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

[mindseye]

you have to show us how the insult affects you.

I am gay. Hearing someone use "gay" to mean "bad" offends me. Others here say the same thing.

If someone says they are offended by your language, do you require some sort of further proof that they are in fact offended?

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you see shows on network TV depicting anyone using that form of the word?

So a word is obviously offensive if they don't say it on "Everybody Loves Raymond"?

Citing a show designed to offend everyone imaginable as an example of why the word shouldn't be considered offensive is pretty, erm, lame.

It isn't used for shock value on the show; it's normal dialogue as that is how today's youth speaks.

But why am I wasting my time? It's rather absurd to expect an opera singer and a Canadian hermit to truly understand contemporary youth culture...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mindseye
If someone says they are offended by your language, do you require some sort of further proof that they are in fact offended?

No, instead of actually trying to empathize with gays and realize why they get offended, they'd rather accuse them of being the ones who're doing something wrong by being offended so they don't have to worry about modifying their behavior or admitting that they've done something to offend someone.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you kidding?
'gay' is not hateful.

Of course it isn't! Jesus!!!

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

There's the understatement of the year...

[Lincoln]

I'm confused. I thought people who were gay liked the word 'gay' because it has a more positive meaning. Now that you have all hijacked the word what is the problem? Is the word good or bad? Why don't you all make up another word if this one has been turned around now? Or, why don't you stop being so gay about it?

[mindseye]

No, my position is that "gay" isn't an offensive slur

Yet gay people are here, right now, telling you that they are offended!!!

If you are not offended by it, that's fine - but gay people are.Personally, I don't know any gay person who thinks otherwise.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Of course it isn't! Jesus!!!

Did you not read the rest?

Seriously, explain to me the rationale behind arguing in favor of the word "gay" as an insult.

You say it's changed its meaning so it shouldn't be offended. Why you keep saying that -- I'm not sure. From this thread, so far 100% of the gay population tells you they consider it offensive when it's used as a general insult.

And I assure you those figures are not going to change much if you survey other gay people.

So I'm just really confused. Why do both you and Agathon keep digging your holes? Why do you keep trying to rationalize something that is clearly offensive? Why do you think that "proving" it has nothing to do with sexuality will change the fact that people are still very offended by it?

Why don't you and Agathon both do the right thing and admit that the term "gay" is needlessly offending and alienating a large portion of today's youth that are already putting up with more bullshit than you and your girlfriends had to go through.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Do you see shows on network TV depicting anyone using that form of the word?

So a word is obviously offensive if they don't say it on "Everybody Loves Raymond"?

What a way to change the meaning of your own argument. The point was that you claimed the terminology was used practically ubiquitously in culture, and I pointed out that this is simply untrue, as by our strongest measure of culture (television), it is cleary taboo.

It isn't used for shock value on the show; it's normal dialogue as that is how today's youth speaks.

I spend a good deal of time exposed to today's youth, being the son of a teacher and roommate with one, as well as doing some tutoring and mentoring myself. I can honestly tell you that the youth I encounter don't use it as standard speech. At any rate, that still is reinforcing my point that rather than being part of out culture, it is fairly isolated to a minority subset.

Since another minority subset (white supremacists) use the word "nigger" in their common speech, does that mean it is a part of our entire culture to use it so?

But why am I wasting my time? It's rather absurd to expect an opera singer and a Candian hermit to truly understand contemporary youth culture...

As much as I'm wasting my time trying to explain to a narrow-minded Nebraskan heterosexual why gays get offended when "gay" is used to refer to somethin bad...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

There's the understatement of the year...

You try growing up as anything other than straight in an environment where you hear "gay" used as an insult 20 times a day, when people tell you that you can't get married, when people tell you that you can't give give blood, when people tell you that you can't show affection in public with your SO.

It really does set me off when people try to rationalize clearly unacceptable behavior because they're too lazy or too stupid to change their behavior for the benefit of the people being tremendously hurt by it.

