using the term 'gay'

[Black Dagger]

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 19 2005, 07:17 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 19 2005, 07:17 AM)
Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals [/b]
it may be a 'way of saying', but the fact that it's being used as in insult is derogatory, i feel.

that said patchy did apologise. when i was at high school everyone used it and it was hard not to fall into that as well, often it would just slip out. would feel mortified afterwards, but yeah hard to break that pattern.

i found patchy's comment less offensive than yours, NKOS. what do you think perpetuated the use of 'gay' being used to be insulting? that's right, homophobia

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 19 2005, 09:17 AM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 19 2005, 09:17 AM)
Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals [/b]
You're lucky i'm not gonna give you a warning for flaming.
Are you saying you condone that language/word use?

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+Oct 19 2005, 09:46 AM--> (Black Dagger @ Oct 19 2005, 09:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:17 AM

Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals
You're lucky i'm not gonna give you a warning for flaming.
Are you saying you condone that language/word use? [/b]
Chill bud, its an expression, if something is "fucking sweet" there is no actual fucking involved, its just a phrase. If something is "a peice of shit" it isn't really, it just of poor quality. In some areas using "gay" as a way of meaning stupid is more common than using "gay" to describe a homosexual. i don't think its a bigotted statement, i don't think it implies homosexuality is something negative. Its just the way some people talk.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Freigemachten+Oct 19 2005, 06:52 PM--> (Freigemachten @ Oct 19 2005, 06:52 PM)
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 19 2005, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 09:17 AM

Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID'd would be gay.

How is being ID'd a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use 'gay' as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals
You're lucky i'm not gonna give you a warning for flaming.
Are you saying you condone that language/word use?
Chill bud, its an expression, if something is "fucking sweet" there is no actual fucking involved, its just a phrase. If something is "a peice of shit" it isn't really, it just of poor quality. In some areas using "gay" as a way of meaning stupid is more common than using "gay" to describe a homosexual. i don't think its a bigotted statement, i don't think it implies homosexuality is something negative. Its just the way some people talk. [/b]
exactly.

its not the exact words involved, its the thought behind the word being said.

so everyone, dont be so pc-fascist

[rioters bloc]

it's easy to say that the term 'gay' being used as an insult isn't derogatory to queer people if you're not gay yourself, and haven't been exposed to homophobia. i'm assuming you're not queer, because otherwise you wouldn't be so callous and insensitive to the nuances of the term.

patchy realised how offensive it could be, why can't you?

[Black Dagger]

Freigemachten & NewKindOfSoldier, i've explained why this sort of language (bigotry) is not acceptable, if you continue to use 'gay' as a negative adjective in the future- appropiating someone else's sexuality in order to say something is 'dumb' or 'stupid'- you will be restricted, i have zero 'fucking' patience for homophobia or this heterosexist ignorant crap, please recognise that being a gay person is not 'stupid', 'dumb' or 'lame'- and that using terms to mean as such is an insult to all comrades- a social revolution requires dumping bourgeois prejudices and pop-language- not perpetuating reactionary immature shit like 'that's fucking gay dude!'- this shouldn't be an issue on a board for revolutionary leftists.

[Enragé]

dont nag

il est interdit d'interdire

[Black Dagger]

I'm sorry, bigotry is not above situationist catch-crys, you should be 'forbidden' or should i say restricted to OI, or better, banned.

[Enragé]

ME RESTRICTED?! HA!
just because i disagree with your semantics-fetish?
screw you

[LSD]

Chill bud, its an expression, if something is "fucking sweet" there is no actual fucking involved, its just a phrase. If something is "a peice of shit" it isn't really, it just of poor quality.

Yes, but neither a "piece of shit" not "fucking sweet" are actual people; gays are.

A better anlogy here would be the "nigger-rich" or "to jew down". Using either of those terms is demeaning not because it's directed against minorites per se, but because in its use it equates those minorites with negative attributes.


is not the exact words involved, its the thought behind the word being said.

Oh, so if I say "dirty jew" with love in my heart, it's not offensive?

What liberal nonsense! :angry:


ME RESTRICTED?! HA!
just because i disagree with your semantics-fetish?
screw you

Wow, support for homophobia and flaming in only three lines. You should be proud.

Consider yourself warned.

[Enragé]

i do not support homophobia

i just dont see why there is such a fuss about bloody semantics

and im flaming?

(s)he's saying i should be restricted!

im not a cappie, nor a nazi, nor a biggot, not even a reactionary of ANY kind i just dont see why shit like that is such a big deal.

Look i would never myself say "thats like so gay", but i wouldnt like ***** if someone else would say it, gay people i know even seem to have no problem with that.

Look, a fag is also a word for a cigarette, now should i not say, give me some fags, just because IN ANOTHER MEANING its a derogatory term for homosexual?

