How Gay Is That?

[INTerloPer]

Thought this would be a good place to bitch about the bastardization of language, specifically the term 'gay'. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight. So how did 'gay' become a catch-all derogatory comment, the antithesis of cool? Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the niggardly practice of verbal abuse.

[Division56]

I told the last person who called me gay, without knowing I was gay, because of some slight to "suck the shit out of my ass, mother fucker."

Then he called me a faggot.

But it was still fun. Being the bigger person is so passe.

[mgb]

It's been around for a while...I don't think the "gays" invented it. So I'd say for the sake of argument it's become more of a catch all in the sense of being a slang term. In a sense, maybe it's continually evolving, in the same way that niggardly doesn't have anything to do with African Americans at all.


gay

adj 1: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile" [syn: cheery, sunny] 2: full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry laughter"; "a mirthful laugh" [syn: jocund, jolly, jovial, merry, mirthful] 3: given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies" 4: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "`braw' is a Scottish word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage" [syn: brave, braw] 5: offering fun and gaiety; "a gala ball after the inauguration"; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and exciting night life"; "a merry evening" [syn: gala(a), festal, festive, merry] 6: homosexual or arousing homosexual desires [syn: queer, homophile(a)] n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homosexual, homo]

[Geoff]

Gay means 'jolly', and a faggot is a meatball in an onion gravy, right?

-Geoff

[melancholeric]

Meatball in an onion gravy? I thought it's a cigarette.

And I love them.

[Division56]

Gay means 'jolly', and a faggot is a meatball in an onion gravy, right?

-Geoff

Welcome to America.

*chuckles with interloper because everyone knows all brits are fags*

[Geoff]

Meatball in an onion gravy? I thought it's a cigarette.

And I love them.

No,no, a cigarette is a fag. A fag is also a private schoolboy used by elder private schoolbodys for various unmentionable and menial tasks. Does that make you wonder if that has something to do with the more common 'American' meaning of fag? Yeah, me too.

A meatball in onion gravy is a faggot.

-Geoff

[INTerloPer]

I have no issue with the word gay being used to describe someone as happy or care-free. It is only when it is applied in a vaguely insulting sense that I get my panties in a twist. I understand that most people who use it as a negative term are not homophobic, but are simply using the first word supplied by their brians. Fortunately, speaking is a volitional action, so watch your diction.

[melancholeric]

Ok, I stand corrected. The words have the same origin and partially the same meaning, so I confused them. I still love them.

Fags, that is. I'm going to have one now. I'll try faggots some day...

[Geoff]

Ok, I stand corrected. The words have the same origin and partially the same meaning, so I confused them. I still love them.

Fags, that is. I'm going to have one now. I'll try faggots some day...

Well, you might (as a Brit) want to pop out for a quick fag. But you are unlikely to eat one.

Similarly you probably dont want to set fire to a faggot.

Edit : on second thoughts you might. A faggot is also a piece of firewood...

-Geoff

[meshou]

Thought this would be a good place to bitch about the bastardization of language, specifically the term 'gay'. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight. So how did 'gay' become a catch-all derogatory comment, the antithesis of cool? Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the niggardly practice of verbal abuse.Hey, there. Liberal Texan here. There are quite a few of us, you know, and media stereotypes are hardly accurate. But what with the flannel and drunken bear hockey you crazy may make that hard to remember. Oh you crazy Canucks!

As for the whole "this is gay" thing, uuuh... I don't use it, and almost nothing offends me. If there are two groups who do care and they wanna duke it out, have fun. Wake me when it becomes an argument over actual rights instead of pedantics.

[songbird36]

Thought this would be a good place to bitch about the bastardization of language, specifically the term 'gay'. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight. So how did 'gay' become a catch-all derogatory comment, the antithesis of cool? Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the niggardly practice of verbal abuse.

Well this must be a cultural difference. In New Zealand "gay" is not a derogatory term - rather it is the label that homosexuals actually prefer for themselves (rather than queer or suchlike).

During the recent Parliamentary debates on the Civil Union Bill in NZ in which gay couples were to obtain legal recognition of their relationship, the word "gay" was used freely and liberally by politicians and officials in discussion of the issues.

[Division56]

Well this must be a cultural difference. In New Zealand "gay" is not a derogatory term - rather it is the label that homosexuals actually prefer for themselves (rather than queer or suchlike).

During the recent Parliamentary debates on the Civil Union Bill in NZ in which gay couples were to obtain legal recognition of their relationship, the word "gay" was used freely and liberally by politicians and officials in discussion of the issues.

It is here too, but we are speaking of another use.


Such as:

That stupid Tv is so gay.

That dog is so gay.

Cheetos squares are so gay.

ect...

[songbird36]

Low brow Americans eh - we would never use the term gay in those contexts here. Perhaps we're generally more PC.

lol

[melancholeric]

Well, you might (as a Brit) want to pop out for a quick fag. But you are unlikely to eat one.

Similarly you probably dont want to set fire to a faggot.

Edit : on second thoughts you might. A faggot is also a piece of firewood...

-Geoff
I thought it (both fag & faggot) originally meant a stick of fire. The catholic church used to burn homosexuals at the stake, so it eventually became an insulting word for homosexual. The cigarette meaning originates from the stick of fire aswell.

I might be wrong though.

[mgb]

But how is someone saying, "That stupid TV is so gay." Offensive to you?

Clearly the TV can't be gay (maybe the dog can, who knows). While I can agree that the origins of the description in this case might be from a homophobic context, it has probably become more of a catch-all to describe an unfortunate event, which is similar to it's origins in an oxymoronic sense.

[songbird36]

Faggot is used as a very derogatory terms for gays here.

Usually by brash, homophobic rugby players.

[Division56]

Faggot is used as a very derogatory terms for gays here.

Usually by brash, homophobic rugby players.


Internalized homophobia...

[MacGuffin]

This thread is gay.

[Division56]

This thread is gay.

What a fag...

[MacGuffin]

If I am a fag I request to be hand rolled on the smooth thighs of virgins.

[songbird36]

There was a ground-breaking play called "Foreskin's Lament" written in the 1970's (and compulsory reading in most secondary school English curricula when I was growing up) which lampooned the homophobic rugby culture prevailing in New Zealand at the time.

Strangely enough that play probably did more for gay rights in NZ than any single political policy, and paved the way for homosexual law reform in 1980 where we decriminalised gay sex.

[Shai Gar]

bloody ganemeads

[Kotuku]

There was a ground-breaking play called "Foreskin's Lament" written in the 1970's (and compulsory reading in most secondary school English curricula when I was growing up) which lampooned the homophobic rugby culture prevailing in New Zealand at the time.

Strangely enough that play probably did more for gay rights in NZ than any single political policy, and paved the way for homosexual law reform in 1980 where we decriminalised gay sex.

:blink: hmmm,... you learn a new thing every day,..... I must have been at one of the schools where it wasn't compulsory reading,....
I'd heard of the name of the play,.. but I never actually knew what it was about.....

[Geoff]

Hey we just in the UK introduced the Civil partnership Act. Now same sex couples can be married. I am busy writing some notes on the taxation of married same sex couples in fact...

That law is Gay.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Hey we just in the UK introduced the Civil partnership Act. Now same sex couples can be married. I am busy writing some notes on the taxation of married same sex couples in fact...

That law is Gay.

-Geoff

Well I hope they're not being treated any differently for tax purposes than married heterosexual couples (taking into account any absence of dependent children, of course).

[Geoff]

Well I hope they're not being treated any differently for tax purposes than married heterosexual couples (taking into account any absence of dependent children, of course).

Well that's the idea, but I am busy working out the downsides as well as the ups.

For example, a married heterosexual couples are 'connected' so that if they own shares in two different companies those companies are treated as associated (which is usually not a good thing). This new law means that same sex 'married' couples have this new problem to contend with.

So I may be required to talk to some same sex couples who are clients of mine to help them decide what the downsides may be as well as the ups.

Largely they get the benefits though (like being able to leave a pension to the other partner as as if they were a regular widow(er)).

That's all good I think.

-Geoff

[Division56]

Well I hope they're not being treated any differently for tax purposes than married heterosexual couples (taking into account any absence of dependent children, of course).

One of the conservative's arguments in the US is that gay marriage will cost the government millions.

How?

Because the government can go tax crazy on gay couples when a spouse dies, since they are not protected under marriage law...

[Geoff]

One of the conservative's arguments in the US is that gay marriage will cost the government millions.

How?

Because the government can go tax crazy on gay couples when a spouse dies, since they are not protected under marriage law...

Yep, it will cost the UK government money. Gifts to a UK spouse are free from inheritance taxes when the first of the two of them die. Gay couples now are able to do that and it will certainly cost a lot of money to the UK government in lost taxes (up to 40% of the estate of the first one to die, in fact).

I dont think they have much choice under the Human Rights Act, anyway.

-Geoff

[songbird36]

One of the conservative's arguments in the US is that gay marriage will cost the government millions.

How?

Because the government can go tax crazy on gay couples when a spouse dies, since they are not protected under marriage law...

In NZ gay couples now get rights of survivorship to the other's estate on death. I think the USA is a bit behind other jurisdictions on this issue.

[Geoff]

In NZ gay couples now get rights of survivorship to the other's estate on death. I think the USA is a bit behind other jurisdictions on this issue.

Well I suspect it is more to do with the tax exemption than who inherits the estate - the tax isnt relevant to New Zealand, as you dont have inheritance tax at all (I believe)!

-Geoff

[ppc]

Thought this would be a good place to bitch about the bastardization of language, specifically the term 'gay'. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight. So how did 'gay' become a catch-all derogatory comment, the antithesis of cool? Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the niggardly practice of verbal abuse.

The funny thing is you are the only person who is getting all worked up about it. What you are doing is a waste of time and useless. It's time you got over the fact that people like to in your terms "abuse language" and it is time you started worrying about the actual intent of what is said.

Why would I care at all if someone who was completely ok with homosexuals and gay marriage and being ok with everyone said "damn this movie turned out really gay(bad/stupid/lame/whatever)?"

I am one of these people who uses the term in that manner and I am not a homophobe - I am all for "gay rights" and homosexual people getting married if they want to and making every state recognize it. The funny thing is you understand that yet continue to get all emotional about the fact someone used xyz word and you are still stuck on the meaning of a slang term from 20 years ago. The world has moved on, you should too.

[songbird36]

Well I suspect it is more to do with the tax exemption than who inherits the estate - the tax isnt relevant to New Zealand, as you dont have inheritance tax at all (I believe)!

-Geoff

Ah well I think we still do have some estate duties. But it's quite a high threshold I believe (over about $500,000 or it may even be higher than that).

[Division56]

The funny thing is you are the only person who is getting all worked up about it. What you are doing is a waste of time and useless. It's time you got over the fact that people like to in your terms "abuse language" and it is time you started worrying about the actual intent of what is said.

Why would I care at all if someone who was completely ok with homosexuals and gay marriage and being ok with everyone said "damn this movie turned out really gay(bad/stupid/lame/whatever)?"

I am one of these people who uses the term in that manner and I am not a homophobe - I am all for "gay rights" and homosexual people getting married if they want to and making every state recognize it. The funny thing is you understand that yet continue to get all emotional about the fact someone used xyz word and you are still stuck on the meaning of a slang term from 20 years ago. The world has moved on, you should too.

Well, excuse me. Things like this don't seem big, but they build up. You don't notice them, why would you? But when you are constantly reminded how you live on the edge of society it does take a toll.

Gay teens don't have a 3x higher suicide rate for nothing.

[mgb]

Well, excuse me. Things like this don't seem big, but they build up. You don't notice them, why would you? But when you are constantly reminded how you live on the edge of society it does take a toll.

Gay teens don't have a 3x higher suicide rate for nothing.

I still don't get why an off the cuff remark about a TV would get to someone. I would have said the higher suicide rate is the result of pressure from family and friends.

You can't blame someone saying that square cheetos are gay for a suicide.

And again, it might take its toll, but a pedantic description of the word gay shows that using it in a descriptive context isn't out of line.

[CapnEnnui]

The funny thing is you are the only person who is getting all worked up about it. What you are doing is a waste of time and useless. It's time you got over the fact that people like to in your terms "abuse language" and it is time you started worrying about the actual intent of what is said.

Why would I care at all if someone who was completely ok with homosexuals and gay marriage and being ok with everyone said "damn this movie turned out really gay(bad/stupid/lame/whatever)?"

I am one of these people who uses the term in that manner and I am not a homophobe - I am all for "gay rights" and homosexual people getting married if they want to and making every state recognize it. The funny thing is you understand that yet continue to get all emotional about the fact someone used xyz word and you are still stuck on the meaning of a slang term from 20 years ago. The world has moved on, you should too.

Learn a more clever word. Really, "gay" is the dumbest, least original word to call something that isn't gay. Using "gay" in that way shows contempt for homosexuals, whether you actually have it or not. It's too bad words offend and hurt people, but they do, and being a prick to them for being offended isn't going to help. It's like calling something "chink" or "nigger," it's derogatory to the entire group you're inferring is negative in some way. "Actual intent" or not, you're essentially using the word in a negative way that implies being gay is negative.

[coffeezombie]

I don't think it always shows "contempt." If someone says something is "gay" it could mean that it is a stereotypical trait that they think gays might exhibit, yet still have no problem with gay people at all. Nevertheless, stereotypes are harmful in and of themselves.