[Ben Kenobi]

mindseye:

In real-life? No. I don't use the term because there are better ways to express the same idea.

If I know someone is gay, I will refrain from the word for the same reason.

Part of the problem is that you use the word to describe yourselves, that you have your identity wrapped up in the word.

Now with a word such as, 'nigger', you did not see black people using the word to describe themselves, so the intent was clear. The only people who used the word used it to denigrate blacks.

If the word causes problems, why not stop using it amongst yourselves?

The word itself is not, but using the word as an insult for everything is a hateful concept in and of itself.

Asher:

What if used among people who are not gay? Is the intent of the word to slander and denigrate homosexuals?

I apologize for getting a bit racy about it, but it's a very sensitive subject to me.

Asher, no prob. You are not the one throwing insults.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yet gay people are here, right now, telling you that they are offended!!!

I don't judge words based on the interpretation of a few people, but on how society views the word. My segment of society views "gay" as a non-offensive word. If you don't agree, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to stop using the word "gay" just because you can't adapt to its new meaning...

Personally, I don't know any gay person who thinks otherwise.

I do.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monkspider
Hmm, pretty good debate, aside from the name-calling. I think Ag's strongest point is the "contemporary use" arguement, which is very strong. But at the end of the day, I find my self siding with Boris and co. The "Jew" or "nigger-rigged" arguement is hard to ignore. Props to Ag though.

OK - I've made my point and this is my last on it.

I'll address the "Jew" argument because I think this is a false analogy with "gay".

If people just decided one day that they would use "Jew" to mean "stupid" for whatever reason then I think it would be wrong.

But I have maintained that this is not the case with "gay". Due to the mild nature of the insult I think it is best understood as an historical development from the time when the meaning of "gay" forked into two meanings: one being (a) "silly and effeminate" and the other being (b) "homosexual". Of course there are still some people who believe it means the original which was (c) "silly and effeminate homosexual" but they are in the minority.

My position is that the current teen use evolved from (c) via (a) rather than from (c) directly, after (a) had lost most of its negative connotations and well after usage meant that it was possible to distinguish (a) from (b). The main evidence for this is that it is a mild term of derision rather than the strong term that one would expect from a direct evolution from (c) (e.g. if people started using "Fag" as an adjective). The other evidence I have is simply my own experience of being a member of the English speech community and my observations of the change. But short of sharing memories that's not going to help much.

Anyway

If the foregoing was true of "Jew" then there would have to have been a historical split in usage from "Jew" used pejoratively to "jew" used to indicate some feature that was formerly negatively associated with Jews (say - miserliness) and then came to signify a much milder form of that feature with no specific reference to actual jews (such that Jews began use it along with everyone else). That there hasn't been one is what gives the "Jew" argument its superficial force since we shudder from the thought of using "jew" to mean "miserly" - but there is no a priori reason why this could not have happened. That's why I think the argument doesn't work.

Anyway, I'd like to say that my interest in this is, surprise surprise, primarily philosophical. I've only being doing this to defend my belief a la Wittgenstein (ironically himself a gay man!) that meaning is use and the consequence of this view that interpretation is not ownership of the term (a fallacy that I think infects discussions of PC language - hence my interest in this debate). If I've come on sounding like I want to get at gays or defend bigotry, I apologise - that was not my intent - I was really trying to defend a dead 20th century Philosopher of Language. I hope there are no hard feelings (although Asher tends to get angry quick).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


This has been dispensed with. The meaning of a word is not its interpretation; it is is normal use by a speech community, which can change.

Comunity?

We are talking about language, one on one communication, and you think that is some how defined by community?? it is completely the opposite!

I am sorry, but when someone says something to me I do not create an internet poll asking for opinions on what it means. I do not have to have an entire community to help me have a conversation.

It is simply mind blowing how you can not understand how this works. How language works.