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:29 PM
ME RESTRICTED?! HA!
just because i disagree with your semantics-fetish?
screw you
Let&#39;s all take some chill pills here <_<

I sometimes use the term "gay" as to address to something err.. I dunno, just something. None of my homosexual friends have any problem with this

[Freigemachten]

All this political correctness bullshit is pissin me off. chill out, its a word, it has no power unless you give it power. If a homosexual is offended let them speak up and we&#39;ll talk about it rationaly. Banning people for exercising free speech is reactionary pussydom. Unless some one is using free speech as somthing to hide behind in the case of people who are truely homophobic, and I think its pretty obvious that no one here is, let them speak. For too long people have used accusations of homophobia and racism to limit free speech, I&#39;m tired of it, I&#39;m going to say what I want, I&#39;m sorry if I offend you, if I do feel free to PM/IM/Email me and we&#39;ll discuss it like rational individuals.
Have a fuckin day folks

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by RedFaction+Oct 24 2005, 04:12 AM--> (RedFaction @ Oct 24 2005, 04:12 AM)
[email protected] 20 2005, 05:29 PM
ME RESTRICTED?&#33; HA&#33;
just because i disagree with your semantics-fetish?
screw you
Let&#39;s all take some chill pills here <_<

I sometimes use the term "gay" as to address to something err.. I dunno, just something. None of my homosexual friends have any problem with this [/b]
and my homosexual friends do


If a homosexual is offended let them speak up and we&#39;ll talk about it rationaly.

i&#39;m queer, do i count? and yes i am offended by it and i am talking about it rationally.


Banning people for exercising free speech is reactionary pussydom

what has free speech got to do with using the term gay which is a word used to describe homosexual people in a derogatory sense? what is reactionary about trying to eliminate ingrained bigotry?


Have a fuckin day folks

no.

[rioters bloc]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41892

[Organic Revolution]

Split from protest essentials in DIY.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

i&#39;m queer

I thought you had a boyfriend?

But yes, this is nonsense, and shouldn&#39;t have to be debated on a leftist message board.

Anyway, no matter what your thoughts, as you can see the large majority of the board doesn&#39;t want to see this homophobic shit here, so if you can&#39;t defeat these reactionary ideas in your personal life, at least don&#39;t spew the shit here.


Chill bud, its an expression, if something is "fucking sweet" there is no actual fucking involved, its just a phrase. If something is "a peice of shit" it isn&#39;t really, it just of poor quality. In some areas using "gay" as a way of meaning stupid is more common than using "gay" to describe a homosexual. i don&#39;t think its a bigotted statement, i don&#39;t think it implies homosexuality is something negative. Its just the way some people talk.

Are you who I think you are? Banned from Soviet Empire and ended up here?

[bcbm]

This guy sounds like a real winner. In addition to not seeing the problem with "gay" he&#39;s also used the words "*****" and "pussy" in similar fashion.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 24 2005, 02:43 PM
This guy sounds like a real winner. In addition to not seeing the problem with "gay" he&#39;s also used the words "*****" and "pussy" in similar fashion.
yeah, i was gonna say.

but thought let&#39;s tackle this one thing at a time :P


and CDL, i&#39;m queer, not gay, but before i realised that i was also attracted to guys i considered myelf gay, and still feel offended when people use it in a negative way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While I think there&#39;s a difference between "PC" and opposing the use of terms like "gay" in the sense of being "stupid" or "*****" in the sense of "complaining or gripeing".

"PC" says you shouldn&#39;t say these things because it&#39;s not polite/moral. Politieness and morals are not my goals, but there are political reasons we should refrain from using these words.

First of all weather you mean these words in a derogitory way or not, many homosexuals would find it offensive, so using these terms is shooting ourselves in the foot and will alienate allies and potential comrades.

Secondly these words are connected to stereotypes which divide and are detrimental to the working class. Calling cigarettes fags is not offensive because there is no stereotype of homosexulas coming in cardboard packs of 20. There is the idea that homosexuals are "wrong" and saying "gay" when you mean that something is "wrong" supports the negative. Similarly, slurs against women are often that they "nag", "complain", "gossip" and therefore are not rational enough to have power in society. Saying someone is "*****ing" carries this connotation as well.

Finally, we want to build working class unity and overcome the divisions which only make us fight and blame eachother rather then the system, so showing disrespect towards large chunks of the very people we want to convince of our arguments is completely counterproductive.

[drain.you]

Hmm...well if people find particular words offensive then we shouldn&#39;t use them in this forum, even if we don&#39;t see the harm in them. To be fair, theres little need to use foul words in a leftist forum, foul words are used to express things we cant put into words or to hurt someone the majority of the time, I&#39;m sure we can express ourselves otherways and have no need to attempt to hurt each other using foul language. Think the only civilised thing to do is not swear and such on this forum but do whatever you feel appropriate in &#39;real life&#39;.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m sending this thread off the Opposing Ideologies -- that seems like an appropriate location for those who wish to use hateful terminology towards gay people, women, and people of color on the "grounds" that it&#39;s "just an expression".

What it "expresses" is beneath the level that we expect in the Theory forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[KC]

What about satirical context? Is that not appropriate?

[ComradeOm]

Beneath the theory forum? I&#39;m sure we can all agree that this is a question that would have baffled Marx himself :P

[OleMarxco]

Sayin&#39; it&#39;s "gay", is not homophobic, unless it&#39;s directed toward&#39;s fag&#39;s. But, hey, that&#39;s still one thing to know; That sayin&#39; it, means you need to know that it&#39;s an insult - derived from (A time? Or still is) negative treatment of the homosexuals and therefore, became so known as an insult that even those who are not homophobes use it, so cool it; &#39;Less someone -homosexual- (Not heterosexual, you&#39;re not here to get pissed FOR them) gets pissed off AND it&#39;s clearly -directed- at them, not only mentionde, AND the person sayin&#39; it know they are, THEN, you can "restrict" them. But still, WHY BOTHER&#33;? aàQ ;)

[bcbm]

Using a slur that reinforces the idea that being gay is a negative thing is homophobic. Period. No serious enemy of bigotry would use such a slur.