[ppc]

Or maybe it's because they do in fact "live on the edge of society"?

No it couldn't be that... How would it even be possible to live on the edge of society and NOT be reminded of it?? That isn't even in my mind possible. To be on the edge you have to actually BE ON THE EDGE. If you were "normal" like everyone else you wouldn't exactly live on the edge by definition.

Try to not get all worked up and emotional just because you are gay - look at this rationaly. If you re-read my post you should understand that people like me who use the term in a "fun" matter and the rest of society these days, typically, don't hate you and accept you for what you are yet you still get all worked up over the actual word itself and could care less about the intent. Meaning if I called you a fag and you were my best friend you would throw a fit but if I was just some person off the street and said hey buddy but in my mind I was thinking oh god it's another fucking dick sucking faggot queer that I hate - you would be more worried about what I said to you which is a waste of time and stupid.

[mgb]

It's like calling something "chink" or "nigger," it's derogatory to the entire group you're inferring is negative in some way. "Actual intent" or not, you're essentially using the word in a negative way that implies being gay is negative.

It's not though because "chink and nigger" don't have any other context. In the case of gay, there are other definitions that pre-date the current one.

Calling something gay, is a sarcastic expression that means it isn't blight and pleasent. Not that the TV (for example) is literally gay.

[CapnEnnui]

Or maybe it's because they do in fact "live on the edge of society"?

No it couldn't be that... How would it even be possible to live on the edge of society and NOT be reminded of it?? That isn't even in my mind possible. To be on the edge you have to actually BE ON THE EDGE. If you were "normal" like everyone else you wouldn't exactly live on the edge by definition.

Try to not get all worked up and emotional just because you are gay - look at this rationaly. If you re-read my post you should understand that people like me who use the term in a "fun" matter and the rest of society these days, typically, don't hate you and accept you for what you are yet you still get all worked up over the actual word itself and could care less about the intent. Meaning if I called you a fag and you were my best friend you would throw a fit but if I was just some person off the street and said hey buddy but in my mind I was thinking oh god it's another fucking dick sucking faggot queer that I hate - you would be more worried about what I said to you which is a waste of time and stupid.

I'm not gay, and I'm looking at it rationally. Rationally, calling things gay as a negative implies being gay is negative. It's as "fun" as calling your friends "niggers" and "kikes." I called people gay when I was 15, then I grew out of it. There are better words to use negatively, and NOT look/act like some dumb teenage homophobic moron. By implying being gay is bad, you're just keeping them on the edge of society. It's not like they have to be out there.

[coffeezombie]

Calling things "gay" is a constant reminder to gay people that they are not normal. I would argue that, in fact, gayness *is* normal and that it's society that turns it into an abnormality. Why can't gayness just be like having red hair or something and basically an innocuous trait? Apparently people are just too threatened by their own sexuality.

[CapnEnnui]

It's not though because "chink and nigger" don't have any other context. In the case of gay, there are other definitions that pre-date the current one.

Calling something gay, is a sarcastic expression that means it isn't blight and pleasent. Not that the TV (for example) is literally gay.

Using gay as "happy" went away long ago, most people who call things gay aren't thinking of the context "happy." I doubt people used the term "gay" as a negative before it was connected to homosexuality.

[Division56]

Or maybe it's because they do in fact "live on the edge of society"?

No it couldn't be that... How would it even be possible to live on the edge of society and NOT be reminded of it?? That isn't even in my mind possible. To be on the edge you have to actually BE ON THE EDGE. If you were "normal" like everyone else you wouldn't exactly live on the edge by definition.

Try to not get all worked up and emotional just because you are gay - look at this rationaly. If you re-read my post you should understand that people like me who use the term in a "fun" matter and the rest of society these days, typically, don't hate you and accept you for what you are yet you still get all worked up over the actual word itself and could care less about the intent. Meaning if I called you a fag and you were my best friend you would throw a fit but if I was just some person off the street and said hey buddy but in my mind I was thinking oh god it's another fucking dick sucking faggot queer that I hate - you would be more worried about what I said to you which is a waste of time and stupid.

Hmmm... my friends call me a fag sometimes, but I know them, and I know the context. I don't care.

I don't care what strangers think of me, really. And I was not being "emotional".


The suicide part is because every single insult like that makes the people effected feel alone and cut off. When you feel alone long enough, when you get too afraid of being judged again to show the people you care about your true self, it has serious detremental effects on your mental health.

This is probably going to fly right over your head. It is not really something one can describe. Growing up and feeling cut off from everyone, often times trying to live lies. It is not easy to hold such a big secret for so long.

Anyway, I am going to stop while I am ahead.

We'll just settle this saying, if you ever called me a faggot irl, you'd be picking your teeth up off the sidewalk. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smooch.gif

[songbird36]

We'll just settle this saying, if you ever called me a faggot irl, you'd be picking your teeth up off the sidewalk. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smooch.gif

Fighting talk..

:lol:

[mgb]

Using gay as "happy" went away long ago, most people who call things gay aren't thinking of the context "happy." I doubt people used the term "gay" as a negative before it was connected to homosexuality.

But my point is that the word evolved. Maybe it's evolving again into a word that is the opposite of what it used to mean, a catch all phrase to describe something that sucks instead of something fun or as an insult.

It's not terribly uncommon for a word to have multiple meanings.

[Division56]

But my point is that the word evolved. Maybe it's evolving again into a word that is the opposite of what it used to mean, a catch all phrase to describe something that sucks instead of something fun or as an insult.

It's not terribly uncommon for a word to have multiple meanings.

You are grasping at straws...

[ppc]

I'm not gay, and I'm looking at it rationally. Rationally, calling things gay as a negative implies being gay is negative. It's as "fun" as calling your friends "niggers" and "kikes." I called people gay when I was 15, then I grew out of it. There are better words to use negatively, and NOT look/act like some dumb teenage homophobic moron. By implying being gay is bad, you're just keeping them on the edge of society. It's not like they have to be out there.

The truth is the only thing that matters is intent and the fact that we have a few billion people who all determine what this word means in this case on this day in whatever mood they are in essentially means that all we have to go on IS intent so it is time for everyone else to get off their high horse and stop worrying about the words people use and start worrying about the intent.

I do not care if someone gets all pissed off because they took something I said in a way that was completely wrong. You can't just assume everyone agrees to some non-existant standard that you came up in your head with "normal and ok" me and my friends DO call each other chinks and niggers (jokingly) which goes to show you how diverse people are in the way they use words you find "deeply offensive" which is all the more reason to agree with me.

I too thought I "grew up" and stopped using words that way but then I realized that it is silly to try and assume that I was the end all be all of which to gauge what was ok to say to certain people. I stopped worrying about who I might offend and started saying what I wanted to and it is very liberating maybe?

What it comes down to is the person who hears the words is the person who chooses to get offended and in the end it is up to them to get mad about it. I choose to not let people offend me no matter what they say so I can never be offended.

[CapnEnnui]

But my point is that the word evolved. Maybe it's evolving again into a word that is the opposite of what it used to mean, a catch all phrase to describe something that sucks instead of something fun or as an insult.

It's not terribly uncommon for a word to have multiple meanings.

It's also evolved to mean "homosexual." I'd bet money that's where the negative use of it comes from. In fact, I'd say "gay" is the most common and accepted word for homosexual these days. As for the new definition of gay meaning a catch-all phrase to describe something that sucks, I don't find that in the Dictionary... like it or not, pretty much everyone who hears the word "gay" thinks "homosexual," and the use of it as a derogatory (like "Don't be gay!" or "You're gay!" or "That's gay!") is both unoriginal and offensive to some people. A great deal of people out there get their opinions from other people; using gay negatively sends messages that being gay is wrong to people who don't know better or think for themselves. Don't try to ignore that by saying it's taking on a whole new, negative meaning that it didn't have when that negative meaning stems from the word meaning "homosexual."

[mgb]

It's also evolved to mean "homosexual." I'd bet money that's where the negative use of it comes from. In fact, I'd say "gay" is the most common and accepted word for homosexual these days. As for the new definition of gay meaning a catch-all phrase to describe something that sucks, I don't find that in the Dictionary... like it or not, pretty much everyone who hears the word "gay" thinks "homosexual," and the use of it as a derogatory (like "Don't be gay!" or "You're gay!" or "That's gay!") is both unoriginal and offensive to some people. A great deal of people out there get their opinions from other people; using gay negatively sends messages that being gay is wrong to people who don't know better or think for themselves. Don't try to ignore that by saying it's taking on a whole new, negative meaning that it didn't have when that negative meaning stems from the word meaning "homosexual."

Actually it's in the Urban dictionary under the description I gave. I agree it comes from the homosexual derivation of the word, but then the homosexual derivation probably came from the "happy" one.

I'm not saying I am using it. But I'm bored and can only say Jemma from Tannum Sands so many times.

[CapnEnnui]

The truth is the only thing that matters is intent and the fact that we have a few billion people who all determine what this word means in this case on this day in whatever mood they are in essentially means that all we have to go on IS intent so it is time for everyone else to get off their high horse and stop worrying about the words people use and start worrying about the intent.

I do not care if someone gets all pissed off because they took something I said in a way that was completely wrong. You can't just assume everyone agrees to some non-existant standard that you came up in your head with "normal and ok" me and my friends DO call each other chinks and niggers (jokingly) which goes to show you how diverse people are in the way they use words you find "deeply offensive" which is all the more reason to agree with me.

I too thought I "grew up" and stopped using words that way but then I realized that it is silly to try and assume that I was the end all be all of which to gauge what was ok to say to certain people. I stopped worrying about who I might offend and started saying what I wanted to and it is very liberating maybe?

What it comes down to is the person who hears the words is the person who chooses to get offended and in the end it is up to them to get mad about it. I choose to not let people offend me no matter what they say so I can never be offended.

That's you. Like it or not, not everyone thinks like you do, and I couldn't care less about your particular life. People out there get their bigotry from other people, and the mass use (and I mean MASS use... try going to any high school in America) of "gay" around this country isn't just one big joke that everyone understands and uses in a playful, joking way. I also know plenty of people who use "gay" and "nigger" and such, and a good half of them are full-blown racists. They also sends messages to the more impressionable types that these things they use as slander are bad, and deserving to be used as slander. Just because your feelings aren't hurt or compromised doesn't mean other people's aren't, and just because you're a "thinking" type doesn't mean other people's feelings don't matter at all and are wrong. Being offended isn't "a choice," which I hope you can recognize. YOU might not mean being gay is bad, but it sends that message to pretty much everyone who hears you and doesn't know you're joking. I also say what I want, and calling things "gay" isn't a part of that, because I've realized that all it does is breed bigotry and alienate people. Haha, funny.

[ppc]

Hmmm... my friends call me a fag sometimes, but I know them, and I know the context. I don't care.

I don't care what strangers think of me, really. And I was not being "emotional".


The suicide part is because every single insult like that makes the people effected feel alone and cut off. When you feel alone long enough, when you get too afraid of being judged again to show the people you care about your true self, it has serious detremental effects on your mental health.

This is probably going to fly right over your head. It is not really something one can describe. Growing up and feeling cut off from everyone, often times trying to live lies. It is not easy to hold such a big secret for so long.

Anyway, I am going to stop while I am ahead.

We'll just settle this saying, if you ever called me a faggot irl, you'd be picking your teeth up off the sidewalk. http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smooch.gif


I would call you a faggot right to your face if you like. Faggot. OH NOEZ I CALLED YOU A NAME!!!! I mean who cares that I don't give a shit what you do in your own personal life and I am all for you having every right any other person has in this country lets get all worked up about a stupid word - yes that is a really intelligent thing to do. I realize my way of thinking isn't common/well understood but it works and it works best when you finally get it.

Stop worrying about words. Start worrying about intent.

Oh yeah and how do you know you would have me picking my teeth up off the street? Most of the homo's I have ever met are pansy little sissy girls and even the ones who weren't still had a high level of feminimity that would be laughable in a fight. Not that EVERY homo is like that but I would say the majority is. You have no idea that you could have me "picking up me teeth off the street" but it gives me insight into how you think - what is your type again? You certainly seem like you got an F in you.

[CapnEnnui]

Actually it's in the Urban dictionary under the description I gave. I agree it comes from the homosexual derivation of the word, but then the homosexual derivation probably came from the "happy" one.

I'm not saying I am using it. But I'm bored and can only say Jemma from Tannum Sands so many times.

Let's say the homosexual definition did come from the meaning "happy." I guess this would imply that homosexuals were perceived as "happy." Now that "gay" primarily means homosexual, the new meaning derived from it is negative and bad? So, essentially, the new use implies homosexuality is perceived as negative and bad? I don't understand how this is an OK thing to happen.

[CapnEnnui]

I would call you a faggot right to your face if you like. Faggot. OH NOEZ I CALLED YOU A NAME!!!! I mean who cares that I don't give a shit what you do in your own personal life and I am all for you having every right any other person has in this country lets get all worked up about a stupid word - yes that is a really intelligent thing to do. I realize my way of thinking isn't common/well understood but it works and it works best when you finally get it.

Stop worrying about words. Start worrying about intent.

Oh yeah and how do you know you would have me picking my teeth up off the street? Most of the homo's I have ever met are pansy little sissy girls and even the ones who weren't still had a high level of feminimity that would be laughable in a fight. Not that EVERY homo is like that but I would say the majority is. You have no idea that you could have me "picking up me teeth off the street" but it gives me insight into how you think - what is your type again? You certainly seem like you got an F in you.


