Fag

[Property Is Robbery]

Some people often toss this word around and I here it so much sometimes I accidentally use it too. I know as a community RevLeft is almost completely for human rights and equality, and are also very sensitive and thoughtful when it comes to speech. But I just learned the history of the word being applied to homosexuals so hopefully this will enlighten you who weren't aware what this word implied. Well as some of you know a faggot is a bundle of sticks used for kindling, when the puritans used to burn witches at the stake they would use these sticks to start the fires. Well in the minds of these people homosexuals weren't good enough for a stake so they were thrown on the fire with the faggots and the term was eventually used towards them as well.

So if any of you use the word in your daily lives, please think twice before doing so.

[Tablo]

I never knew that. I remember using the word when I was in middle school without a second thought. It wasn't until I was in high school that I realized how much of a bigot I was being. It has become a serious problem in the United States.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah, I didn't know this either. I've refrained from using the word for a quite a long time now, and glad of it. Especially after learning this. Thanks comrade for this piece of historical knowledge. :thumbup1:

[WeAreReborn]

I always knew it was offensive and faggot meant a bundle of sticks but I didn't know about the burning part. That is messed up. :crying:

[Magón]

It's also where "Flaming Gay" comes from.

[Bilan]

wiki says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)#Etymology)

"It is sometimes claimed that the modern slang meaning developed from the standard meaning of "faggot" as "bundle of sticks for burning," presumably with reference to burning at the stake.[8] This is, however, unlikely to be the case,[8] and there is no tradition of burning at the stake being used as a punishment for homosexuality in Britain,[11][12] although supposed witches and heretics were burnt to death in other parts of Europe, and were often accused of deviant sexual behaviour.[13]"

So I suppose the response I ought to use is: source?

[Das war einmal]

Interesting. The queer movement in the Netherlands used the words 'mietje' (= more or less the same as 'sissy', which in Dutch means: a man who behaves like a women) and 'flikker' (no direct translation, in old times a 'flikker' was a man who could not be trusted) for themselves in order to disarm anti-gay reactionaries.

The gay community re-appropriated these bigotry terms, with different success. I have mixed feelings about this. I think it is great that people say their proud to be queer, but I also understand that other gay people may find it offensive.

[RED DAVE]

I was told that the word "fag" comes from the English Public Schools (private schools, actually, for the middle and upper classes) where the practice was for younger students to be the servants of the older students. The practice was called "fagging" and the younger students were called "fags."

The institution of "fagging" always had strong homosexual overtones, with the "fags" being practically forced to have sex with the older student if the older student so desired. Perhaps the actual word came from the use of a "faggot" (that is, a cane or stick) to beat the younger students, or perhaps it's a phallic reference.

A cigarette in the UK used to be called a "fag." Don't know if it still is. The word was occasionally so used in the US. There might be a connection with something like "sucking on a fag."

RED DAVE

[Manic Impressive]

yes we still call it a fag an it's still the primary use for the word. I don't think the term for cigarette is evolved from the use of the word for a homosexual but could possibly have the same origin a bundle of burning sticks = a pack of fags I'm just guessing. A faggot is also a type of food so there are other possibilities. I was under the impression that fag as a derogatory term for homosexuals was an American term.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

^Me too, in thinking that it was an American term.

In Britain, you can buy 'pork faggots' in the supermarket still, and 'fag' is a slang term for a cigarette. I think that the derogatory term has had more influence in America than in Britain.

[Noinu]

^ That's what I've been wondering too, I haven't actually heard people use the word fag for homosexuals (unless on tv), but I know many who use it for cigarettes, and they're all from the UK.

[Property Is Robbery]

wiki says: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#Etymology)

"It is sometimes claimed that the modern slang meaning developed from the standard meaning of "faggot" as "bundle of sticks for burning," presumably with reference to burning at the stake.[8] This is, however, unlikely to be the case,[8] and there is no tradition of burning at the stake being used as a punishment for homosexuality in Britain,[11][12] although supposed witches and heretics were burnt to death in other parts of Europe, and were often accused of deviant sexual behaviour.[13]"

So I suppose the response I ought to use is: source?