[Urban Guerrilla]

I only use gay in two ways: 1) If someone is a homosexual AND appropiate (not in a negative way like if someone would ask and I would say &#39;yes/no he/she is/isn&#39;t gay). 2) If I am stating about the happiness of a noun, like older poets such as Robert Frost would use &#39;Queer&#39; he wasn&#39;t stating homosexuality, but stating the origin where the word was originally meant :che:

[bcbm]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 24 2005, 11:55 AM
I only use gay in two ways: 1) If someone is a homosexual AND appropiate (not in a negative way like if someone would ask and I would say &#39;yes/no he/she is/isn&#39;t gay). 2) If I am stating about the happiness of a noun, like older poets such as Robert Frost would use &#39;Queer&#39; he wasn&#39;t stating homosexuality, but stating the origin where the word was originally meant :che:
Queer in its original meaning is definitely one of my favorite words.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:07 AM
Sayin&#39; it&#39;s "gay", is not homophobic, unless it&#39;s directed toward&#39;s fag&#39;s.
What the fuck OM? Why are you using a slur?

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+Oct 18 2005, 05:17 PM--> (NewKindOfSoldier @ Oct 18 2005, 05:17 PM)
Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID&#39;d would be gay.

How is being ID&#39;d a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use &#39;gay&#39; as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
dont be so fucking politically correct

it is a way of saying, not an insult towards homosexuals [/b]
Well, not to mention the fact that when you call something a sexual orientation, you just sound like a total fucking idiot.


Here, save yourself some trouble. Don&#39;t use discriminatory derrogatory terms for minorites and don&#39;t sound like a total idiot, all at the same time.

[Publius]

How is being ID&#39;d a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use &#39;gay&#39; as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?

It would &#39;suck&#39; though it would not giving fellatio.

Should the forum&#39;s resident fellatio-givers be offended at use of the word suck?

No. Suck it up.

[Publius]

it&#39;s easy to say that the term &#39;gay&#39; being used as an insult isn&#39;t derogatory to queer people if you&#39;re not gay yourself, and haven&#39;t been exposed to homophobia. i&#39;m assuming you&#39;re not queer, because otherwise you wouldn&#39;t be so callous and insensitive to the nuances of the term.

patchy realised how offensive it could be, why can&#39;t you?

And &#39;sucks&#39; and &#39;blows&#39; could be offensive to people who have given/recieven fallatio.

&#39;Stinks&#39; could offend smelly people.

&#39;dumb&#39; could offend mutes.

&#39;Stupid&#39; could offend stupid people, if they could read it that is.

Fuck you people for wanting to destroy language and corral our thoughts.

It wasn&#39;t meant as homophobic, and even if it was, should it then be banned? Banning speach you dislike, even if it is hateful or harmful is still objectionable.

A lot conservatives would like the stuff you say banned. You&#39;re not anymore &#39;right&#39; than they are, remember that.

Language is so subjective, any attempts to control or definite it are ultimately futile.

Anything could be offensive to anyone.

Your asinine opinions are offensive to me for instance. Will you desist in holding them?

[Publius]

Freigemachten & NewKindOfSoldier, i&#39;ve explained why this sort of language (bigotry) is not acceptable, if you continue to use &#39;gay&#39; as a negative adjective in the future- appropiating someone else&#39;s sexuality in order to say something is &#39;dumb&#39; or &#39;stupid&#39;- you will be restricted, i have zero &#39;fucking&#39; patience for homophobia or this heterosexist ignorant crap, please recognise that being a gay person is not &#39;stupid&#39;, &#39;dumb&#39; or &#39;lame&#39;- and that using terms to mean as such is an insult to all comrades- a social revolution requires dumping bourgeois prejudices and pop-language- not perpetuating reactionary immature shit like &#39;that&#39;s fucking gay dude&#33;&#39;- this shouldn&#39;t be an issue on a board for revolutionary leftists.

...which shows what a hypocritical [Insert non-offensive, offensive term here] you are.

Dumb and stupid are both offensive to mentally handicapped people.

It&#39;s bigotry as much as &#39;gay&#39; is, actually less-so, as &#39;gay&#39; isn&#39;t necessarily hurtful.

BUt you don&#39;t SEE it as offensive and so you continue to use it.

Would a lame person like hearing you use the term lame so flippantly?

[Publius]

Yes, but neither a "piece of shit" not "fucking sweet" are actual people; gays are.

A better anlogy here would be the "nigger-rich" or "to jew down". Using either of those terms is demeaning not because it&#39;s directed against minorites per se, but because in its use it equates those minorites with negative attributes.

Those terms have VERY specific, racist meanings.

For instance &#39;Jew down&#39; is a reference to Jew&#39;s stereotypical stinginess.

But &#39;gay&#39; is a reference to what?

Nothing but itself. It has no other meaning.




Oh, so if I say "dirty jew" with love in my heart, it&#39;s not offensive?

What liberal nonsense&#33; :angry:

If I had a Jewish friend and said that to him jokingly, would it be &#39;offensive&#39;?

Words are not &#39;just words&#39;; they require context.

Saying an inanimate object is &#39;gay&#39; is not offensive in any real way.

You don&#39;t have a right to be offended by that any more than I have a right to be offended when someone mentions the term &#39;mother&#39; and I automatically assume they mean &#39;motherfucker&#39;.

Someone "How is your mother doing?"