Wow, you tell him not to take offense because you don't mean it in a negative way, then you make generalizations about homosexuals and mock him based on your stereotypical views. And you tell him his type is wrong because he's offended that his sexual orientation is constantly used as a bad word. Gays are hated and persecuted in America, and their orientation is used negatively. This further pushes them out of acceptance, despite homosexuality being (from what we know) innate and unchangeable.

Also, everyone has F. Even you. Quit pretending like you never have your feelings hurt.

[mgb]

Let's say the homosexual definition did come from the meaning "happy." I guess this would imply that homosexuals were perceived as "happy." Now that "gay" primarily means homosexual, the new meaning derived from it is negative and bad? So, essentially, the new use implies homosexuality is perceived as negative and bad? I don't understand how this is an OK thing to happen.

Gay still means happy, I wouldn't say it's the sole meaning of the word. It just isn't as commonly used as it once was.

The new use doesn't imply homosexuality is bad. Nor does the word gay imply that homosexuality is good (or bad for that matter), just that something is.

The new use does imply that something is bad. It's not saying all gays are bad, just that what's on TV is (to use Divisions example). If we link "gay" back to the original expression with the new one and exclude the description of people, it becomes a sarcastic expression that has nothing to do with anyone.

[Division56]

I would call you a faggot right to your face if you like. Faggot. OH NOEZ I CALLED YOU A NAME!!!! I mean who cares that I don't give a shit what you do in your own personal life and I am all for you having every right any other person has in this country lets get all worked up about a stupid word - yes that is a really intelligent thing to do. I realize my way of thinking isn't common/well understood but it works and it works best when you finally get it.

Stop worrying about words. Start worrying about intent.

Oh yeah and how do you know you would have me picking my teeth up off the street? Most of the homo's I have ever met are pansy little sissy girls and even the ones who weren't still had a high level of feminimity that would be laughable in a fight. Not that EVERY homo is like that but I would say the majority is. You have no idea that you could have me "picking up me teeth off the street" but it gives me insight into how you think - what is your type again? You certainly seem like you got an F in you.

It seems you are not uneducated, you are just a complete ass. Thus, I bid all adieu.

[CapnEnnui]

Gay still means happy, I wouldn't say it's the sole meaning of the word. It just isn't as commonly used as it once was.

The new use doesn't imply homosexuality is bad. Nor does the word gay imply that homosexuality is good (or bad for that matter), just that something is.

The new use does imply that something is bad. It's not saying all gays are bad, just that what's on TV is (to use Divisions example). If we link "gay" back to the original expression with the new one and exclude the description of people, it becomes a sarcastic expression that has nothing to do with anyone.

But who honestly uses it as something sarcastic based on the orignial, "happy" use of the word? You might, but probably over 98% of the American population who hears you thinks "homosexual" I hear people call things/people "gay" when they're not "manly" enough, or weak, or sensitive, or not good enough. You can't just side-step the homosexual meaning when you use the word, because even the Flintstones theme song gets giggled at when they say "gay ol' time." A lot of people do just use it jokingly and aren't really homophobic, but they still send the message and still influence others. Not everyone can be an NTP about these things.

[ppc]

That's you. Like it or not, not everyone thinks like you do, and I couldn't care less about your particular life. People out there get their bigotry from other people, and the mass use (and I mean MASS use... try going to any high school in America) of "gay" around this country isn't just one big joke that everyone understands and uses in a playful, joking way. I also know plenty of people who use "gay" and "nigger" and such, and a good half of them are full-blown racists. They also sends messages to the more impressionable types that these things they use as slander are bad, and deserving to be used as slander. Just because your feelings aren't hurt or compromised doesn't mean other people's aren't, and just because you're a "thinking" type doesn't mean other people's feelings don't matter at all and are wrong. Being offended isn't "a choice," which I hope you can recognize. YOU might not mean being gay is bad, but it sends that message to pretty much everyone who hears you and doesn't know you're joking. I also say what I want, and calling things "gay" isn't a part of that, because I've realized that all it does is breed bigotry and alienate people. Haha, funny.


I can't begin to explain how wrong you are. Being offended is completely a choice. What use to offend me 10 years ago is literally something I laugh at today and many people all over the world including yourself no doubt about it. I don't care about other peoples feelings - actions speak much louder than words. I've never beaten up someone for being gay and I never would but I have used the term gay in all sorts of ways you probably wouldn't agree with - but that doesn't matter to you because we have to worry about everyones feelings? Feelings change all the time as much as the weather and that is why it is stupid to try to cater to everyone all the time - even if you wanted to you couldn't do it. Grow up.

[CapnEnnui]

I can't begin to explain how wrong you are. Being offended is completely a choice. What use to offend me 10 years ago is literally something I laugh at today and many people all over the world including yourself no doubt about it. I don't care about other peoples feelings - actions speak much louder than words. I've never beaten up someone for being gay and I never would but I have used the term gay in all sorts of ways you probably wouldn't agree with - but that doesn't matter to you because we have to worry about everyones feelings? Feelings change all the time as much as the weather and that is why it is stupid to try to cater to everyone all the time - even if you wanted to you couldn't do it. Grow up.

You're projecting yourself on to everyone else. And you keep ignoring that using gay negatively has an impact on many people, whether it hurts their feelings and causes them psychological problems or inspires them be prejudiced against gays. I don't care about feelings, I care about the ramifications, which you have no problem ignoring. You grow up.

[mgb]

But who honestly uses it as something sarcastic based on the orignial, "happy" use of the word? You might, but probably over 98% of the American population who hears you thinks "homosexual" I hear people call things/people "gay" when they're not "manly" enough, or weak, or sensitive, or not good enough. You can't just side-step the homosexual meaning when you use the word, because even the Flintstones theme song gets giggled at when they say "gay ol' time." A lot of people do just use it jokingly and aren't really homophobic, but they still send the message and still influence others. Not everyone can be an NTP about these things.

I don't use it, like I said, bored.

Plus, I don't spend much time talking to 98% of the American population. I really don't talk to any percent of the American population in real life.

But the Flinstones were using gay as in the old style, unless Fred and Barney were living on the down low. Do you expect me to believe that every time a gay person watches the Flinstones they get insulted by the theme song?

I don't think people using the word to describe things like TVs are even consciously associating the word with people. They are using the word in a new, desciptive way.

Take the phrase, "I got gyped." Lots of people use it, except most people don't associate it as a slight against gyspies. It's become a phrase on it's own.

[CapnEnnui]

I don't use it, like I said, bored.

Plus, I don't spend much time talking to 98% of the American population. I really don't talk to any percent of the American population in real life.

But the Flinstones were using gay as in the old style, unless Fred and Barney were living on the down low. Do you expect me to believe that every time a gay person watches the Flinstones they get insulted by the theme song?

I don't think people using the word to describe things like TVs are even consciously associating the word with people. They are using the word in a new, desciptive way.

Take the phrase, "I got gyped." Lots of people use it, except most people don't associate it as a slight against gyspies. It's become a phrase on it's own.
I know that the Flintstones meant it as happy, and I don't mean to say the song is now offensive, just that when people hear "gay" (especially younger people) they derive from it "homosexual" in almost every case. Some of the people don't associate homosexuality when they use gay negatively, but some people do, and you can bet homosexuals do. As for being gyped, being a gypsy and being gay are pretty different things. AFAIK, you can't quit being gay and move on. Plus, who cares about gypsies? This isn't about feelings, it's about cutting down on irrational bigotry that so many Americans hold near to their hearts. Being ripped of by a gypsy probably happens, but using gay as a substitute for bad and wrong and not cool is a different story. And I'd bet the average person has no idea gyped comes from gypsy (Hell, I didn't)

[s]

. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight.


Hey, hey, hey... leave urban Texas out of that gross generalization.

Keeping Austin Weird,

s.

[Eileen]

Ugh.

Kids say it all the time. I HURT for the gay kids at school who have to listen to it. Lots of teachers will let it go by, but I'll straight out say, "I'm sick of this homophobia. STOP." because if it's not homophobic, it's at the very least insensitive, which is no more permissible in my eyes.

I have the problem that I will say it sometimes to satirize it because it's just so fucking absurd and before I know it, I'm saying it in front of one of my dearest friends who is gay. So I have to not say it ever at all. I actually really hate the word "retarded" for the same reason, and I have exactly the same problem. If I make fun of it by saying it, I'll start saying it all the time.

From where I stand, I can *see* the blatant AND the subtle homophobia. No, kids aren't usually making a conscious choice to express homophobic sentiment, but the sentiment is still there--even if it doesn't belong to them personally (as in the case of my use of it). The fact that the word is used that way shows a cultural belief about the value of homosexuals in society.

[mgb]

I know that the Flintstones meant it as happy, and I don't mean to say the song is now offensive, just that when people hear "gay" (especially younger people) they derive from it "homosexual" in almost every case. Some of the people don't associate homosexuality when they use gay negatively, but some people do, and you can bet homosexuals do. As for being gyped, being a gypsy and being gay are pretty different things. AFAIK, you can't quit being gay and move on. Plus, who cares about gypsies? This isn't about feelings, it's about cutting down on irrational bigotry that so many Americans hold near to their hearts. Being ripped of by a gypsy probably happens, but using gay as a substitute for bad and wrong and not cool is a different story. And I'd bet the average person has no idea gyped comes from gypsy (Hell, I didn't)

I know most people don't know it comes from gypsies, but it's a deragatory term (about how gypsies rip people off) that has lost its derogatory meaning over time. Now it just means you got screwed. I imagine that as time goes on, the same thing will happen with "gay". People will forget where it came from and gay will come to mean something sucks. Not that an entire group of people suck, just that what's on TV (or whatever) sucks.

[CapnEnnui]

I know most people don't know it comes from gypsies, but it's a deragatory term (about how gypsies rip people off) that has lost its derogatory meaning over time. Now it just means you got screwed. I imagine that as time goes on, the same thing will happen with "gay". People will forget where it came from and gay will come to mean something sucks. Not that an entire group of people suck, just that what's on TV (or whatever) sucks.

Are you so sure that'll happen? Gay is dominantly used as meaning homosexual still, and probably won't lose that meaning because, unlike gypsies, they're not going to just disappear with time. Gypsies also, in many ways, earned the term gyped, at least historically, as they were frequently con artists, grave robbers, thieves, etc. Gays, however, have done nothing to earn the term gay as a negative, save for the bigotry in people. I think the term should stop being used, because so many people do have that prejudice, and the term spreads that prejudice to new people, especially young, impressionable people. SJs, for example, probably don't use the term gay negatively and still have absolutely no prejudice towards them. It's been said that underdeveloped intuition leads to prejudice and bigotry, and that's pretty much 80%-85% of the population (sensors). Presenting a constant pattern to people by using gay negatively gives them the impression that being gay is negative. And the meaning of gay as homosexual isn't going anywhere for a while.

[songbird36]

It seems you are not uneducated, you are just a complete ass. Thus, I bid all adieu.

Yeah what's with all the anti-gay shit ppc?

Clam up.

[cjs55]

I call my friends gay/fags, (and they will call me that back), but we are very conscious of the bigoted nature of the terms, thus, making them funny. If you can't understand why thats funny...well, I suppose my friends and I are just fucked up.

Some other people I know have very knee-jerk reactions to those words (the SJs of course), which makes it even more fun (nothing is better than pissing off SJs).

[mgb]

Yeah what's with all the anti-gay shit ppc?

Clam up.

I believe he was making a point.

[songbird36]

I believe he was making a point.

He was - very offensively and provocatively.

[mgb]

He was - very offensively and provocatively.

Division did say he would punch his teeth out (just as offensive in my opinion). But it's long over....

[ppc]

You're projecting yourself on to everyone else. And you keep ignoring that using gay negatively has an impact on many people, whether it hurts their feelings and causes them psychological problems or inspires them be prejudiced against gays. I don't care about feelings, I care about the ramifications, which you have no problem ignoring. You grow up.


Projecting myself on everyone else? How so? By talking? Oh my I should worry about giving an opinion on whatever I say because I might offend someone! That's rediculous. I use all kinds of words in a negative manner and I don't have the time or care enough to make sure I censor anything that comes to mind so I don't make someone feel bad.

You don't care about feeling only the ramifications eh? Newsflash - if these people didn't worry soley on the words that someone uses near them then they wouldn't have any ramifications.

You let someone offend you and that is that.

[ppc]

Yeah what's with all the anti-gay shit ppc?

Clam up.


Anti-gay shit? What the fuck did I ever say/do that was anti-gay?

Did you read any of my posts? Hello??


I mean who cares that I don't give a shit what you do in your own personal life and I am all for you having every right any other person has in this country lets get all worked up about a stupid word

[CapnEnnui]

Projecting myself on everyone else? How so? By talking? Oh my I should worry about giving an opinion on whatever I say because I might offend someone! That's rediculous. I use all kinds of words in a negative manner and I don't have the time or care enough to make sure I censor anything that comes to mind so I don't make someone feel bad.

You don't care about feeling only the ramifications eh? Newsflash - if these people didn't worry soley on the words that someone uses near them then they wouldn't have any ramifications.

You let someone offend you and that is that.