It is purely, 100%, absolutely, completely, interpretation that gives a word meaning. Hell, the sheer fact that we are even having this conversation is undeniable proof that words have different meanings to different people. If you can not respect that, then you are failing to grasp the concepts of language and, frankly, are being a completely inconsiderate *******.



However you do almost have a point. Obviously, if a common interpretation is tought to a community of people, that will become the most understood - that is how a common language is created. But even then interpretation is peramount. People will put different values into words, and associate words with personal experience or images, creating new definitions. This is why some people are offended by certain words while others are not.

That is the problem here, there is a conflict of 'common interpretations' with the word gay. One refers to a sexuality, an identity, a life syte. The other is used as a slur. Can you see where a problem might arise from such a situation? I really hope you can.

And I really, really hope you don't expect the people who identify themselves with the word to give it up and let it be used as a slur.

[Agathon]

Asher, are you "gay" (in either sense)?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I'm confused. I thought people who were gay liked the word 'gay' because it has a more positive meaning. Now that you have all hijacked the word what is the problem? Is the word good or bad? Why don't you all make up another word if this one has been turned around now? Or, why don't you stop being so gay about it?

You could at least be creative in your trolling, since we already dispensed with the nonsense notion that homosexuals "hijacked" the word "gay" at any point in time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher, are you "gay" (in either sense)?

You haven't figured it out by now?

[Drake Tungsten]

The point was that you claimed the terminology was used practically ubiquitously in culture, and I pointed out that this is simply untrue, as by our strongest measure of culture (television), it is cleary taboo.

It is not clearly taboo. Some shows use the word, some don't. The ones that don't are usually shows skewed to an older audience. The word is ubiquitous in youth culture and will show up more and more on television as this segment of society gets older. You're doomed to be offended for the rest of your life if you don't adapt to this new meaning.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Osweld


Comunity?

We are talking about language, one on one communication, and you think that is some how defined by community?? it is completely the opposite!

I am sorry, but when someone says something to me I do not create an internet poll asking for opinions on what it means. I do not have to have an entire community to help me have a conversation.

It is simply mind blowing how you can not understand how this works. How language works.


It is purely, 100%, absolutely, completely, interpretation that gives a word meaning. Hell, the sheer fact that we are even having this conversation is undeniable proof that words have different meanings to different people. If you can not respect that, then you are failing to grasp the concepts of language and, frankly, are being a completely inconsiderate *******.



However you do almost have a point. Obviously, if a common interpretation is tought to a community of people, that will become the most understood - that is how a common language is created. But even then interpretation is peramount. People will put different values into words, and associate words with personal experience or images, creating new definitions. This is why some people are offended by certain words while others are not.

That is the problem here, there is a conflict of 'common interpretations' with the word gay. One refers to a sexuality, an identity, a life syte. The other is used as a slur. Can you see where a problem might arise from such a situation? I really hope you can.

And I really, really hope you don't expect the people who identify themselves with the word to give it up and let it be used as a slur.

I think that interpretation won't work because it is a plain fact that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of words. I think that language is a rule governed activity and the meanings of words are their use in the language. If everyone is using a word in a deviant fashion that tells me that it is most likely that the meaning of the word has changed. I don't see what else could give a sound meaning other than the use that we put it to or what standards of correctness other than communal use one could appeal to (and looking in a dictionary is not really good enough as dictionaries record usage and do not legislate which meanings will change). This is a well developed view of mine and I'm not going to spend hours defending it here. If you want to understand it look up Wittgenstein on the web.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You haven't figured it out by now?

Oh, you once said to me that you had no trouble with women. I misunderstood you to mean that you were a Casanova.

In that case my comments for Boris apply to you too. (I assume you aren't admitting being gay in sense 2).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Yet gay people are here, right now, telling you that they are offended!!!