Mr ignorant PC-self "HOW DARE YOU USE SUCH A TERM&#33;?"

&#39;Mother&#39; can mean either matron or &#39;motherfucker&#39;. Is it offensive in both contexts?

Gay has multiple meanings.

Using &#39;gay&#39; as happy isn&#39;t wrong at all, but using &#39;gay&#39; as &#39;stupid&#39; is?

That doesn&#39;t fly.

THe word itself is pointless; sylables.

The MEANING is all that matters, and the meaning, in this case, isn&#39;t offensive to all but the most anal.

Shit, I might be discriminating against people with anal problems&#33;

[bcbm]

If a mentally handicapped person tells me that my usage of "dumb" and "stupid" are offensive, then I&#39;ll make an effort to change. Same with the rest.

In any case, people who try to bring up things like the subjectivity of language and the authoritarian nature of those who would fight bigoted language (authoritarianism) are dumb.

[Publius]

Well, not to mention the fact that when you call something a sexual orientation, you just sound like a total fucking idiot.

So it&#39;s WRONG to use gay because it&#39;s hurtful towards a sexual orientation but you&#39;re O.K. with using the term &#39;idiot&#39;, which literally means one who has a mental age below that of a 3 year old.

What a hypocritrical fucker.

It&#39;s wrong to &#39;insult&#39; gays but O.K. to insult mentally deficient people?

And the term &#39;fucking idiot&#39; is even more offensive, taken literally.



Here, save yourself some trouble. Don&#39;t use discriminatory derrogatory terms for minorites and don&#39;t sound like a total idiot, all at the same time.

Oh what irony.

"Don&#39;t discriminate but watch as I use a discriminatory term 6 words away&#33;"

You&#39;re not making a case for being even remotely intelligent.

What&#39;s that term you&#39;re so fond of? Idiot? Yeah.

You&#39;re this: Idiot - A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

[LSD]

Those terms have VERY specific, racist meanings.

For instance &#39;Jew down&#39; is a reference to Jew&#39;s stereotypical stinginess.


And "that&#39;s gay" is in reference to homosexuality&#39;s sterotypical undesirability.

Are you honestly telling me that you would find nothing racist about saying that&#39;s so latino to express negativity?

How about that&#39;s so black?


But &#39;gay&#39; is a reference to what?

Gay people.


Nothing but itself. It has no other meaning.

The word "gay" actually has several meanings, the most common being homosexual; and, etymologically speaking, it&#39;s from this meaning that the negative term being discussed here derives.

This isn&#39;t a question of lexical overlap. It&#39;s not like niggardly which happens to seemingly coincide with an offensive term. The word "gay" as used above is directly derived from "gay" as homosexual.

Just like "gypped" and "jew-down" and "nigger-rich".


Saying an inanimate object is &#39;gay&#39; is not offensive in any real way.

Not to the object, no. But it sure as hell is to the gay people who&#39;s orientation is being used as a term of spite and mockery.

If you want proof of that just look at the responses in this thread. Clearly it&#39;s offensive to someone.


Using &#39;gay&#39; as happy isn&#39;t wrong at all, but using &#39;gay&#39; as &#39;stupid&#39; is?

Yes. Because "gay as happy" predates the homosexual meaning of the word and, more importantly, does not equate homosexuality (or "gayness") with negative characteristics.

When you use a word that is primarily known for referring to a marginalized minority as an insult and jibe, it further disenfranchises that group by, intentionaly or not, equating them with "negative characteristics".


The MEANING is all that matters, and the meaning, in this case, isn&#39;t offensive to all but the most anal.

And what is the "MEANING" of the word "gay"?

In looking through the dictionary I can&#39;t find any entry that satisfies the definition you&#39;re trying to imply. I see "happy", I see "homosexual", I don&#39;t see "bad". Clearly then the use of "gay" to equate "bad" is emerging from one of the definitions and usages that does exist.

...I wonder which one it could be.


So it&#39;s WRONG to use gay because it&#39;s hurtful towards a sexual orientation

Yes.


but you&#39;re O.K. with using the term &#39;idiot&#39;, which literally means one who has a mental age below that of a 3 year old.


Because that term no longer carries that definition.

The word "idiot", by your own definition, is no longer in use as a clasification for anything. It presently exists solely as an insult.

If that were true of the word "gay", this discussion would be moot, but clearly it is not.

[Publius]

If a mentally handicapped person tells me that my usage of "dumb" and "stupid" are offensive, then I&#39;ll make an effort to change. Same with the rest.

So if a MUTE or PERSON WITH THE MENTALLY CAPABILITIES OF 3-YEAR OLD, WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO SPEAK asks you stop saying those words you&#39;ll listen?

Repeat that sentance and tell me what&#39;s wrong with it.

Do you realize how stupid you sound?



In any case, people who try to bring up things like the subjectivity of language and the authoritarian nature of those who would fight bigoted language (authoritarianism) are dumb.

So I&#39;m a mute?

[Ownthink]

Publius, it is my opinion you&#39;re an idiot.

[viva le revolution]

It is my humble opinion that energies being wasted debating on something so insignificant and ridiculous in nature is actually what&#39;s dumb&#33;

[bombeverything]

If a mentally handicapped person tells me that my usage of "dumb" and "stupid" are offensive, then I&#39;ll make an effort to change. Same with the rest.

It is "people living with disabilities", not "mentally handicapped people". I agree with those arguing that the use of the term "gay" is derogatory when it is used by someone to describe something they dislike. What is wrong with attempting to alter our language?