You continue to project yourself onto other people. Think about what that means for a second. Guess what? Some people are feeler types. They can't help it, because that's just how they are, and they take offense to things and they're sensitive. You're right! If nobody cared, then it wouldn't matter! That's true! Good job with that, take out part of how it is and put in how you want it to be, then be critical because it doesn't meet your stupid little expectations. Like it or not, calling things gay all the time breeds prejudice. So since you don't give a shit, then I guess there's no reason to continue this thread. Not everyone is an ENTP, so learn to accept that and realize that not everyone thinks and processes exactly like you do. Not everyone realizes it's just a silly joke, not everyone doesn't care that you're using it in a negative connotation. Some gay people get their feelings hurt by it, because they live lifes where their sexual orientation is treated with disgust and disdain. They're ridiculed for it. They might have parents who don't accept it. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that gay people don't like their natural sexual orientation to be used as slander. So accept it, because that's how it is. Unless you'd rather have some lame idea of freedom of speech, and continue to use your words to slander a group and create more bigotry.

[Architectonic]

Stop worrying about words. Start worrying about intent.

Exactly. People need to understand that the use of swear words and insults isn't always about literary accuracy, but simply as a way of expressing anger (and related emotions).

Language doesn't always evolve logically, throughout history and in most languages, the meanings of many words have evolved due to seemingly illogical reasons.

There is a difference between using the word "gay" as an insult and homophobia. One is more forgivable than the other, although there may be better ways of expressing your anger.



Oh yeah and how do you know you would have me picking my teeth up off the street? Most of the homo's I have ever met are pansy little sissy girls and even the ones who weren't still had a high level of feminimity that would be laughable in a fight. Not that EVERY homo is like that but I would say the majority is. You have no idea that you could have me "picking up me teeth off the street" but it gives me insight into how you think - what is your type again? You certainly seem like you got an F in you.

Intent-wise, that sounds like an insult....... :whistle:

[MacGuffin]

Homer Simpson: They're embarrasing me. They're embarrassing
America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined
all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were
the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...

John Waters: Queer?

Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent YOU people using that
word. That's OUR word for making fun of you! We need it!!

[ppc]

You continue to project yourself onto other people. Think about what that means for a second. Guess what? Some people are feeler types. They can't help it, because that's just how they are, and they take offense to things and they're sensitive. You're right! If nobody cared, then it wouldn't matter! That's true! Good job with that, take out part of how it is and put in how you want it to be, then be critical because it doesn't meet your stupid little expectations. Like it or not, calling things gay all the time breeds prejudice. So since you don't give a shit, then I guess there's no reason to continue this thread. Not everyone is an ENTP, so learn to accept that and realize that not everyone thinks and processes exactly like you do. Not everyone realizes it's just a silly joke, not everyone doesn't care that you're using it in a negative connotation. Some gay people get their feelings hurt by it, because they live lifes where their sexual orientation is treated with disgust and disdain. They're ridiculed for it. They might have parents who don't accept it. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that gay people don't like their natural sexual orientation to be used as slander. So accept it, because that's how it is. Unless you'd rather have some lame idea of freedom of speech, and continue to use your words to slander a group and create more bigotry.

Calling things gay all the time does not breed prejudice. Beating people up for being gay breeds prejudice. Telling your kids and other people that because someone is gay we don't like them or you should make fun of gay people - those things breed prejudice. Saying this is a gay movie - DOES NOT BREED PREJUDICE. It breeds as much prejudice as saying the word fight breeds violence. Maybe if we could all just stop saying fight no one would ever fight then right? Yeah that makes lots of sense because after all it's the things we say and not the actions/intent we take/have that matter.

Oh I should accept it because some gay people don't like their sexual oreintation to be used as slander. Hmmm and I suppose I should get all pissed off and angry when I am watching BET comedy and I see some guy up there making fun of white people right? See how stupid that is? Maybe I should get all angry when I see people on tv making fun of people from Iowa because we are just a bunch of farmer hicks right? If I sat around and got all pissed off over every stupid little bullshit thing someone made fun of I would probably do nothing but rag on the internet about the way people use words all day. Hey wait... that's you!

[ppc]

Exactly. People need to understand that the use of swear words and insults isn't always about literary accuracy, but simply as a way of expressing anger (and related emotions).

Language doesn't always evolve logically, throughout history and in most languages, the meanings of many words have evolved due to seemingly illogical reasons.

There is a difference between using the word "gay" as an insult and homophobia. One is more forgivable than the other, although there may be better ways of expressing your anger.



Intent-wise, that sounds like an insult....... :whistle:

The only way to express your anger the "best way" is the way you do it. I don't know the best way for you to express your anger and you don't know my best/better way.

The intent was to show how worthless it was to get all worked up over someone who doesn't care about your sexual orientation or anything related to it. Just to prove a point, nothing else.

[songbird36]

The only way to express your anger the "best way" is the way you do it. I don't know the best way for you to express your anger and you don't know my best/better way.

The intent was to show how worthless it was to get all worked up over someone who doesn't care about your sexual orientation or anything related to it. Just to prove a point, nothing else.

You used language like "faggot" in a way that was calculated to offend gay people on this site, and you were aware that at least one gay male was watching and posting at the time.

This is pretty different from just putting a general view out there.

[mgb]

You used language like "faggot" in a way that was calculated to offend gay people on this site, and you were aware that at least one gay male was watching and posting at the time.

This is pretty different from just putting a general view out there.

To quote that same gay male: "Being the bigger person is so passe."

Points were made. No one will win.

[songbird36]

Yeah I agree the other side was provocative too.

I think both were at fault here and both were showing bigotry of different varieties.

[mgb]

Yeah I agree the other side was provocative too.

I think both were at fault here and both were showing bigotry of different varieties.

Agreed. Done and done.

[Geoff]

That's gay - MG and SB agreeing with one another.

(Now am I saying that it is a good or bad thing? :devil: )

-Geoff

[mgb]

That's gay - MG and SB agreeing with one another.

(Now am I saying that it is a good or bad thing? :devil: )

-Geoff

Watch it. Division might try and punch your teeth out.

[ppc]

You used language like "faggot" in a way that was calculated to offend gay people on this site, and you were aware that at least one gay male was watching and posting at the time.

This is pretty different from just putting a general view out there.

How was it calculated to offend all gay people on this site? I was only talking to one person - if anyone got offended because of a conversation I as having with one person that is obviously their fault and not mine. Furthermore I explained how I wasn't trying to be offensive but to prove a point that just because I use a word doesn't mean I hate or dislike someone. Which WAS the point - which I already stated.

[ppc]

Yeah I agree the other side was provocative too.

I think both were at fault here and both were showing bigotry of different varieties.

big·ot·ry Audio pronunciation of "bigotry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg-tr)
n.

The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.

I am tolerant of all peoples. If anything I was the only person who bigotry was being exercised on because of the intolerance shown against someone like me - someone who doesn't care about the words people use. I have always been tolerant of everyone no matter what.

[songbird36]

Well perhaps it's a case then of striving to be a little more sensitive in your posts where the topic is a sensitive one.

I was offended, and I'm not even a gay male.

[Geoff]

Yep, it was clearly likely to be read by some people as offensive. If you dont care about that fine, but sometimes understanding that others might be offended is not a crime.

-Geoff

[Utopmk]

Does tolerence include tolerence towards those who aren't as tolerent as you?

[songbird36]

Does tolerence include tolerence towards those who aren't as tolerent as you?

Nope - that's *zero* tolerance..

:lol:

[ppc]

I understand how people would come to the conclusion that they are offended but that is irrelevant.

Should I worry about everything I say to everyone all the time? What if I said something that I think realistically could not offend anyone yet for some reason someone is. Should I apologize just because one person is hyper sensative about whatever issue? Why is that my fault someone chooses to be offended by something no realistic person would be? For instance if I said the color green is not a color I like and I just really avoid it at all costs and then someone who has the favorite color green sees what I say and just get all in a tiff because their favorite color is green - everything is green - their shirts, shoes, car, house EVERYTHING is green and that is just what they live for. As silly as it sounds who is in the right?

OBVIOUSLY the person who chooses to be offended by such a stupid thing is at fault for choosing to be offended in the first place. There can be no way to rationally distinguish what is ok to be offended by and what is not ok to be offended by. Every person has their own idea of what is and is not offensive, you couldn't possibly please everyone nor should you even try - it would be a waste of time.

[indie]

(I know this is OT, but . . . ) :rofl:

mgb, your new signature is hilarious!

Ahem. Back on topic RE: "How Gay is That?" I really don't think the word "that" is gay at all.

[Dman]

(I know this is OT, but . . . ) :rofl:

mgb, your new signature is hilarious!

Ahem. Back on topic RE: "How Gay is That?" I really don't think the word "that" is gay at all.

lol

Indeed, "that" is such a common, mundane word, how could it possibly be "merry" or "delighted"?

[Division56]

Most of you just don't get it...

It is like someone who has never had to go through the discrimination and bigotry involved with being black telling a black person that nigger is just a word.

It seems like just a word to you; but to us it represents much, much more.

*shakes head and walks out of the room*

[s]

It is funny how "brave" some people are online. *shakes head*

It takes a real brass set to be openly gay. Take a look at the recent violence against gays in even such "gay friendly" towns as Austin and Santa Fe. Insecure losers, who cannot control their emotions and actions, are the ones who are commiting these crimes. How gay is that? Actually, not all all. Being gay is a deviation from the "norm"... but so are INTPs. To me, anything outside the ordinary is a breath of fresh air in this shithole world.

[Eileen]

It's easy to say that a word is just a word, but when words are the main way we navigate relationships and interactions with people, I'd say we need to think pretty fucking carefully about what we believe about the power of words. To you all who without regret spout off "that's gay" or "that's homo" or "you're such a faggot", those might just be words that mean little to you--but to the gay kid sitting quietly in the corner, it just reiterates to him time and time again that gay is bad and he is an abomination. You think he's taking it too personally or being too sensitive--but when the culture is already telling him that, it's just one more kick in the pants.

[Division56]

It's easy to say that a word is just a word, but when words are the main way we navigate relationships and interactions with people, I'd say we need to think pretty fucking carefully about what we believe about the power of words. To you all who without regret spout off "that's gay" or "that's homo" or "you're such a faggot", those might just be words that mean little to you--but to the gay kid sitting quietly in the corner, it just reiterates to him time and time again that gay is bad and he is an abomination. You think he's taking it too personally or being too sensitive--but when the culture is already telling him that, it's just one more kick in the pants.

Well worded, Eileen.

[Utopmk]

Verbal is only 7% of all human communication. The words are never as important, irl, atleast, as how someone says something, or how they are postured and looking, or not looking at you. As a tolerant person, it is valuable to consider that people different than yourself have different ways of talking to people. It is easier to gauge by their body language if they are a threat to you, rather than apply a one rule for everyone on the planet about what they can or can not say. It just seems rather silly to me that someone can be so sensitive and intolerant to one human right, such as freedom of speech, yet expect a heavier tolerence for another human right such as being a homosexual.

If someone's intention is to provoke your anger, which seems to be the case by calling you a faggot, than it is only an exploitation of your weakness. They are stronger than you, because they are the manipulator. They are whispering "jump" in your ear and it makes you jump, and sometimes even higher, depending on how many times this word was said to the other entertainment.

You can either ignore it all together, and tolerate the ignorant person, or you can say something equally as degrading about their kind and call it even. It seems to me that the more intelligent person would nod and smile and shrug it off unless the person was a physical threat, rather than to show that person that a little thing they do can hurt you so badly. Trust me, it will be used against you if you show them that.

I would be much more afraid of someone who showed no emotion when I provoke them, rather than someone who puts all of their social baggage on the table for their manipulator to sift through and exploit.

As long as you have an audience, you will continue perform the way in which they like you to perform best. It's the entertainment that keeps the show going.

[songbird36]

Mike - verbal communication is 100% of it online. Your argument does not hold water on this forum.

ppc communicated in a way which was *deliberately* designed to offend - not merely inadvertantly so, as Div had already said he found the word faggot offensive.

Bigotry in any context is unappealing, and it is especially so when applied to a group which has already suffered centuries of discrimination.

[Utopmk]

That argument doesn't hold water on this forum either then, as this forum has not been around for centuries.

[s]

Whatever happened to the infamous forum rules...

*waits for bloodletting*

[Utopmk]

Forum rules are a completley different subject.

I was responding to the comment "We'll just settle this saying, if you ever called me a faggot irl, you'd be picking your teeth up off the sidewalk."

We were talking about real life for a moment -no?

[mgb]

Whatever happened to the infamous forum rules...

*waits for bloodletting*

More importantly, what ever happened to Jemma? (http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3294&goto=lastpost)

[Eileen]

Verbal is only 7% of all human communication. The words are never as important, irl, atleast, as how someone says something, or how they are postured and looking, or not looking at you.

While this may be true enough, think about the volumes spoken to gay people (and to me, most importantly, gay KIDS) when Matthew Shepherd was murdered, when the president of the United States (and plenty of other people) has made efforts to explicitly exclude gays from the benefits of marriage, when there's an uproar over a church commercial in which they say the unthinkable--that their doors are open to all people, including gays, when eggs are thrown at them (as my gay friend dealt with as a teenager and then again this week as an adult). Think about what's communicated there, in those things, and then imagine being a gay person who has to listen to people thoughtlessly use this word--a word which is used to identify a part of himself--in a perjorative manner. Hell, if you want to say that the word itself is unimportant, okay. What does the thoughtlessness of the speaker communicate--not about that individual, but about the value of a homosexual person in our culture?