Well the point is, regardless of history, many gay people associate this with the word, so whether it happened or not is irrelevant. My source is several of my gay friends.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals?

I mean, words are symbolic - there exact meaning is relative to not only the listener, but the context in which the word is used. If your playing video games and you make a remark, such as; "All snipers are fags," I doubt people will immediately think; "All snipers are gay people who should be burned in a bonfire." In that scenario, I think it's highly likely that the word 'fag' wouldn't even be associated with the idea of homosexuality (let alone the idea of them burning at the stake...).

Individual (symbolic) words (or parts) do not have meaning independent of context, there meaning can only be determined by how they relate to the whole... On top of that, the interpretation of the word (and thus the whole) is subjective to the listener's context and experiences - given the fact that I've been highly unaware of this correlation between fag and 'burning homosexuals', I seriously doubt that this meaning is often intended or interpreted by others.

Finally, I re-iterate my question; does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals? I should think that erasing the word from discourse wouldn't end the social stigma associated with homosexuality, only education will...

[Property Is Robbery]

Does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals?

I mean, words are symbolic - there exact meaning is relative to not only the listener, but the context in which the word is used. If your playing video games and you make a remark, such as; "All snipers are fags," I doubt people will immediately think; "All snipers are gay people who should be burned in a bonfire." In that scenario, I think it's highly likely that the word 'fag' wouldn't even be associated with the idea of homosexuality (let alone the idea of them burning at the stake...).

Individual (symbolic) words (or parts) do not have meaning independent of context, there meaning can only be determined by how they relate to the whole... On top of that, the interpretation of the word (and thus the whole) is subjective to the listener's context and experiences - given the fact that I've been highly unaware of this correlation between fag and 'burning homosexuals', I seriously doubt that this meaning is often intended or interpreted by others.

Finally, I re-iterate my question; does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals? I should think that erasing the word from discourse wouldn't end the social stigma associated with homosexuality, only education will...

Of course it doesn't change the way they're viewed, its just that you never know who might here you and be offended or just think you're homophobic.

I'm not trying to be politically correct or tell you what to say, and if this thread didn't inform you then it wasn't intended for you.

[mossy noonmann]

when i was in the states i said ' i'm off outside to smoke a fag'

and everybody said 'WHAT!!'

:blushing:

[Bilan]

Well the point is, regardless of history, many gay people associate this with the word, so whether it happened or not is irrelevant. My source is several of my gay friends.

I've heard the same thing, and was disgusted when I heard it. I then looked it up and found it to be of questionable validity.
So my question still stands.
Even if there are gay people who think it's true, it doesn't make it true, or their objection to it on these grounds as reasonable.
If it isn't true, it isn't true and there is no point raising it as an argument.

I mean, the fact is that 'faggot' is a prejudiced term: it is an insult, and one uses it, they intend to demean someone for being gay. That's more important than its etymology.

[Red Commissar]

It's too embedded into popular talk right now, along with words like "retarded" or "*****". I think it has no business being there though, even if some of the people who use it don't seem to think otherwise.

[Demogorgon]

A cigarette in the UK used to be called a "fag." Don't know if it still is. The word was occasionally so used in the US. There might be a connection with something like "sucking on a fag."

We still do. When you here to the word here, you simply think of cigarettes. It is sometimes used to refer to gay people but it is not a word that is considered offensive in of itself because the primary meaning has nothing to do with gay people.

[the last donut of the night]

Just as disgusting is how the word "gay" in common American slang means stupid, bad, or annoying.

[∞]

What do use to describe people with Harley-Davidsons then?

[kalu]

Does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals?