[bezdomni]

Is calling someone a "fucker" implying that sexual intercourse is negative? I&#39;d wager that 99.9% of people who use this term have had or will have sexual intercourse at some point in their life. I would also bet that most of them don&#39;t consider fucking a bad thing.

I try and not call things "gay" as much as possible, but when it does slip I&#39;m not trying to associate homosexuality with something negative - it just happens that this is the word that popped into my head at the moment.

Plus, isn&#39;t calling a homosexual person gay a misuse of the classical meaning of gay anyway?

Although I think we should try to stop using bourgeois slang, I also think it is stupid to get this worked up over it.

[Publius]

Publius, it is my opinion you&#39;re an idiot.

In my opinion, you aren&#39;t noteworthy enough a person to even have an opinion on.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 05:49 PM

Publius, it is my opinion you&#39;re an idiot.

In my opinion, you aren&#39;t noteworthy enough a person to even have an opinion on.
Say&#39;s the towards-the-right Capitalist. Oh, I&#39;m so insulted of what YOU think of me.


Really.





Not.

[The Feral Underclass]

Using the term "gay" in a negative or derogative way contributes to a status quo opinion of homosexuals perpetuated by the ruling class.

Whether or not you kids think using the term "gay" is offensive homophobic or not is really of little importance. Of course you dont think it is, because you probably dont really care about what gay people do in their sex lives. That&#39;s fine. But it is homophobia, so if you really aren&#39;t homophobics you should stop using homophobic slurs.

[Ginger Goodwin]

;)

[Publius]

And "that&#39;s gay" is in reference to homosexuality&#39;s sterotypical undesirability.

Are you honestly telling me that you would find nothing racist about saying that&#39;s so latino to express negativity?

Why yes. Because Latino is not a race, calling someone a Latino cannot be racist.



How about that&#39;s so black?

It woud depend wholly on the context and what was meant.


Gay people.

Right, itself. It&#39;s self-referencing.



The word "gay" actually has several meanings, the most common being homosexual; and, etymologically speaking, it&#39;s from this meaning that the negative term being discussed here derives.

This isn&#39;t a question of lexical overlap. It&#39;s not like niggardly which happens to seemingly coincide with an offensive term. The word "gay" as used above is directly derived from "gay" as homosexual.

Hold on a second, let&#39;s break out the dictionary:

gay Audio pronunciation of "gay" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.

Use of the term &#39;gay&#39; could easily mean any one of these.

The use of the term &#39;gay&#39; as a word meaning &#39;stupid&#39; or &#39;bad&#39; could just as easily stem from it&#39;s negative meaning of licentious OR from an ironic take on it&#39;s positive meaning of &#39;cheerful&#39; ness.

Are you a philologist? Are you going to pretend like one?



Just like "gypped" and "jew-down" and "nigger-rich".

Does ANYONE consider &#39;gypped&#39; offensive anymore?

Note how a word can easily move from being &#39;bad&#39; to being normal.

&#39;Gypped&#39; is part of the normal lexicon now.



Not to the object, no. But it sure as hell is to the gay people who&#39;s orientation is being used as a term of spite and mockery.

If you want proof of that just look at the responses in this thread. Clearly it&#39;s offensive to someone.

I don&#39;t really care.

Your views are offensive to me.

Who gives a shit?

I don&#39;t care if my views or my speach offends you or anyone else. I really don&#39;t.

I don&#39;t go out of my way to insult people, so any offense they take is brought about by their own problems and insecurities.

If a word isn&#39;t intended to be hurtful, and isn&#39;t meant as hurtful, it ISN&#39;T hurtful.


Yes. Because "gay as happy" predates the homosexual meaning of the word and, more importantly, does not equate homosexuality (or "gayness") with negative characteristics.

When you use a word that is primarily known for referring to a marginalized minority as an insult and jibe, it further disenfranchises that group by, intentionaly or not, equating them with "negative characteristics".

Like the use of the term &#39;Nigga&#39; as a positive or nuetral term by blacks?

Context and modern usage CHANGE words.

Words aren&#39;t set in stone.


And what is the "MEANING" of the word "gay"?

In looking through the dictionary I can&#39;t find any entry that satisfies the definition you&#39;re trying to imply. I see "happy", I see "homosexual", I don&#39;t see "bad". Clearly then the use of "gay" to equate "bad" is emerging from one of the definitions and usages that does exist.

...I wonder which one it could be.

Do you see:

4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.

?

The term can mean &#39;bad&#39; things, and be fully correct in usage. Saying it extends from 5 is purely possible as language is utterly malleable.




Because that term no longer carries that definition.

The word "idiot", by your own definition, is no longer in use as a clasification for anything. It presently exists solely as an insult.

If that were true of the word "gay", this discussion would be moot, but clearly it is not.

Read the whole definition:

1. A foolish or stupid person.
2. A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

What is meant by &#39;no longer in use&#39; is that it isn&#39;t used a scientific classification. It&#39;s still used in common speach to mean &#39;mentally retarded&#39;.

That&#39;s what&#39;s implied by the term. You&#39;re calling someone retarded.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Much ado about nuthin&#39; here. Using the word "Gay" to describe something is usually used by sexually insecure teenagers. While it does not have have the same impact as the word faggot (Which is hate speech) it is nevertheless very immature.