[s]

Utopmk has an excellant point about reactions to insults in his first post. I think proper nonviolent channels should be explored in rl as well as the nonreaction approach Utopmk suggested. However, a dark part of me would enjoy watching Div give an ass beating.

[Utopmk]

Matthew Sheppard was a paticularly sad case. I feel that he should have prepared himself for the threat of violence.


I have always been very openly different than everyone else in extreme ways. I have known that preparing myself for physical conflict is an important element for my survival. I carry weapons, and have used them. I would never say to turn the other cheek.

Just pick your battles, and not at your own expense.

There is nothing disrespectful about outsmarting your opponet by making him feel like a fool.

He will never admit it, but you will see the dissapointment and humiliation in his eyes.

[ppc]

Verbal is only 7% of all human communication. The words are never as important, irl, atleast, as how someone says something, or how they are postured and looking, or not looking at you. As a tolerant person, it is valuable to consider that people different than yourself have different ways of talking to people. It is easier to gauge by their body language if they are a threat to you, rather than apply a one rule for everyone on the planet about what they can or can not say. It just seems rather silly to me that someone can be so sensitive and intolerant to one human right, such as freedom of speech, yet expect a heavier tolerence for another human right such as being a homosexual.

If someone's intention is to provoke your anger, which seems to be the case by calling you a faggot, than it is only an exploitation of your weakness. They are stronger than you, because they are the manipulator. They are whispering "jump" in your ear and it makes you jump, and sometimes even higher, depending on how many times this word was said to the other entertainment.

You can either ignore it all together, and tolerate the ignorant person, or you can say something equally as degrading about their kind and call it even. It seems to me that the more intelligent person would nod and smile and shrug it off unless the person was a physical threat, rather than to show that person that a little thing they do can hurt you so badly. Trust me, it will be used against you if you show them that.

I would be much more afraid of someone who showed no emotion when I provoke them, rather than someone who puts all of their social baggage on the table for their manipulator to sift through and exploit.

As long as you have an audience, you will continue perform the way in which they like you to perform best. It's the entertainment that keeps the show going.

I could not have worded that better myself. That is EXACTLY how I feel about this subject.

[ppc]

It's easy to say that a word is just a word, but when words are the main way we navigate relationships and interactions with people, I'd say we need to think pretty fucking carefully about what we believe about the power of words. To you all who without regret spout off "that's gay" or "that's homo" or "you're such a faggot", those might just be words that mean little to you--but to the gay kid sitting quietly in the corner, it just reiterates to him time and time again that gay is bad and he is an abomination. You think he's taking it too personally or being too sensitive--but when the culture is already telling him that, it's just one more kick in the pants.


What a bunch of bullshit. I am so tired of hearing oh these people have it soooo bad and these other people they have it soooo bad you have no idea how bad they have it they have it sooo bad. Well guess what - lots of people have it bad all the time and it doesn't matter if you are black, gay, retarded, fat, stupid, rich, republican, catholic, honor roll - whatever.

You have to deal with this kind of shit all the time in the real world and the better thing to do - the intelligent thing to do - is to grow up and get over this kind of silly shit.

I can't believe how some people want to sit there and pretend how if you are white and straight and middle class well you got a straight ticket in the USA because everything is going to be juuuuuuuuust fine if you are a white male who isn't gay. Please - everyone has to deal with this kind of shit. You think I like it when I hear someone talk down about my political views or the things that occur in my life that society views as negative? Of course I don't like it - do I sit there and cry about how everyone should consider my feelings? No - I do what I do now - I don't let what other people say offend me and try to talk to them about whatever the subject is and if I can't do anything about it so what - you can't change everyones opinion and it isn't worth your time to try to get every single person on the same page as you.

[mgb]

What a bunch of bullshit. I am so tired of hearing oh these people have it soooo bad and these other people they have it soooo bad you have no idea how bad they have it they have it sooo bad. Well guess what - lots of people have it bad all the time and it doesn't matter if you are black, gay, retarded, fat, stupid, rich, republican, catholic, honor roll - whatever.



Except for the jocks, they have it made until high school ends...

[ppc]

Right until you are a jock and then you get to cry about how no one understands you and there is so much pressure on you to excel and succeed and your family is doing nothing but pushing you to be the best and to get a scholarship into notre dame or some other equally impossible school to get into and how everyone thinks you are dumb because you play sports.

[mgb]

Right until you are a jock and then you get to cry about how no one understands you and there is so much pressure on you to excel and succeed and your family is doing nothing but pushing you to be the best and to get a scholarship into notre dame or some other equally impossible school to get into and how everyone thinks you are dumb because you play sports.

That only happens to those pansy jocks though. Real jocks peak in high school and then it's all downhill...

Think, these guys:

http://espn.starwave.com/i/magazine/new/040806_blues1.jpg

[songbird36]

What a bunch of bullshit. I am so tired of hearing oh these people have it soooo bad and these other people they have it soooo bad you have no idea how bad they have it they have it sooo bad. Well guess what - lots of people have it bad all the time and it doesn't matter if you are black, gay, retarded, fat, stupid, rich, republican, catholic, honor roll - whatever.

You have to deal with this kind of shit all the time in the real world and the better thing to do - the intelligent thing to do - is to grow up and get over this kind of silly shit.

I can't believe how some people want to sit there and pretend how if you are white and straight and middle class well you got a straight ticket in the USA because everything is going to be juuuuuuuuust fine if you are a white male who isn't gay. Please - everyone has to deal with this kind of shit. You think I like it when I hear someone talk down about my political views or the things that occur in my life that society views as negative? Of course I don't like it - do I sit there and cry about how everyone should consider my feelings? No - I do what I do now - I don't let what other people say offend me and try to talk to them about whatever the subject is and if I can't do anything about it so what - you can't change everyones opinion and it isn't worth your time to try to get every single person on the same page as you.

That you suffer a similar level of discrimination being a white, straight male?

What a load of crock. You must think everyone here was born yesterday to insult our intelligence like this.

[ppc]

And who the hell are you to judge what someone feels as being discriminated against? As if you are the person who is able to judge consistantly and correctly who is able to complain about how they have been discriminated against.

Almost everyone thinks they have it bad and no one understands them(at some point) is my point.

Like it matters what level of discrimination you determine I should be able to feel ok about complaining.

Insult your intelligence? It isn't my fault you can't grasp what is being discussed here.

[songbird36]

You're trying to equate your own position with the level of discrimination suffered by a gay male in society and I'm sorry but that is one huge oxymoron.

I am perfectly capable of grasping the issues in this debate and I can see that you're trying to argue a point that is so full of holes you could drive an armoured vehicle through it.

[cjs55]

If I were to wear all of my personal ethics/values/beliefs on my sleeve (come out of the closet, so to say) I guarantee I would be discriminated against more than the average gay male. But thats because I'm a psychopath.

[ppc]

You're trying to equate your own position with the level of discrimination suffered by a gay male in society and I'm sorry but that is one huge oxymoron.

I am perfectly capable of grasping the issues in this debate and I can see that you're trying to argue a point that is so full of holes you could drive an armoured vehicle through it.


What would you know about me and my position of discrimination that I have suffered? That isn't even the point the point is what I feel about being discriminated and I am the only person who can judge that adequately. You want to pretend that all gay males have suffered more than white males all the time in every case. Even if that were true it wouldn't matter and it wouldn't matter if it were true most of the time. Different people can feel far more discriminated against over others. This is part of the whole everyone is different so it's silly to try to make sure you don't offend anyone with such trivial things like words.

Oxymoron? I don't think that is the word you are wanting to use. But I like the fact all you can resort to is basically an ad hominem, tells me you already feel like you lost and I can live with that. :D

[garak]

It's basically just a choice about whether or not you want to be considerate of other people's feelings. ppc has decided that the principle is more important than others' feelings, and that is why my INFJ ex hated him. :D

Personally I am more interested in getting along with people -- being offended might be illogical but I just don't really care about arguing that point with people. It's easier to just not offend them in the first place. ppc disagrees, and he clashes with people a lot more on this issue. Surprise surprise.

[songbird36]

[QUOTE=ppc]What would you know about me and my position of discrimination that I have suffered? That isn't even the point the point is what I feel about being discriminated and I am the only person who can judge that adequately.

** Not true. There are empirical measures of discrimination and studies have been done on the topic. The fact that you may *feel* discriminated against does not mean that society's structures and attitudes are set up in a way which actually *does* (either overtly or covertly) discriminate against you. It is an undeniable fact that gays (both male and female but particularly male) have been structurally discriminated against in the legal system, the social system, and in many service arenas such as employment, education and the armed forces**

You want to pretend that all gay males have suffered more than white males all the time in every case. Even if that were true it wouldn't matter and it wouldn't matter if it were true most of the time. Different people can feel far more discriminated against over others. This is part of the whole everyone is different so it's silly to try to make sure you don't offend anyone with such trivial things like words.

**If you belong to a group that suffers structural discrimination you will inevitably come smack up against it, and will feel that discrimination as aresult. I know a few gay men and I haven't talked to one who doesn't feel like an outsider, and the butt of prejudice and discrimination on a regular basis. I don't think you can honestly pretend you feel that more than occasionally and if you do, it will be for personal reasons and not because you belong to a group that society is uncomfortable with**

Oxymoron? I don't think that is the word you are wanting to use. But I like the fact all you can resort to is basically an ad hominem, tells me you already feel like you lost and I can live with that.

**Yes that was the word. I find your arguments so hollow and unconvincing that they border on disingenuous**

[Architectonic]

It's easy to say that a word is just a word, but when words are the main way we navigate relationships and interactions with people, I'd say we need to think pretty fucking carefully about what we believe about the power of words. To you all who without regret spout off "that's gay" or "that's homo" or "you're such a faggot", those might just be words that mean little to you--but to the gay kid sitting quietly in the corner, it just reiterates to him time and time again that gay is bad and he is an abomination. You think he's taking it too personally or being too sensitive--but when the culture is already telling him that, it's just one more kick in the pants.

No, the problem is not the word itself, it is much more than that. If people suddenly stopped using the words "gay", "homo", "fag/faggot" etc but the general perception of homosexuality being undesirable remains, then we still have the same problem. I mean, those words could simply be replaced with "your one of them" stated as an insult. With "them" implying homosexuals. Simply refraining from using those particular words will not stop discrimination agains homosexuals.

Lets compare these insults to, say "geek", "nerd", "square" etc. If I observe someone insulting another by calling them a "geek", then I don't suddenly take offense, this is because I don't necessarily believe geekiness is an undesirable trait. It is not the word itself, it is the perceptions of society and the individual that make it offensive.

[Serotonin]

Eileen is right. Regardless of who the insult is directed at, it still hurts.

"That's gay" "That's homo" "you're a faggot"
already, by themselves carry huge emotional weight. You simply can't say that they are innocuous.

Architectonic is also right. Stopping the words themselves won't change the attitude.

There are different issues there though.

Gays will react viscerally to the "faggot" terms, assuming that the malice in the speech matches the malice intended by the speaker.

This is not always true (through repeated playground use kids use it as a derogatory term without realising how loaded it is), but that does not matter one jot. At all. It doesn't mitigate the use of it.

It's like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre and after the panic ensues declaring that it was "just a joke" and everyone should have realised that. Um, no, sorry, that won't wash.

However, it is doubtful that those who use hate speech really have that level of hatred in their hearts. It's just a defence mechanism - a way to let off hot air.

[ppc]

[QUOTE=ppc]What would you know about me and my position of discrimination that I have suffered? That isn't even the point the point is what I feel about being discriminated and I am the only person who can judge that adequately.

** Not true. There are empirical measures of discrimination and studies have been done on the topic. The fact that you may *feel* discriminated against does not mean that society's structures and attitudes are set up in a way which actually *does* (either overtly or covertly) discriminate against you. It is an undeniable fact that gays (both male and female but particularly male) have been structurally discriminated against in the legal system, the social system, and in many service arenas such as employment, education and the armed forces**

What isn't true? I just said that you don't know what I have suffered as far as discrimination - you have no kind of data emperical or otherwise to prove that, furthermore you have nothing that can tell you how I feel about it as such. I don't doubt, myself, that gay people have been discriminated against more than white males, I never did. The whole point was that many people think they have it bad and it doesn't matter if they do or not, they - THINK - that they(many people in society) have it bad/worse/horrible than everyone else. And what a person thinks is happening to them is what matters.


You want to pretend that all gay males have suffered more than white males all the time in every case. Even if that were true it wouldn't matter and it wouldn't matter if it were true most of the time. Different people can feel far more discriminated against over others. This is part of the whole everyone is different so it's silly to try to make sure you don't offend anyone with such trivial things like words.

**If you belong to a group that suffers structural discrimination you will inevitably come smack up against it, and will feel that discrimination as aresult. I know a few gay men and I haven't talked to one who doesn't feel like an outsider, and the butt of prejudice and discrimination on a regular basis. I don't think you can honestly pretend you feel that more than occasionally and if you do, it will be for personal reasons and not because you belong to a group that society is uncomfortable with**

They should feel like outsiders - they are not like the majority of people. This is not weird or uncommon - it's a fact that most people are not gay. The thing is that you have no idea how I feel about certain things that happen to me - maybe I feel just as bad as someone who is gay and being discriminated for whatever reason, you really have no way to judge that because I am the only person who gets to make that call. Which is the point - everyones feelings can and often do vary that wild - which again is why it is useless to worry about everyones feelings because inevitably you will piss someone off no matter what.