I don't judge words based on the interpretation of a few people, but on how society views the word. My segment of society views "gay" as a non-offensive word. If you don't agree, fine, but don't expect the rest of the world to stop using the word "gay" just because you can't adapt to its new meaning...

Or, in other words, you are an incosiderate ******* who does not care about other people's feelings or opinions.

You know people are offended by it, and you continue to say it. You are deliberately insulting people.

Would you tell your grandmother to **** off or shut up? I wouldn't, because I realise that it is just about the most offensive thing I could possibly say to here, even though I it does not bother me at all.

[mindseye]

Part of the problem is that you use the word to describe yourselves

I think it is a part of the general lexicon. Don't straight people use the term "gay" for "homosexual" where you live?

that you have your identity wrapped up in the word.

Thank you for re-stating one of our points. Giving a new, derogatory meaning to a term already in use to describe (in a neutral manner) a pre-existing group would seem bound to offend that group. I can't for the life of me see why that is so hard to follow.

[Drake Tungsten]

And I assure you those figures are not going to change much if you survey other gay people.

Most of the gay people I know use the term as well. Of course, my anecdotal evidence is no more convincing than yours...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
If people just decided one day that they would use "Jew" to mean "stupid" for whatever reason then I think it would be wrong.

But I have maintained that this is not the case with "gay". Due to the mild nature of the insult I think it is best understood as an historical development from the time when the meaning of "gay" forked into two meanings: one being (a) "silly and effeminate" and the other being (b) "homosexual". Of course there are still some people who believe it means the original which was (c) "silly and effeminate homosexual" but they are in the minority.

My position is that the current teen use evolved from (c) via (a) rather than from (c) directly, after (a) had lost most of its negative connotations and well after usage meant that it was possible to distinguish (a) from (b). The main evidence for this is that it is a mild term of derision rather than the strong term that one would expect from a direct evolution from (c) (e.g. if people started using "Fag" as an adjective). The other evidence I have is simply my own experience of being a member of the English speech community and my observations of the change. But short of sharing memories that's not going to help much.

Anyway

If the foregoing was true of "Jew" then there would have to have been a historical split in usage from "Jew" used pejoratively to "jew" used to indicate some feature that was formerly negatively associated with Jews (say - miserliness) and then came to signify a much milder form of that feature with no specific reference to actual jews (such that Jews began use it along with everyone else). That there hasn't been one is what gives the "Jew" argument its superficial force since we shudder from the thought of using "jew" to mean "miserly" - but there is no a priori reason why this could not have happened. That's why I think the argument doesn't work.

As I said, your position in this regard does not hold water. Calling someone "gay" was once a MAJOR insult to them. I can remember it starting fights in middle school because no one wanted to be thought of as "gay." Your logic here is simply wrong. Using gay as an insult was initially much worse, as it was equating you to gay people, and everyone knew gays were sick and wrong. Over time, as society grew more accepting of homosexuals, the insult itself softened to its current form, but the origin was certainly in the vitriolic context of "homosexuals are bad." One of the reasons "fag" grew as a slur was because "gay" was starting to lose it's steam as one, since being "gay" wasn't so bad anymore.

However, none of this changes the simple fact that when a word that is mot commonly used to refer to homosexuals is then used to refer to something that is stupid/bad, it is indeed offensive to homosexuals. Simple logic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh, you once said to me that you had no trouble with women. I misunderstood you to mean that you were a Casanova.

In that case my comments for Boris apply to you too. (I assume you aren't admitting being gay in sense 2).

I'm bi, I'm not gay, nor am I straight.

I have no problem with women being interested in me, or men being interested in me, and I could certainly have a relationship if I chose to. But I'm more of a "lone wolf" type personality and relationships don't bode well with me. Too confining.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

The point was that you claimed the terminology was used practically ubiquitously in culture, and I pointed out that this is simply untrue, as by our strongest measure of culture (television), it is cleary taboo.