I mean, words are symbolic - there exact meaning is relative to not only the listener, but the context in which the word is used. If your playing video games and you make a remark, such as; "All snipers are fags," I doubt people will immediately think; "All snipers are gay people who should be burned in a bonfire." In that scenario, I think it's highly likely that the word 'fag' wouldn't even be associated with the idea of homosexuality (let alone the idea of them burning at the stake...).

Individual (symbolic) words (or parts) do not have meaning independent of context, there meaning can only be determined by how they relate to the whole... On top of that, the interpretation of the word (and thus the whole) is subjective to the listener's context and experiences - given the fact that I've been highly unaware of this correlation between fag and 'burning homosexuals', I seriously doubt that this meaning is often intended or interpreted by others.

Finally, I re-iterate my question; does banning this word from your dialect really change the way people view homosexuals? I should think that erasing the word from discourse wouldn't end the social stigma associated with homosexuality, only education will...

I'm all for reappropriation of painful words by the oppressed groups themselves, for example, LGBTetc. people reclaiming "queer" as a term of identity affirmation. But I think dominant groups need to be especially careful about their language, even if "unintentional," given the tremendous legacies of violence many of these words carry. I don't think I as a straight man, for example, could resignify "f*g," so I restrict myself from using it. It's not an encompassing political program, but I think it is one aspect of daily practice we should keep in mind in order to make safer spaces for others. I'm brown, and I would be incredibly hurt, for example, if I walked into a group of white men playing Unreal Tournament and saying "those snipers are sand n*ggers." So yeah, "I didn't mean it" does NOT equal "it doesn't hurt." Rethinking our vocabularies of criticism, and what we feel comfortable saying, is part of the process of unlearning privilege.

[synthesis]

Counterpoint: One shitty fact about our society is that certain people will go out of their way to say something if they are told it is offensive. Anyone who reads the comments section on XXLMag.com can vouch for this.

An alternative example would be the word "niggardly." The use of the word was once protested on the basis of its obvious similarity to a different term. These protests were countered by reminders that the term itself has nothing to do with race.

Indeed, "niggardly" has nothing to do with race. However, as soon as people started protesting its use, other people started using it in an obviously racial way. They did this to be deliberately offensive, because being offensive gets you attention, which is perhaps the superlative currency of our society.

So, yes, many people need to be reminded that words are offensive. At the same time, other people need to be reminded that attempts to "finger-wag" a word (or behavior) out of existence can result in the word being used by people who never would have used it otherwise. Why? Because they can count on that "finger-wagging" whenever they do it. I think they just need a hug, but other options are certainly available.

[kalu]

Who said anything about "finger-wagging"? (a term I would avoid since it trivializes responses to psychic violence) Sure people can and do express their privilege in screwed up ways, but your argument seems a bit bizarre in that it attempts to stanch those actions against abusive language by locating the weak cause in the response itself, a circular argument of sorts. The argument actually reminds me of those who speak against Affirmative Action by saying that AA advocates are "maintaining racist distinctions," instead of recognizing the critical approach contained in AA as a response to white privilege. I don't think the causal mechanism's any bit as simplistically described, either. On the other hand, it would be interesting to examine the way in which, for example, repressing sex sexualizes repression as Judith Butler might put it. And we can certainly discuss the complicated effects of attempting to regulate language through law, for example, and how that might increase state power. But I don't think the argument "people will do what you tell them not to" by itself is a serious, sympathetic response to strategies against words that contain legacies of violence.

Again, to analytically specify my response, and speaking from my position as a privileged person, I'm saying it's important that when we are in privileged positions we recognize what harm our words can do to others. I'm thinking of our lexicon more from a self-critical angle.

Other than that, people can feel free to be jerks and give people the finger on the road. But that don't mean we all gotta sit down.

[synthesis]

Well, I put it in quotes because I don't personally see it that way (as "finger-wagging") although I probably should have been more clear about that. It's more about how it comes across to people who aren't aware of the full extent of homophobia in our society.

That ties into my overall view on this, which is that abusive language is by no means the worst among the many symptoms of our abusive society, yet nowadays it seems that many people treat it that way. Am I wrong?