Oxymoron? I don't think that is the word you are wanting to use. But I like the fact all you can resort to is basically an ad hominem, tells me you already feel like you lost and I can live with that.

**Yes that was the word. I find your arguments so hollow and unconvincing that they border on disingenuous**

oxymoron

n : conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence')

Sorry - an argument does not an oxymoron make.

[songbird36]

I am using oxymoron in its widest sense to mean an argument that does not stand on its own merits. As yours doesn't.

You are trying to compare apples with oranges, and predictably, it isn't working.

[ppc]

Eileen is right. Regardless of who the insult is directed at, it still hurts.

"That's gay" "That's homo" "you're a faggot"
already, by themselves carry huge emotional weight. You simply can't say that they are innocuous.

Architectonic is also right. Stopping the words themselves won't change the attitude.

There are different issues there though.

Gays will react viscerally to the "faggot" terms, assuming that the malice in the speech matches the malice intended by the speaker.

This is not always true (through repeated playground use kids use it as a derogatory term without realising how loaded it is), but that does not matter one jot. At all. It doesn't mitigate the use of it.

It's like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre and after the panic ensues declaring that it was "just a joke" and everyone should have realised that. Um, no, sorry, that won't wash.

However, it is doubtful that those who use hate speech really have that level of hatred in their hearts. It's just a defence mechanism - a way to let off hot air.


Sorry that doesn't work because if you are yelling fire in a crowded theater you are obviously causing panic with the intent to cause it.

Me using the term faggot in some manner doesn't explicitly have intent to insult "faggots" - just as much as the term geek has as much intent to insult "geeks"

[ppc]

I am using oxymoron in its widest sense to mean an argument that does not stand on its own merits. As yours doesn't.

You are trying to compare apples with oranges, and predictably, it isn't working.

An argument that doesn't stand on it's own merits is a bad argument - not an oxymoron. Use it in any sense that you want to - it is still incorrect.

You might be able to get away with trolling at best but oxymoron no. A disingenuous argument is not an oxymoron, it is a *gasp* disingenuous argument.

[songbird36]

An argument that doesn't stand on it's own merits is a bad argument - not an oxymoron. Use it in any sense that you want to - it is still incorrect.

Well thank you professor. If you could demonstrate your logical abilities a little better I might actually heed you.

[ppc]

Is that your way of saying "Ok I can't possibly say you were ever right because then I would look weak" ?

[garak]

Sweet, we finally have a good match for songbird!

[songbird36]

Sweet, we finally have a good match for songbird!

Not in a million years dearest..

[ppc]

Pwnt.

[Serotonin]

Sorry that doesn't work because if you are yelling fire in a crowded theater you are obviously causing panic with the intent to cause it.

No. I have witnessed otherwise. He was just doing it to impress his mates. An elderly man admonished him after the film ended.

[Architectonic]

Sweet, we finally have a good match for songbird!

What kind of match are we talking about?







Oh wait, wrong thread... :ph34r:

[garak]

What kind of match are we talking about?







Oh wait, wrong thread... :ph34r:
Well when arguments get serious and ugly, there always seems to be a big misunderstanding between songbird and the intps. ppc has a similar thing going (although a bit different), and together they almost entirely misunderstand each other. It's hilarious.

:D

[Geoff]

Well when arguments get serious and ugly, there always seems to be a big misunderstanding between songbird and the intps. ppc has a similar thing going (although a bit different), and together they almost entirely misunderstand each other. It's hilarious.

:D

It was entertaining wasnt it. Maybe they could have a special forum?

-Geoff

[songbird36]

You're wrong garak. I just know how to cut through the BS in an argument and get to the heart of what the other person rightly (or wrongly) is saying. I don't like lots of words and waffle as INTPs often seem prone to do, as it doesn't usually result in a point being made effectively.

PPC to frame *my* point here in a different way, I want you to see how many of the following questions you can answer in the affirmative. If you can answer the majority of them "yes" then I might conclude you have some *inkling* of what it really feels like to be structurally discriminated against.

(1) Have you ever been refused a job because of your sexual orientation?
(2) Have you ever been refused education or a scholarship because of sexual orientation?
(3) Have you ever been prosecuted and imprisoned because of a sexual act you have performed?
(4) Have you ever been denied the right to marry because of your sexual orientation?
(5) Have you ever been refused entry to the armed forces because of your sexual orientation?
(6) Have you ever been denied the right to succeed to your partner's estate income on the grounds of sexual orinetation?
(7) Have you ever been bashed up and left for dead because of sexual orientation?

Well? How did you rate on these questions?

[mgb]

ppc, don't answer, it's a trick.

[songbird36]

ppc, don't answer, it's a trick.

Yes it's a well known cross-examination technique.

We'll see how he performs in the dock.

[garak]

You're wrong garak. I just know how to cut through the BS in an argument and get to the heart of what the other person rightly (or wrongly) is saying. I don't like lots of words and waffle as INTPs often seem prone to do, as it doesn't usually result in a point being made effectively.

:rofl:

Yes, you haven't misunderstood ppc or any other NTP on this site. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

:rofl: :rofl:

[songbird36]

:rofl:

Yes, you haven't misunderstood ppc or any other NTP on this site. Right. Keep telling yourself that.

:rofl: :rofl:

Another little Zedo lackey? How impressive.

I thought you were better than that.

[garak]

Another little Zedo lackey? How impressive.

I thought you were better than that.
WTF do I have to do with Zedo? Get over him. You're proving my point entirely.

[CoHo]

(1) Have you ever been refused a job because of your sexual orientation?
(2) Have you ever been refused education or a scholarship because of sexual orientation?
(3) Have you ever been prosecuted and imprisoned because of a sexual act you have performed?
(4) Have you ever been denied the right to marry because of your sexual orientation?
(5) Have you ever been refused entry to the armed forces because of your sexual orientation?
(6) Have you ever been denied the right to succeed to your partner's estate income on the grounds of sexual orinetation?
(7) Have you ever been bashed up and left for dead because of sexual orientation?

These should be reworded, otherwise black people and women have never been discriminated against.

[Edmond Zedo]

I don't like lots of words and waffle as INTPs often seem prone to do, as it doesn't usually result in a point being made effectively.
*clears throat* WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?

[Serotonin]

Oooooh multi thread stoush!!!!

This one has already trumped mgbradsh vs thermo

*jumps up and down like an excited schoolboy watching two other schoolboys drag each other through the mud*

[mgb]

Oooooh multi thread stoush!!!!

This one has already trumped mgbradsh vs thermo

*jumps up and down like an excited schoolboy watching two other schoolboys drag each other through the mud*

I'd agree.

But the Introverts vs Attention Whores was the best one.

[Division56]

*clears throat* WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING HERE?

I agree, she has not even registered at Intuitive Central...

No shame, no shame at all...

[Edmond Zedo]

I agree, she has not even registered at Intuitive Central...

No shame, no shame at all...
Well...I truly doubt she's even N. Maybe she'd be happy at a lawyer forum somewhere...out there...far away.

[songbird36]

Well...I truly doubt she's even N. Maybe she'd be happy at a lawyer forum somewhere...out there...far away.

I'm about as far from an "S" as it's possible to get. I am a thoroughly big picture person, and live in abstracts and my imagination, not in facts, details and "things".

I guess you don't me as well as you think. And doubtless you will never have the opportunity to correct your misapprehensions.

[mgb]

Well...I truly doubt she's even N. Maybe she'd be happy at a lawyer forum somewhere...out there...far away.

http://www.knowledgebed.com/lawyer-forums/

here's hopin'

[Edmond Zedo]

I'm about as far from an "S" as it's possible to get. I am a thoroughly big picture person, and live in abstracts and my imagination, not in facts, details and "things".

I guess you don't me as well as you think. And doubtless you will never have the opportunity to correct your misapprehensions.
"I can feel the conflict within you"
"Give in to your hatred..." (Hatred of all things N)

[Edmond Zedo]

http://www.knowledgebed.com/lawyer-forums/

here's hopin'
Try again, there aren't enough Able Young Men there.

[songbird36]

Try again, there aren't enough Able Young Men there.

Nor here. You haven't exactly proved your abilities in any sphere to me.

[mgb]

Nor here. You haven't exactly proved your abilities in any sphere to me.

You did want to see his penis though...

[songbird36]

Yeah and he couldn't even post that.

Probably ashamed of his lack of virility.

[mgb]

Yeah and he couldn't even post that.

Probably ashamed of his lack of virility.

You thought he was virile enough to ask...

[songbird36]

Well I assume those identifying with a Y chromosome have the requisite parts, unless proven otherwise.

Maybe Zedo is in fact a hormonal teenage girl though? I'm beginning to think so.

[Serotonin]

Then we'd have to reconsider boo's sexual preferences

[mgb]

Then we'd have to reconsider boo's sexual preferences

She'll readily admit to being bi...

[songbird36]

And to fancying *certain female members*

lol

[ppc]

You're wrong garak. I just know how to cut through the BS in an argument and get to the heart of what the other person rightly (or wrongly) is saying. I don't like lots of words and waffle as INTPs often seem prone to do, as it doesn't usually result in a point being made effectively.

PPC to frame *my* point here in a different way, I want you to see how many of the following questions you can answer in the affirmative. If you can answer the majority of them "yes" then I might conclude you have some *inkling* of what it really feels like to be structurally discriminated against.

(1) Have you ever been refused a job because of your sexual orientation?
(2) Have you ever been refused education or a scholarship because of sexual orientation?
(3) Have you ever been prosecuted and imprisoned because of a sexual act you have performed?
(4) Have you ever been denied the right to marry because of your sexual orientation?
(5) Have you ever been refused entry to the armed forces because of your sexual orientation?
(6) Have you ever been denied the right to succeed to your partner's estate income on the grounds of sexual orinetation?
(7) Have you ever been bashed up and left for dead because of sexual orientation?

Well? How did you rate on these questions?


Again you fail to understand what is being discussed here. These things you ask me are irrelevant. As if these are the 7 questions by which all people judge if they are discriminated against. Even if I answered no to all these questions it wouldn't matter. There is no way for you or anyone else to measure how people feel against any kind of discrimination(and there are other sorts that you didn't list on your grand list of 7 items). So trying to show me that x group of people are discriminated against x amount more than x group is pointless.

Do you honestly think that you of all people are qualified to determine who is more discriminated against than another group of people? Do you honestly think you can judge how a person feels or should feel if they are discriminated against? Hell you wouldn't even know FOR SURE if these things actually occured - it is certainly possible and often happens that there was just a misunderstanding and people assume oh it's because im gay/black/republican/rich/whatever. These questions can't really even be answered - how often do you get denied a home/job/power of attorney/whatever and the reason they say is "oh it's because you are black/gay/retarded/female" - NEVER!

:smooch:

[Eileen]

Gah. I hate how every conversation like th is gets turned into a "boohoo they're oversensitive fuck political correctness" party. People have every right to express offensive opinions, and that does mean that they CAN say "that's homo/gay/faggoty/etc," but it's offensive and insensitive AND if not directly, indirectly discriminatory speech. Just because it's not MEANT to insult gays doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be perceived that way. You're taking a word that is used to identify those people and you're using it perjoratively (though 'faggot', like 'nigger,' is already pretty laced with negativity as is). Imagine someone taking your name and making it synonymous with 'stupid.' It's insulting! Perhaps it's not the most important civil rights cause to pursue, but you shouldn't be surprised if it bothers people! Good Lord.


No, the problem is not the word itself, it is much more than that. If people suddenly stopped using the words "gay", "homo", "fag/faggot" etc but the general perception of homosexuality being undesirable remains, then we still have the same problem. I mean, those words could simply be replaced with "your one of them" stated as an insult. With "them" implying homosexuals. Simply refraining from using those particular words will not stop discrimination agains homosexuals.


I do agree with this, btw. I was thinking about it while in the shower this morning. It won't change opinions and deep-seated prejudices... but as a teacher (and this is where my concern about this subject really comes to head--in the classroom), I can prohibit that kind of speech because it *is* offensive and *does* make the learning environment feel unsafe for gay kids. I can't protect anyone anywhere except in the sphere where I'm ultimately in charge--but I will do what I can there.



And ppc, it is silly to assert that you can't know whether one group is more discriminated than another. Even if the reason is not explicitly stated, you can see discrimination based on patterns of who is denied what and noticing what social groups (racial, sexual, or otherwise) those people belong to.

(last part edited for clarity)

[SensEye]

Just because it's not MEANT to insult gays doesn't mean that it SHOULDN'T be perceived that way. You're taking a word that is used to identify those people and you're using it perjoratively (though 'faggot', like 'nigger,' is already pretty laced with negativity as is). Imagine someone taking your name and making it synonymous with 'stupid.' It's insulting! Perhaps it's not the most important civil rights cause to pursue, but you shouldn't be surprised if it bothers people! Good Lord.I don't agree here. If a word is used in a way not meant to insult, it should not be perceived that way. Not being able to say something simply because somebody somewhere may take offense is political correctness run amuck. If I don't mean to insult I do get surprised if people get offended. As far as I am concerned it's just an expression. They should get over it. If, for example, people in the gay community took to using the expression "that's straight" as a derogative it would not bother me a bit. In fact, I wish they would do so, because then if I caught them using the expression I could say: "See it doesn't mean you hate all hetero people does it?"

[ppc]

Exactly - that makes so much sense I don't know why everyone can't just understand and accept it.