[Publius]

Much ado about nuthin&#39; here. Using the word "Gay" to describe something is usually used by sexually insecure teenagers. While it does not have have the same impact as the word faggot (Which is hate speech) it is nevertheless very immature.

I rather agree.

[Urban Guerrilla]

The last time I used the term like that was in middle school. Then in high school some of my friends came out and they still used it. I&#39;m sure some people are intelligent to use can find an alternative instead of &#39;gay&#39; in such manner :che:

[CrazyModerate]

I have never met a homosexual because I live in a redneck town. Well, except for emos ofcourse.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:24 AM
Much ado about nuthin&#39; here. Using the word "Gay" to describe something is usually used by sexually insecure teenagers. While it does not have have the same impact as the word faggot (Which is hate speech) it is nevertheless very immature.
So it&#39;s ok to allow slurs if it comes from insecure kids who don&#39;t know any better?

Let&#39;s get something stright (no pun intended): the difference between saying something/one is "gay" and saying someone is "dumb" is not relative.

There is currently no legislation to try and restrict the rights of mute people; there are not preachers going on about how mute people are trying to force their silent way of life onto others in a big "muteist conspiracy"; nazis don&#39;t go around specifically beating up and intimidating mute people.

Calling things you don&#39;t like "gay" is passive complience with repression of gay people which has a real-world impact and this is why we should call-out people who inoccently use this term.

[LSD]

It woud depend wholly on the context and what was meant.

Don&#39;t evade.

If someone said that something was so black or so Mexican or so Asian in order to express disgust, displeasure, or unhappiness, you don&#39;t think that it would be considered offensive?


The use of the term &#39;gay&#39; as a word meaning &#39;stupid&#39; or &#39;bad&#39; could just as easily stem from it&#39;s negative meaning of licentious OR from an ironic take on it&#39;s positive meaning of &#39;cheerful&#39; ness.


It could be... but we both know that it isn&#39;t.

And, by the way, are you saying that if I can demonstrate that the derogatory meaning does derive from the homosexual meaning of the word, you would concede this argument?


Does ANYONE consider &#39;gypped&#39; offensive anymore?

Yes.


If a word isn&#39;t intended to be hurtful, and isn&#39;t meant as hurtful, it ISN&#39;T hurtful.

What idealist crap&#33; :angry:

When 17th century Americans refered to "darkies", they "meant no harm", neither did 18th century Americans refered to "niggers".

Does that mean that those terms were not offensive?

Does that fact that Strom Thurman honestly believe "nigger" to be an appropriate designation make his use of it any less hurtful?

Words can be hurtful of themselves. Because of association and connotation, words carry a power irrespective of the intent of the speaker. Allowing these words to become common and accepted does not rob them of this power, in many ways it strengthens it.

The fact that the American south found the word "nigger" to be so damn acceptable for a hundred years doesn&#39;t seem to have made anyone "feel better".

Intent matters, but so do the actual words we use.


What is meant by &#39;no longer in use&#39; is that it isn&#39;t used a scientific classification. It&#39;s still used in common speach to mean &#39;mentally retarded&#39;.

No it isn&#39;t, it&#39;s solely meant as an insult.

Because, as you say, it is no longer a classification, it is no longer a classification; that is, it doesn&#39;t classify anymore.

It no longer refers to any specific group of people, mentally retarded or otherwise. Again, when the word "gay" undergoes a similar lexical change, then it will be acceptable to utilize it as an insult. As it stands, however, the word is still primarily used to refer to homosexuals and its use as a derogotory slur is indeed offensive.

[WhoCares]

Are any of you actually gay? If not, who are you to decide what is offensive to gays and what isn&#39;t?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:26 AM
Are any of you actually gay? If not, who are you to decide what is offensive to gays and what isn&#39;t?
Was Marx actually a worker? Who&#39;s he to say what worker&#39;s have an intrest in?

THe offensiveness of the term is only a part of the reason radicals should refrain from unsing it. Does using this term or other slurs against certain groups of workers help the cause of solidarity and fighting against bigotry? Clearly not.

What are you getting at? That because a gay person might use an offensive term amung friends or other gay people for a joke that the term isn&#39;t one which supports the image of homosexuals as not "normal" or deserving the same rights as everyone else?

If a comrade or homosexual uses "that&#39;s so gay", I don&#39;t think we should call them a bigot, but we should politically argue why using the term in this way divides people and does not help unify people let alone help us combat anti-gay bigotry or repression of homosexuals. The same applies to women who call another woman "a *****" in jest or even a complement.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:26 PM
Are any of you actually gay? If not, who are you to decide what is offensive to gays and what isn&#39;t?
You don&#39;t see any problems with leftists using &#39;gay&#39; to mean &#39;stupid&#39;/&#39;dumb&#39;/&#39;lame&#39;?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:26 AM
Are any of you actually gay? If not, who are you to decide what is offensive to gays and what isn&#39;t?
I&#39;m gay and I&#39;m not offended by it. I&#39;m old enough to not get offended by three letter words.

The point isn&#39;t about being offended. It&#39;s about propogating a status quo opinion about a section of society which is oppressed violently by the state and within society.

[WhoCares]

What, so using the term &#39;gay&#39; as an alternative to &#39;dumb&#39; or whatever is somehow aiding the oppresion of homosexuals? I see how that works.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:36 PM
I see how that works.
i&#39;m glad, now you can stop making inane posts...all two of them.

did you register specifically to spread the homophobic love?