[kalu]

As the OP succinctly describes, we're talking about abusive language itself, and activist strategies and responses, why do we have to compare it as an issue with anything else, or make it "relatively" harmless for that matter? Seems an implicit way of delegitimizing the topic at hand.

And about putting "finger-wagging" in quotes: why are you assuming the voice of those who would term responses to abusive language as such? Why not speak from your own position?:


At the same time, other people need to be reminded that attempts to "finger-wag" a word (or behavior) out of existence can result in the word being used by people who never would have used it otherwise.

In this quote, you're embedding "someone else's" view (that responses to abusive language are "finger-wagging") within your own (that we shouldn't "finger-wag"). Notice my confusion.

Let's have a clearer discussion about what you yourself think, instead of relying on arguments from "others" that you have paradoxically authored. To this extent, your oppositional tone indicates to me that you've already taken a position on this subject, while disavowing it as a spectator of what "other" people think. You have rhetorically invoked "other people" through which to slip in your own views, which seem to tell me in an ominous, indirect way to just keep quiet. Are you performing this linguistic gymnastics because the topic makes you uncomfortable as, say, a privileged person? I can only assume, until you make your own position clearer. Though our visceral reaction to a topic may encourage circuitous speech, let's try to be forthright. I want to know what is your ethical-political response to abusive language, and what you think should be done about it, preferably a response that takes psychic violence seriously.

[synthesis]

My perspective is that people will be obnoxious and use abusive language simply because they are told not to.


tell me in an ominous, indirect way to just keep quiet.

If that's what you took from my post, then I phrased it poorly. Sorry.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Truth be told, being that I'm bi, I don't really care if people just say the word. What pisses me off is when they either say it to piss off people who are offended by the word. Also, if the context that they are using the word in is meant to attack me for being Bi or one of my friends for be LGBT, then I get pissed and either tell the person to [email protected]#$ off or I just ignore them...

[kalu]

My perspective is that people will be obnoxious and use abusive language simply because they are told not to.



If that's what you took from my post, then I phrased it poorly. Sorry.

How do you respond to abusive language?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Snitching is too embedded into popular culture right now, along with words like "****" or "nigger". I think it has no business being there though, even if some of the people who use it don't seem to think otherwise.

(Detournment)

[Quail]

I've heard the word thrown around, and it does bother me. Sometimes words that are very offensive just seem to creep into everyday language. I suppose it's not necessarily offensive to use a derogatory term casually, without thinking, if you don't mean to cause offense, but I do think it's rather ignorant.

[the last donut of the night]

What do use to describe people with Harley-Davidsons then?

?

[synthesis]

How do you respond to abusive language?

It depends on the context. How do you think I should respond to abusive language?

[Future Manifesto]

honestly, the more people try to ban words like that, the more people you will make incinerate into a ball of unrighteous proletarian fire--it seems as if humanity needs some group of people to pick on almost.

[Bilan]

What do use to describe people with Harley-Davidsons then?

Bikies?

[∞]

But fag has that ring to it...

[synthesis]

But fag has that ring to it...

...wow.

[∞]

I'll be honest I use the word fag...but I do not use to describe homosexuals even remotely.

[Devrim]

A cigarette in the UK used to be called a "fag." Don't know if it still is. The word was occasionally so used in the US. There might be a connection with something like "sucking on a fag."

The first time I was in Boston I walked into a bar, ordered my beer, and on realizing I'd run out of cigarettes said something like "Do you have fags in here or do I have to go out onto the street to find them".