[Eileen]

I don't agree here. If a word is used in a way not meant to insult, it should not be perceived that way. Not being able to say something simply because somebody somewhere may take offense is political correctness run amuck. If I don't mean to insult I do get surprised if people get offended. As far as I am concerned it's just an expression. They should get over it. If, for example, people in the gay community took to using the expression "that's straight" as a derogative it would not bother me a bit. In fact, I wish they would do so, because then if I caught them using the expression I could say: "See it doesn't mean you hate all hetero people does it?"

People have as much right to be offended as others have to offend. 'Gay' has a particular definition which everyone knows and people know when they're saying 'that's gay' to express 'that's stupid' or 'that's bad.' In general, I would say that the offense taken should not be so much at the person who says it without thinking about what comes across when he says it, but at the fact that it has become so... automatic, somehow, in our culture to use 'gay' as an insult.

And I do stand by my original statement that people shouldn't be so surprised when it insults. You might not mean it as an insult, but look at what you're saying--look what it comes across as to someone who identifies as gay. If you don't mean that gay=stupid, then you should find another word that more clearly expresses 'stupid' rather than 'homosexual.' If you truly don't want to insult, find a word that isn't so charged with meaning to people. People can be oversensitive and I know that, but I don't consider this to be an ambiguous example of offensive language (whereas some terms like 'chick' or 'babe' might be ambiguous) because there's a very clear path that this little phrase has followed to get to where it is now. Homosexual = Gay. Gay = Stupid/wrong. Thing I don't like/thing that is dumb = That's gay. That it has become so engrained in young people's language is truly sad. People need to think about what they're saying before they say it. If you're okay with offending, then proceed. If not, then think about what you could say instead that would communicate the same thing in a way that doesn't alienate or denegrade a whole group of people.

All of this said, I do not support a large sweeping prohibition of offensive language--I do support teaching kids that a classroom community is a place where you use language in a particularly ethical way because of the objectives of the community. I don't even write kids up for it as I would for cussing (or punish them otherwise); I just call it to attention that it's offensive and that it would be better if they found another word.

[songbird36]

I don't agree here. If a word is used in a way not meant to insult, it should not be perceived that way. Not being able to say something simply because somebody somewhere may take offense is political correctness run amuck. If I don't mean to insult I do get surprised if people get offended. As far as I am concerned it's just an expression. They should get over it. If, for example, people in the gay community took to using the expression "that's straight" as a derogative it would not bother me a bit. In fact, I wish they would do so, because then if I caught them using the expression I could say: "See it doesn't mean you hate all hetero people does it?"

You would feel very differently about this issue if you were part of a group which has traditionally been discriminated against. Because you are not, you cannot conceptualise the nature of that group's perceptions and sensitivities and (seemingly) cannot use your imagination to place yourself in its shoes, either.

Language is a powerful tool and can be used as a weapon. Certain words have demeaning or negative connotations, whereas other terms for the same thing do not:

Blacks - find the term "nigger" derogatory but not the term "black" or "Afro-American"

Gays - Find the word "faggot" derogatory but not "homosexual" (as the latter term is simply descriptive)

Disabled person - Find "cripple" offensive but not "disabled person"

And so on, the list is endless. Don't try and pretend these groups have a problem and should "get over it". We as a society should be more sensitive to them, or we are not a society but in fact, a group of barbarians.

[SensEye]

Blacks - find the term "nigger" derogatory but not the term "black" or "Afro-American".I don't live in an area with a significant black minority, but I am under the impression blacks refer to other blacks using the term "nigger" all the time. I suggest it is not the term itself that is offensive but the implied meaning behind it's use.



Disabled person - Find "cripple" offensive but not "disabled person"An alternative expression to "that's gay" is "that's lame". I suppose you would make that taboo as well.


And so on, the list is endless. Don't try and pretend these groups have a problem and should "get over it". We as a society should be more sensitive to them, or we are not a society but in fact, a group of barbarians.Indeed the list is endless. That's my point. Where I live the politicians put up a pine tree and decorate it with lights in December every year. Do you know what they call it? A "multicultural tree". They put it up to celebrate "festive season". Apparently the term Christmas is offensive to large groups of people. Does this make you roll your eyes? It does me and I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't for the life of me fathom how people could take offense. I will note the argument used by the people justifying this terminology is IDENTICAL to that used by you and Eileen. If I beg to differ I am an insensitive boor who has no experience being a poor downtrodden minority.

I don't think having an ever growing "forbidden word list" does anything to discourage discrimination. Just sweeps the issue under the rug and discourages intelligent thought with a bunch of meaningless dictates.

[Geoff]

There is a difference here, I think.

Some words *are* more offensive than others. That is a simple fact of the way language works. Ok, so people may not *care* if they offend people, but to pretend that those people shouldnt be offended is to completely misinterpret how they are perceived.

I agree that it would be better if people recognised that there was no intent to hurt, but the fact remains that if any reasonable person (we use the expression in the UK "the man on the clapham omnibus :) ) would believe that someone would be offended, then you should also recognise that you are being offensive.

So the test should be, is what you are doing generally accepted by society as offensive. if it is, then you should only use it if you dont care about being offensive.

I can not comment as to whether 'gay' has passed that boundary in N America (like, say the word 'lame' or 'moron' typically has) as we dont use it here in that context. But the implication is that it is still seen as insulting to gays. If generally in society it is still viewed like that, then people should at least be prepared to acknowledge then generally it is insulting (which they may not care about, of course).

There will be a point, no doubt, when the word changes its meaning and intent, but I suspect (particularly from the feedback of American English speakers here on this very thread) that this hasnt yet been reached.

-Geoff

[Eileen]

There is a difference here, I think.

Some words *are* more offensive than others. That is a simple fact of the way language works. Ok, so people may not *care* if they offend people, but to pretend that those people shouldnt be offended is to completely misinterpret how they are perceived.

I agree that it would be better if people recognised that there was no intent to hurt, but the fact remains that if any reasonable person (we use the expression in the UK "the man on the clapham omnibus :) ) would believe that someone would be offended, then you should also recognise that you are being offensive.

So the test should be, is what you are doing generally accepted by society as offensive. if it is, then you should only use it if you dont care about being offensive.


Geoff is right. When is Geoff going to start his cult? I'll be the first to sign up. Bye-bye Jesus, hello GEOFF!

[Geoff]

Geoff is right. When is Geoff going to start his cult? I'll be the first to sign up. Bye-bye Jesus, hello GEOFF!

Aw, you guys are sweet sometimes.

I'll let you know when to join the comet ;)

-Geoff

[Utopmk]

You would feel very differently about this issue if you were part of a group which has traditionally been discriminated against. Because you are not, you cannot conceptualise the nature of that group's perceptions and sensitivities and (seemingly) cannot use your imagination to place yourself in its shoes, either.


What about drug users then? I could not even begin to count the times I have been called a crackhead, a criminal, a pothead, or a junkie. People even get put in jail for doing them, and they are just being who they are. Just like homosexuality, it is not a choice, but an undeniable preference.


And what about being poor? Are poor people not discriminated against? "That's a poor decision." Is that enough to make me want to kick someone's ass or cry?

And it never occurs to people that calling someone fat is just as bad as calling them a nigger or a faggot.

[Claverhouse]

And it never occurs to people that calling someone fat is just as bad as calling them a nigger or a faggot.
Or thin, or slow, or sharp, or lawyer-like...

Everyone deserves compensation.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Adjudicated by lawyers to maximise... something, possibly their fees.

[jyakulis]

I'd post on this thread but it's so fucking GAY!

[songbird36]

I don't live in an area with a significant black minority, but I am under the impression blacks refer to other blacks using the term "nigger" all the time. I suggest it is not the term itself that is offensive but the implied meaning behind it's use.

An alternative expression to "that's gay" is "that's lame". I suppose you would make that taboo as well.

Indeed the list is endless. That's my point. Where I live the politicians put up a pine tree and decorate it with lights in December every year. Do you know what they call it? A "multicultural tree". They put it up to celebrate "festive season". Apparently the term Christmas is offensive to large groups of people. Does this make you roll your eyes? It does me and I'm an agnostic atheist. I can't for the life of me fathom how people could take offense. I will note the argument used by the people justifying this terminology is IDENTICAL to that used by you and Eileen. If I beg to differ I am an insensitive boor who has no experience being a poor downtrodden minority.

I don't think having an ever growing "forbidden word list" does anything to discourage discrimination. Just sweeps the issue under the rug and discourages intelligent thought with a bunch of meaningless dictates.

I agree that the PC movement has gone too far. But the reality is still that some words and terms are offensive, and these ones are usually obviously offensive, not just labelled as such by the PC brigade.

We do better to avoid them, and thereby to show some respect for the minority groups in our society who feel oppressed by the use of them.

[songbird36]

Or thin, or slow, or sharp, or lawyer-like...

Everyone deserves compensation.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Adjudicated by lawyers to maximise... something, possibly their fees.

I'm surprised to see you taking this line - as someone who appreciates the nuances of language.

[ppc]

Either certain words all the time are offensive to all people OR people choose to be offended by certain words.

Words/meanings change ALL THE TIME.

You choose to be offended and there is no other way to come to any other conclusion.

Do people choose along with many other people in society to be offended by the same word often? Sure they do but does that change the fact that you CHOOSE to be offended? Words in and of themselves do not carry an offensive or not offensive pre-determination.

If you can prove otherwise I will shave my head.

[songbird36]

Shave your damn head then.

And while you're at it, put a hair shirt on and see how it makes you feel.

[ppc]

I figured that would be your response - you have nothing you can possibly say to prove me wrong.

[songbird36]

I figured that would be your response - you have nothing you can possibly say to prove me wrong.

No I just can't be bothered, as my last 10 posts on this topic have failed to persuade you how hollow your arguments are.

Have you shaved your head yet? It's the first step to feeling discriminated against. The second step is to start wearing an earring in your right ear.

[ppc]

No what you mean is "I can't prove you wrong and I am wrong"

Lets see some logic in your argument - show me something with my last post about the subject that was wrong. I like how you say "fail to persuade." That tells me that you know you aren't dealing with facts just feelings because you don't persuade people with facts. What I said is fact and what you said is nothing but emotion that is irrelevant.

It's simple - do you choose to be offended or don't you?


ps - My head is already shaved.

[songbird36]

OK then here goes.

Your argument is premised on people making the "choice" to be offended by a term such as "faggot" which is *generally regarded* as a derogatory reference to homosexuals.

What is the reason you have chosen to use the term "faggot" which you know to have derogatory connotations, in preference to a word which does not? The reason is that you wish, and seek to, offend the person to whom the term is addressed.

That person in being offended is not making a choice, they are perceiving the word in the way that it is commonly understood and perceived by others.

There are other words and terms that are more ambiguous in their intent and connotations, but "faggot" is not one of them.

Neither is "nigger", as it was the word used by the white plantation owners to refer to their slaves, who were often strung up and torched on trees for petty crimes, or sometimes for no reason at all.

[ppc]

The question was do you choose to be offended or don't you?

Yes or no will suffice.

[songbird36]

Offended by what exactly? Clarify that and then I will answer.

[ppc]

Words

You know - what we have been talking about pretty much the whole time.

[songbird36]

Well it's a question that I can't possibly answer with a Yes/No.

It depends on the word, the context, the person saying it, all sorts of things.

But the word "faggot" is universally offensive. That's the point.

[ppc]

Are you pretending to be able to determine what words are offensive to all people even though over the course of time those change and often do?

I am not offended by the word faggot and I know someone who is gay who doesn't care about the word at all.

Wrong again.

[Division56]

Oh god SB, stop arguing.

We can leer at ppc, and possibly throw popcorn.


*leers*

[Shai Gar]

dont check your language,
check your reactions.

[songbird36]

dont check your language,
check your reactions.

Dweeb.

*SB34 removes 10 rating points from SG*

[ppc]

What she is trying to argue is that offensive words are a fact when they clearly are not.

She said they are universal - which implies for all people all things always - or a fact.

So if I walk up to someone who doesn't speak english and say faggot - will he be offended? Of course not because "offensive words" are not universal.

Still waiting for your reply...

[songbird36]

I'm trying to decide if you're worth arguing with. It's not looking good at this point.

You want to split hairs about people from other languages/cultures, do you? Well in *this* culture (of which we all form part) the word *faggot* is universally offensive to gays, and to many other non-gays as well.

[ppc]

Well you have been doing it for a while so far - I must have been worth it up to this point, I wonder what changed?

Could it be you figured out you were wrong?

[songbird36]

How about we move to a Yu-Gi-Oh duel (see new thread).

It'll be much more fun and will declare an obvious winner..

PS - I have Blue Eyes Ultimate Dragon

[ppc]

I suppose winning is much more fun than losing isn't it?

[songbird36]

I'm giving you a chance to redeem yourself with a duel.

But if you don't want to take it..well then what can I say?

[ppc]

It'll be much more fun and will declare an obvious winner..

First you state it isn't obvious who is a "winner" and then you say you are giving me a chance to redeem myself.

Tell me - does it snow skittles and rain m & m's in your make believe world too?

What can you say? You can say "I am trying to make this go away by getting really off topic and diverting attention to something else because admitting I was wrong on a web forum would kill my ego"

Or you could try saying nothing, that would probably be better than what you have came up with so far. Or continue being smashed by me, it is up to you I suppose.

[songbird36]

Ah fighting talk. But you lost - game over Player One.