[WhoCares]

I would have thought the people on this forum at least would have the sense to not judge someone on their post count. How is it an &#39;inane&#39; post if I&#39;m expressing my opinion, dumbass? And I registered to see if the people on this forum are the commies I was expecting them to be. Guess what, pinko? I was right. Now shove Che Guevera up your assholes you appeasing bunch of twats.

[Black Dagger]

Your post was &#39;inane&#39; because it was merely sarcastic spam, it was not a defence of your position nor a serious criticism of the opposing position.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:02 AM
I would have thought the people on this forum at least would have the sense to not judge someone on their post count.
Ah; so you are judging everyone by your first encounter; that&#39;s a great measure.


How is it an &#39;inane&#39; post if I&#39;m expressing my opinion, dumbass?

Please reframe from flaming; calling people names isn&#39;t acceptable form here on this discussion board.


And I registered to see if the people on this forum are the commies I was expecting them to be. Guess what, pinko? I was right.

Very nice, but it would appear at least 3 of the 4 people responding to you are anarchists. See how helpful your prejudice has been?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:02 PM
I would have thought the people on this forum at least would have the sense to not judge someone on their post count. How is it an &#39;inane&#39; post if I&#39;m expressing my opinion, dumbass? And I registered to see if the people on this forum are the commies I was expecting them to be. Guess what, pinko? I was right. Now shove Che Guevera up your assholes you appeasing bunch of twats.
Yeah, I think I was the only communist who responded to his posts, but I&#39;m not really a "gurella war" che Guevera style socialist so he even got that wrong.

Did he really need to register to find out if people on the forum were "commies"? It should be pretty obvious without even having to read anything - there are several images and logos to show even illiterate internet web-surfers who we are.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Oct 25 2005, 11:26 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Oct 25 2005, 11:26 AM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 10:26 AM
Are any of you actually gay? If not, who are you to decide what is offensive to gays and what isn&#39;t?
I&#39;m gay and I&#39;m not offended by it. I&#39;m old enough to not get offended by three letter words.

The point isn&#39;t about being offended. It&#39;s about propogating a status quo opinion about a section of society which is oppressed violently by the state and within society. [/b]
Spot on. I can&#39;t believe people don&#39;t see this as problematic. Using "gay" as a perjorative term helps to maintain the unequal power relation. And I don&#39;t understand why people resist changing so much. Grow up, get over it and find a new word...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So it&#39;s ok to allow slurs if it comes from insecure kids who don&#39;t know any better?

That wasn&#39;t my argument. You should know better than to contruct such strawmen.
My point was that the pejorative "gay" is in fact used by those who don&#39;t know better, and most mature people either don&#39;t use it, are more outspoken about it and use hate speech (See godhatesfags.com) or they attempt to cloak their homophobic views using soft language.


Let&#39;s get something stright (no pun intended): the difference between saying something/one is "gay" and saying someone is "dumb" is not relative.

It may not be to you or me, but it is to snot-nosed brats.



There is currently no legislation to try and restrict the rights of mute people; there are not preachers going on about how mute people are trying to force their silent way of life onto others in a big "muteist conspiracy"; nazis don&#39;t go around specifically beating up and intimidating mute people.

Of course not, and most mature people either pick up on that or march in line with the bigots.



Calling things you don&#39;t like "gay" is passive complience with repression of gay people which has a real-world impact and this is why we should call-out people who inoccently use this term.

I just think it&#39;s a sign of immaturity. Of course, everyone who uses the word in such a manner deserves a smack upside the head. But I don&#39;t have that power, so.

[WhoCares]

Who gives a shit about offending people anyway? You seem to think that not offending someone is the most important aspect of your life. Well it isn&#39;t. Boo hoo, the fag got offended because someone used the term &#39;gay&#39; to mean dumb or stupid. SO FUCKING WHAT?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 10:30 AM
Who gives a shit about offending people anyway? You seem to think that not offending someone is the most important aspect of your life. Well it isn&#39;t. Boo hoo, the fag got offended because someone used the term &#39;gay&#39; to mean dumb or stupid. SO FUCKING WHAT?
You may think its fine to perpetuate stigmatising a segment of the population. This is exactly what you’re doing when you use the term “gay” in a negative context. What part of that do you not understand?

And I doubt anyone here could give a fuck about offending the likes of you.

[TC]

There is currently no legislation to try and restrict the rights of mute people;

"Mute couples demand the right to say &#39;i do&#39;" :lol:

The thing with people who have disabilities, or who are born into real disadvantaged economic positions (like the vast majoirty of black and hispanic people in the united states) is that they don&#39;t need legislation to keep them down...they&#39;re socially disadvantaged for other reasons.



Personally i think "dumb" and "retarded" are not all too different from "gay" except in that most people know people who are gay but most probably don&#39;t know many dumb or retarded people...who probably couldn&#39;t complain about it either...

And i think "gay" isn&#39;t used to describe disgust, the useage is actually much much milder, and its much more frequently used to describe circumstances (that&#39;s so gay&#33;) then people...in other words "gay" is useually attributed to things that catagorically couldn&#39;t be homosexual.



When 17th century Americans refered to "darkies", they "meant no harm", neither did 18th century Americans refered to "niggers".

Does that mean that those terms were not offensive?

I think a mistake that people have about language usage here is in thinking that all *potentially* descriminatory language is equal to all others. I"m sorry but "gay" especially when used to describe an event or situation is not equal in impact and offense to "nigger" when used to describe a black person. A more apt equivolent would be "faggot" used to describe a gay man, which no one in this thread is justifying.

