they don't get their way in a language debate. (I don't include you in that description btw, from my observation you are pretty forthright and don't tend to have a pc police temperment.) I simply find the irony delicious, that those "right thinkers" who would dictate to everyone else how to speak are powerless to stop teenagers from creating their own terminology when what they inherit is too sterile to properly express their feelings.

This is an organic change in the language, no pressure group re-created it or tried to enforce this usage. As such it meets a demand, whatever you feel about that demand and its implications for society. I'd rather see people face the implications of the re-definition rather than getting caught up in a race to prove their own subgroup's power / victimhood cred. by creating a long list of what one cannot say. They're only words, it's what's behind them that matter.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sava


STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT WORDS WILL NEVER HURT ME

So Sava, you feel that all libel laws and legislation relating to slander should be scrapped too ?

They's jes' words, after all...

And if words didn't hurt, then why would religions get so hot under the collective dog collars about words relating to bodily functions and sex and G-d (for all my observant Jewish friends, ) ?

Why might Jews object to being called derogatory names, or Romanies, or African Americans or Chinese, or Japanese ?

To belittle someone or a group of people by referring to them by an insulting term is just the beginning in a process of dehumanisation, whether it's in the playground, changing room, or in society. The message it sends is that they are:

not equal to us (the majority)

different, therefore bad

less than a complete citizen.

Jews were called marranos in Catholic Reconquista Spain- not a term meant as a compliment. In British English, you can 'jew someone down'- another uncomplimentary phrase, although thankfully it seems to be dying out.

In North America you have similarly charming words and phrases denoting the racial origins of people and the supposed drawbacks or deficiencies pertaining to them- ****, sheeny, wetback, spic, and so on. Even a slight familiarity with 20th Century politics and racist ideologies would serve to acquaint you with the power of words to inculcate hate, fear and enmity. Unless of course you think that kulak and chetnik for instance, are simply neutral and lacking in any resonance...

Similarly, we belittle women- if a thing is bad, it's because it's girly, or womanish, or a chick flick, or a person's a *****, a hag, or even a c-nt.

I look forward to you greeting your fellow citizens on a daily basis Sava, by the unpleasant racist names habitually doled out to them.

Stock up on your health insurance first, though...

[MrFun]

The "sticks and bones" line is of course, false bull****.

[Lorizael]

Really? I don't think anyone here at Apolyton could say anything that would offend me. And I'm a Jew, so it's not difficult to find offensive material about me.

[Jon Miller]

umm, chick flick doesn't mean that it is bad

it means that it deals with emotions and drama, which generally girls find more appealing then guys to

it is sort of similiar to saying that something is a summer action flick

Jon Miller

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Really? I don't think anyone here at Apolyton could say anything that would offend me. And I'm a Jew, so it's not difficult to find offensive material about me.

Mr Fun is more fun than you are.

(Did that work?)

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by duke o' york


Mr Fun is more fun than you are.

(Did that work?)

Nah. Most people on Apolyon get a kick out of the fact that MrFun's name is ironic, and that's... fun. Most peope on Apolyton don't really know that I exist, so I'm not fun at all, really. This post is entirely serious, btw.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sikander
They're only words, it's what's behind them that matter.

Yep, but if "what's behind them" is the implication that being gay is an insult, that is an insult on a larger scale than the person you're using the word against.

[chequita guevara]

Let's say you have a buddy named Joe. Let's say, that you're an ******* and when you do something stupid, you say "you Joe'd it up." Should Joe not take that as an insult?

[duke o' york]

All people called Joe should!

[Dauphin]

People are always claiming to be Frank when they really want to tell someone that they're useless. People called Frank should complain about that insult.