It is not clearly taboo. Some shows use the word, some don't. The ones that don't are usually shows skewed to an older audience. The word is ubiquitous in youth culture and will show up more and more on television as this segment of society gets older. You're doomed to be offended for the rest of your life if you don't adapt to this new meaning.

Oh bullshit. Watch episodes of Dawson's Creek, or any other show on network TV geared towards young people, and tell me if you ever hear gay used in this context. The ONLY shows wherein it is used are ones that are out to violate taboo in the first place, such as South Park.

At any rate, considering that once I've explained to the few people I've encountered who have used the term around me why I found it offensive, they have accepted that rationale as valid and ceased using the word that way, I'd say that your notion of it one day becoming ubiquitous is bunk. People with common sense know that when someone tells you they are offended by something, they do mean it.

[Drake Tungsten]

At any rate, considering that once I've explained to the few people I've encountered who have used the term around me why I found it offensive, they have accepted that rationale as valid and ceased using the word that way, I'd say that your notion of it one day becoming ubiquitous is bunk.

I bet they still use the word when you're not around. I'd stop saying it around you too if you were offended; it's just common courtesy. That doesn't meant I would accept your belief that the word is a slur, however.

Luckily, none of the gay people I associate with are so out of touch as to be offended by this...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


I think that interpretation won't work because it is a plain fact that there are correct and incorrect interpretations of words. I think that language is a rule governed activity and the meanings of words are their use in the language.

Where are these divine and all powerful rules that govern the laws of language?

You'll probably tell me a dictionary, or something. To save you the trouble, dictionaries come after language, and if you've ever looked in one, you'll notice there is almost always 2 or more interpretations listed for each word.

Language is organic and evolves through people's individual interpretations.

If everyone is using a word in a deviant fashion that tells me that it is most likely that the meaning of the word has changed.

ehm.... are you reading the same thread as me? It's pretty obvious not everyone uses it in that fashion.

I don't see what else could give a sound meaning other than the use that we put it to or what standards of correctness other than communal use one could appeal to.

Ah, you've almost got it! But you're still thinking it terms of rules. There are no standards in language, besides, it's the height of arrogance to think that your interpretation is the only correct one.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


As I said, your position in this regard does not hold water. Calling someone "gay" was once a MAJOR insult to them. I can remember it starting fights in middle school because no one wanted to be thought of as "gay." Your logic here is simply wrong. Using gay as an insult was initially much worse, as it was equating you to gay people, and everyone knew gays were sick and wrong.

I agree up to this point.

Over time, as society grew more accepting of homosexuals, the insult itself softened to its current form, but the origin was certainly in the vitriolic context of "homosexuals are bad." One of the reasons "fag" grew as a slur was because "gay" was starting to lose it's steam as one, since being "gay" wasn't so bad anymore.

OK - I just flatly (and honestly) disagree here. This is a matter of experience and growing up in different speech communities. In my experience and from what I have seen I think that the present use of "gay" as a mild slur without sexual connotations came about in the way I said. But other than a complete linguistic survey there is no way of proving who is right. So I'll drop it.

However, none of this changes the simple fact that when a word that is mot commonly used to refer to homosexuals is then used to refer to something that is stupid/bad, it is indeed offensive to homosexuals. Simple logic.

It's not about whether is offensive to them or not, this whole argument is about whether they are rationally entitled to be offended, not whether they are or not.

But enough... I can't see any real progress in the debate developing from here. I've no doubt you are sincere and not arguing for any other reason than that you believe it is so, but then so am I.

[Lincoln]

Ok, we've run this subject into the ground. Good points made by all sides. Now let's kiss and make up.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Luckily, none of the gay people I associate with are so out of touch as to be offended by this...

They live in Nebraska, they're probably offended by it but don't want to get their ass kicked for being "pussies".

I don't tell the straight guys I'm around that I'm offended by it, just because you want to be "one of the guys". If I started whining about how I found the words they're using as offensive, it'd be awkward...