I will duel you though - do you have a deck?

[ppc]

I know you think that if you keep posting that means you win but it doesn't.

I was serious about just not saying anything. It would do you good.

[Architectonic]

I know you think that if you keep posting that means you win but it doesn't.

And yet you continue to make sure you have the last word...

[songbird36]

That's 'cos he doesn't have a deck..

lol

[ppc]

Well if I did have a deck I wouldn't let you shuffle it.

[Geoff]

First you state it isn't obvious who is a "winner" and then you say you are giving me a chance to redeem myself.

Tell me - does it snow skittles and rain m & m's in your make believe world too?

What can you say? You can say "I am trying to make this go away by getting really off topic and diverting attention to something else because admitting I was wrong on a web forum would kill my ego"

Or you could try saying nothing, that would probably be better than what you have came up with so far. Or continue being smashed by me, it is up to you I suppose.

Would you like to go back through the thread and read my post on how if any reasonable person would be offended, then a language user should expect their words to be reasonably offensive.

It is *not* about how you, or I choose to intend those words. It is about how they are generally viewed. It is quite a common legal concept - the idea being to establish what a reasonable level of behaviour is. If what you do is reasonably expected to be offensive by everyone in society, then it is, whether you choose in your make believe world to delude yourself that it should not be.

There is little point in wrapping yourself in a "it's all their fault' cloak and pretending that you can be as offensive as you like and the fault is with them for taking offense.

If the man/woman/gay in the street typically finds a word offensive, then you using it is usually offensive. Whatever any two individuals intend. The point is it is *usually* offensive.

This should be so blatantly self evident that I would hope this somewhat pointless thread can now be allowed to die.

-Geof

[Thermo]

Not being able to say something simply because somebody somewhere may take offense is political correctness run amuck.
This is exactly why I avoided this thread.

It is just my opinion, but the PC people I have talked to on this board seem very close minded and religiously fervertent about PC issues. If you disagree, you are automatically racist/sexist. Ironically, this attitude is the same thing that caused the discrimination in the first place.

[Eileen]

Would you like to go back through the thread and read my post on how if any reasonable person would be offended, then a language user should expect their words to be reasonably offensive.

It is *not* about how you, or I choose to intend those words. It is about how they are generally viewed. It is quite a common legal concept - the idea being to establish what a reasonable level of behaviour is. If what you do is reasonably expected to be offensive by everyone in society, then it is, whether you choose in your make believe world to delude yourself that it should not be.

There is little point in wrapping yourself in a "it's all their fault' cloak and pretending that you can be as offensive as you like and the fault is with them for taking offense.

If the man/woman/gay in the street typically finds a word offensive, then you using it is usually offensive. Whatever any two individuals intend. The point is it is *usually* offensive.

This should be so blatantly self evident that I would hope this somewhat pointless thread can now be allowed to die.

-Geof

The reasonable man hath spoken. All glory, laud, and honor to the man who has mighty logical capabilities AND the ability to consider how an action might affect another person or group of people! Blessed is he...

You do not communicate in a vacuum. You cannot assign one meaning to a word or phrase that could mean something else that is potentially offensive and simply EXPECT that meaning to be clear and obvious to another. Words carry cultural significance and are depend much on context. *You* do not have the power to trump culture and make something mean something else to another person.

In a communication exchange, I would contend that is the speaker's responsibility to be understood. If he says something and it is misinterpreted, if he really wants to be understood, it is his responsibility to clarify his original statement. In order to communicate clearly in the first place, it is important to understand that words have meanings that are assigned by a larger culture, not by the individual himself. If he is going to use it in an alternate way, he can expect that he will need to clarify. His audience has a responsibility to make an effort to understand, but HE is the one responsible for making himself able to be understood.

Here is a great document from the National Communication Association:



NCA Credo for Ethical Communication

(approved by the NCA Legislative Council in 1999)



Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate. Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking, decision making, and the development of relationships and communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical communication threatens the quality of all communication and consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following principles of ethical communication:



We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication.



We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision making fundamental to a civil society.



We strive to understand and respect other communicators before evaluating and responding to their messages.



We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of families, communities, and society.



We promote communication climates of caring and mutual understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of individual communicators.



We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through the expression of intolerance and hatred.



We are committed to the courageous expression of personal convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice.



We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality.



We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for our own communication and expect the same of others.


(emphasis mine, btw)

[Eileen]

one more thing. Some 'political correctness' things ARE absurd, such as re-naming disabled people "differently abled" or terming at-risk kids as "at promise" (which doesn't even make sense). Re-naming a group to give it some kind of contrived positive spin is silly. Objecting to someone hijacking a word commonly used to identify a group of people and using it as a synonym for wrong, bad, or stupid is NOT a pointless PC issue.

Essentially, if you give a damn about offending people, think before you open your mouth. If you don't, say what you want and accept the consequences of offending people.

[Utopmk]

There are people starving and dying all over the world. Be their martyr. Offensive words are a petty issue decided by people who have too much time and nothing better to do.

I propose a socialist meal for degradation program. Welfare... Food stamps... You give us enough to barely survive on, and we will let you call us white trash. (songbird)

[sbw]

Meatball in an onion gravy? I thought it's a cigarette.

And I love them.

I learned in school that 'fagot' actually means bundle of sticks, i.e. kindling. And I love cigarettes too.

Scott

[SensEye]

one more thing. Some 'political correctness' things ARE absurd, such as re-naming disabled people "differently abled" or terming at-risk kids as "at promise" (which doesn't even make sense). Re-naming a group to give it some kind of contrived positive spin is silly. Objecting to someone hijacking a word commonly used to identify a group of people and using it as a synonym for wrong, bad, or stupid is NOT a pointless PC issue.

Essentially, if you give a damn about offending people, think before you open your mouth. If you don't, say what you want and accept the consequences of offending people.I agree, part of the problem is where to draw the line on what is absurd. I don't think "that's gay" is really offensive so I guess I will continue to use the expression if I see fit and some people may take offense.

Political correctness is one of those things that really gets me wound up, and I probably use a few too many non-pc terms for purposes of non-conformence.

[songbird36]

The reasonable man hath spoken. All glory, laud, and honor to the man who has mighty logical capabilities AND the ability to consider how an action might affect another person or group of people! Blessed is he...

You do not communicate in a vacuum. You cannot assign one meaning to a word or phrase that could mean something else that is potentially offensive and simply EXPECT that meaning to be clear and obvious to another. Words carry cultural significance and are depend much on context. *You* do not have the power to trump culture and make something mean something else to another person.

In a communication exchange, I would contend that is the speaker's responsibility to be understood. If he says something and it is misinterpreted, if he really wants to be understood, it is his responsibility to clarify his original statement. In order to communicate clearly in the first place, it is important to understand that words have meanings that are assigned by a larger culture, not by the individual himself. If he is going to use it in an alternate way, he can expect that he will need to clarify. His audience has a responsibility to make an effort to understand, but HE is the one responsible for making himself able to be understood.

Here is a great document from the National Communication Association:



(emphasis mine, btw)

Gee thanks Eileen. I've been arguing the same point in about the last 20 points and *Geoff* is the sane and reasonable one?

Yes the point is self-evident. I'm surprised there has been an argument on it at all, but there you go. Life is a strange creature.

[ppc]

Either certain words all the time are offensive to all people OR people choose to be offended by certain words.

Words/meanings change ALL THE TIME.

You choose to be offended and there is no other way to come to any other conclusion.

Do people choose along with many other people in society to be offended by the same word often? Sure they do but does that change the fact that you CHOOSE to be offended? Words in and of themselves do not carry an offensive or not offensive pre-determination.

If you can prove otherwise I will shave my head.

I believe I already answered these questions and no one could come up with any kind of a response to them.

It is utterly useless and stupid to get offended by a word that you read on a website somewhere even if the intent was to get you angry but furthermore you have no idea what my intent was when I used the word faggot in this thread yet some of you got offended even though I have stated I am for gay marriage - not civil unions but marriage - and any other sort of rights anyone else has in this country. No you decided that I used a word and you decided to get "offended" even thought it directly contradicts any possible ability to be able to be offended EXCEPT that it is the word faggot and that is it(hence you think words are possible in having the ability in being offensive no matter what - but they aren't and you are just being silly.)

Thank you for proving my point that you do and have choose/chosen to be offended by words and that words in and of themselves do not hold inherent offensive value.

[Geoff]

It is utterly useless and stupid to get offended by a word that you read on a website somewhere even if the intent was to get you angry but furthermore you have no idea what my intent was when I used the word faggot in this thread yet some of you got offended even though I have stated I am for gay marriage - not civil unions but marriage - and any other sort of rights anyone else has in this country. No you decided that I used a word and you decided to get "offended" even thought it directly contradicts any possible ability to be able to be offended EXCEPT that it is the word faggot and that is it(hence you think words are possible in having the ability in being offensive no matter what - but they aren't and you are just being silly.)



Is there a worldwide punctuation shortage?

-Geoff

[songbird36]

Is there a worldwide punctuation shortage?

-Geoff

Haha - he used up his punctuation quota in the last 30 posts. He's down to verbal diahorrea now.

[ppc]

Ad hominem de jour.

You lose I win.

[songbird36]

Ad hominem de jour.

You lose I win.

Whatever works for you.

[ppc]

Facts work for me - emotions work for you.

[songbird36]

No. I articulated my arguments very clearly and so did Geoff.

But there are two sides in this debate, and (I suspect) never the twain shall meet.

So let's agree to disagree, and move on.

[ppc]

Actually I won the argument and you wanted to have a "Yu-Fag-Ot duel"

[Geoff]

"Winning" an argument on such a complex issue is what 3 year olds so. Having a balanced discussion, and recognising that not everyone has to have the same point of view is what adults do.

-Geoff

[cjs55]

Booooring.

[Shai Gar]

Dweeb.

*SB34 removes 10 rating points from SG*
dweeb, coming from SB, its like a cripple saying "you can't walk, ahahaha"

[Edmond Zedo]

dweeb, coming from SB, its like a cripple saying "you can't walk, ahahaha"
Did you know songbird is a cripple (Not just a mental cripple)? If not, that's especially humorous.

[songbird36]

dweeb, coming from SB, its like a cripple saying "you can't walk, ahahaha"

Only joking - I still luv ya SG.

[ppc]

"Winning" an argument on such a complex issue is what 3 year olds so. Having a balanced discussion, and recognising that not everyone has to have the same point of view is what adults do.

-Geoff

And how old would you have to be to challenge someone to a yu-gi-oh duel while having a serious discussion to determine who "wins"?

[Geoff]

And how old would you have to be to challenge someone to a yu-gi-oh duel while having a serious discussion to determine who "wins"?

I dont know, I dont even know what yu-gi-oh is!

-Geoff

[songbird36]

And how old would you have to be to challenge someone to a yu-gi-oh duel while having a serious discussion to determine who "wins"?

I've played it with my 13 year old nephew and beaten him.

But it was an attempt at humour for goodness sake. I don't seriously suggest that the outcome of a Yu-Gi-Oh duel could determine respective levels of mental competence.

[mgb]

But it was an attempt at humour for goodness sake.



Good "attempt".

[Shai Gar]

i did not know she was both physically as well as mentally crippled

[Shai Gar]

Only joking - I still luv ya SG.
i was giving some sound logic, you attacked me personally for no other purpose than you were riled by PPC, if you had attacked my idea i could have let it go. you attacked me, screw you.

[Edmond Zedo]

i did not know she was both physically as well as mentally crippled
She can't move her feet, apparently, due to a spinal injury.

Check the Anti-songbird thread. She agreed to leave, but now she's "waffling."

[songbird36]

i was giving some sound logic, you attacked me personally for no other purpose than you were riled by PPC, if you had attacked my idea i could have let it go. you attacked me, screw you.

Sigh. The arguments on that side were dumb. Forgive me for being a "T" and stating so.

I don't think you're a dweeb or anything else. You know me better than that.

[ppc]

Then why don't you use your "T" and discredit the argument instead.

[Shai Gar]

the arguments on one side you considered to be dumb and thus you attempted to discredit my argument simply because of the "side" you believed they were affiliated with?

and instead of honestly discrediting, you insult the person who makes the post.

by the way, what i said was for my own side, noone elses

[Miss Anthropic]

Thought this would be a good place to bitch about the bastardization of language, specifically the term 'gay'. For those of us not living in TX, there is no moral difference between gay and straight. So how did 'gay' become a catch-all derogatory comment, the antithesis of cool? Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the niggardly practice of verbal abuse.
Don't know if anyone else brought this up (they must have, but that won't stop me now) because I couldn't bear to wade through 23 pages, but I believe you misused niggardly....which means stingy...and it does not fit the context. "Think before you speak, and maybe we can get rid of the 'stingy' practice of verbal abuse." I think you abused that adjective.

On the subject however, I think the term gay as a catch-all synonym for anything disparaging is unimaginative, but to convince those who use it to be more creative in word choice would be unlikely and therefore a waste of time.

Your play on words: bitching about the bastardization....kind of clever :)

[Eileen]

Gee thanks Eileen. I've been arguing the same point in about the last 20 points and *Geoff* is the sane and reasonable one?

Yes the point is self-evident. I'm surprised there has been an argument on it at all, but there you go. Life is a strange creature.

I must have missed it in the midst of all the dual-challenging and winner-declaring. My bad.

[Claverhouse]

PLACE-HOLDER FOR CLASSIC STATUS