Devrim

[Ocean Seal]

Also the word "fag" as a term for homosexuals is used because many homosexuals were tied up in England and at times people would burn cigarettes or "fags" on the homosexuals.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

What do use to describe people with Harley-Davidsons then?
Sexxxy? Biker Dykes? :wub:

[khad]

This origin story is most likely apocryphal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#Etymology


The word meaning "bundle of sticks" is ultimately derived, via Old French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French), Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language) and Vulgar Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin), from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) fascis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascis) (also the origin of the word fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-etymonline-7) The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century to mean "old or unpleasant woman," and the modern use may derive from this.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-8) Female terms, it should be noted, are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sissy#Pejorative), queen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_%28gay_slang%29)). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-9) It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-etymonline-7)

It is sometimes claimed that the modern slang meaning developed from the standard meaning of "faggot" as "bundle of sticks for burning," presumably with reference to burning at the stake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_by_burning).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-etymonline-7) This is, however, unlikely to be the case,[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-etymonline-7) and there is no tradition of burning at the stake being used as a punishment for homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality) in Britain,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-autogenerated1-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-11) although supposed witches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) and heretics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy) were burnt to death in other parts of Europe, and were often accused of deviant sexual behaviour.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-12)

The Yiddish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish_language) word faygele, lit. "little bird", is also claimed by some as an explanation for the modern use of "faggot." The similarity between the two words makes it a reasonable possibility that it might at least have had a reinforcing effect.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-autogenerated1-10)

[9]

The Yiddish (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiddish_language) word faygele, lit. "little bird", is also claimed by some as an explanation for the modern use of "faggot." The similarity between the two words makes it a reasonable possibility that it might at least have had a reinforcing effect.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_%28slang%29#cite_note-autogenerated1-10)
its also a female name, with "fayge" being the typical nickname form (pronounced like 'faggy', only with a long 'a' sound), which would seem to lend a bit more support to that theory, but who knows.

[Ninel]

A cigarette in the UK used to be called a "fag."
It is :D

[Manic Impressive]

The word meaning "bundle of sticks" is ultimately derived, via Old French (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_French), Italian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language) and Vulgar Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgar_Latin), from Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) fascis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascis) (also the origin of the word fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)).
So fascists are officially faggots, ok so who wants to go tell stormfront?:D

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The word doesn't bother me unless it is specifically used to target someone. Like all words, really.

[IronEastBloc]

Most people on here seem more sensitive to words than people who should actually feel offended by them. just my two cents.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Most people on here seem more sensitive to words than people who should actually feel offended by them. just my two cents.
I find words like fag offensive in certain context. It is all contextual. I've known flamboyant gay guys who use the term endearingly, which is completely different from a bigot shouting it as they put a boot in a gay guy's head.

[TC]

I find words like fag offensive in certain context. It is all contextual. I've known flamboyant gay guys who use the term endearingly, which is completely different from a bigot shouting it as they put a boot in a gay guy's head.


This is of course right - no word has any inherent meaning found in the sound or letter configuration - only the shared usage and understanding gives it a meaning and shared usage and understanding differ between contexts, cultures, and even speakers.

That said - its no excuse to use "offensive words" when you can easily predict that those words will be understood as being offensive, and no excuse to be insensitive to contexts where they will be taken as offensive or degrading.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

This is of course right - no word has any inherent meaning found in the sound or letter configuration - only the shared usage and understanding gives it a meaning and shared usage and understanding differ between contexts, cultures, and even speakers.

That said - its no excuse to use "offensive words" when you can easily predict that those words will be understood as being offensive, and no excuse to be insensitive to contexts where they will be taken as offensive or degrading.
Well said! I like how you put that statement.

[gorillafuck]

Well the point is, regardless of history, many gay people associate this with the word, so whether it happened or not is irrelevant. My source is several of my gay friends.
Fag is a terrible, terrible slur but no, we can't be saying that one of the reasons it's bad is because some people incorrectly associate it with burning at the stake. If it's not true then it's not an argument.

I can't think of any instances when it would be alright for me to use the term "fag", but I'm not a gay guy so that makes sense.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I have to admit I use fag and faggot quite a bit. But whatever, it's better than the habit of cursing the invisible jewish communist bastard nigger scum who are conspiring against me when things don't go my way.

[Black Sheep]

What i use often, is 'gay', in the south park sense.
When i m on my own though.