I personally wouldn&#39;t use "thats so gay" anyways because i think its in bad taste, but that doesn&#39;t mean that its equal to calling someone a &#39;nigger&#39; or for that matter a &#39;faggot.&#39;


If a comrade or homosexual uses "that&#39;s so gay", I don&#39;t think we should call them a bigot, but we should politically argue why using the term in this way divides people and does not help unify people let alone help us combat anti-gay bigotry or repression of homosexuals.


No, we shouldn&#39;t, thats stupid. IMO, since i&#39;m straight, i&#39;m in absolutely no f&#39;ing position to tell homosexuals that they *ought* to be offended by something, that they ought to feel like "thats so gay" refers to *them*, if they don&#39;t. What right do you have to impose that on someone? To me thats attitude is a lot more descriminatory then the origional phrase.


The same applies to women who call another woman "a *****" in jest or even a complement.


Thats just ridiculase. "*****" is a gendered term but its not an inherently sexist term, and it refers to a dog not a woman. The only sense that it is sexist is when a guy uses it to casually describe a (as opposed to saying it as a direct insult) woman because then its a commont on her being female instead of her being a jerk. (Same way that i think its sexist for rappers to call their female friends &#39;ho&#39;s&#39; but not sexist to call someone whose promiscuous a &#39;slut&#39; regardless of gender)

If anything the most offensive way to use "*****" is to describe a man because then it has additional sexual connotations.


Who gives a shit about offending people anyway?

Uh, clearly you do, as you seem to get a kick out of it.

[rioters bloc]

Personally i think "dumb" and "retarded" are not all too different from "gay" except in that most people know people who are gay but most probably don&#39;t know many dumb or retarded people...who probably couldn&#39;t complain about it either...

That&#39;s quite true. i stopped using the word retarded after i met mentally retarded people and realised how offensive it was. however, my understanding of the word &#39;dumb&#39; was that it actually came about in the opposite way, that is dumb was used to describe people of lower intellect, and then people began using it to describe people who were physically incable of speaking, because others would associate intelligence with the amount of talking one did [which is just stupid.] but i could be wrong, that&#39;s just what i was taught.


I think a mistake that people have about language usage here is in thinking that all *potentially* descriminatory language is equal to all others. I"m sorry but "gay" especially when used to describe an event or situation is not equal in impact and offense to "nigger" when used to describe a black person. A more apt equivolent would be "faggot" used to describe a gay man, which no one in this thread is justifying.

I personally wouldn&#39;t use "thats so gay" anyways because i think its in bad taste, but that doesn&#39;t mean that its equal to calling someone a &#39;nigger&#39; or for that matter a &#39;faggot.&#39;

but the point is that &#39;gay&#39; is actually a term that queer people use to describe themselves [at least here, and from what ive heard many other places too.] therefore using the word gay as a negative thing is then being offensive to people who use it to describe themselves. my gay friends don&#39;t use the word &#39;faggot&#39; to describe themselves, because that is seen as a derogatory term.

nigger is, like faggot, an offensive word. but say we take the word &#39;african-american&#39;, which african-american people might use to describe themselves and they feel that it describes their identity and they feel comfortable with it. if then, people were to go around saying, "man that movie sucked, it was the shittest piece of shitty shit ever, in fact i&#39;d go so far as to say it was african-american", that&#39;s where the offense lies. it&#39;s when people take a word or phrase which people identify with in a positive way, to describe things in a negative way that it becomes unacceptable.


No, we shouldn&#39;t, thats stupid. IMO, since i&#39;m straight, i&#39;m in absolutely no f&#39;ing position to tell homosexuals that they *ought* to be offended by something, that they ought to feel like "thats so gay" refers to *them*, if they don&#39;t. What right do you have to impose that on someone? To me thats attitude is a lot more descriminatory then the origional phrase.

fair enough, i can understand that. however, i think once a gay person says "i find that offensive" you should stop, and thats it. arguing against it and saying "no you shouldnt find that offensive" is what is discriminatory in my eyes. bar two, every single one of my male friends at uni are gay. every one of them thinks that using gay to describe something as pathetic or shit, is bigoted. i agree. i just don&#39;t see the argument in, "I&#39;ll only stop using it if a gay person tells me to." is it not enough that i&#39;m saying that gay people i know don&#39;t want it to be used in such a way? do you think im making up shit for no reason? [not directed at you necessarily, TC, just to those who think &#39;gay&#39; is alright in general]


Thats just ridiculase. "*****" is a gendered term but its not an inherently sexist term, and it refers to a dog not a woman.

well, it does refer specifically to a female dog. but then, i like dogs, so whatever.

[OleMarxco]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+Oct 24 2005, 06:51 PM--> (313C7 iVi4RX &#064; Oct 24 2005, 06:51 PM)
[email protected] 24 2005, 11:07 AM
Sayin&#39; it&#39;s "gay", is not homophobic, unless it&#39;s directed toward&#39;s fag&#39;s.

What the fuck, OM? Why are you using a slur?[/b]

Yeah, I love you too :wub:

Anyways, to answer your query, yes I did, what&#39;cha gon&#39;do &#39;bout it? &#39;Cuz I did, well, okay, too late know. Perhaps only to piss you off, challenge you civil right nutto&#39;s who can&#39;t have enough oppression of homophobes that you have to quarry over this out-drawn and practical-less debate (Yes, I know I stated my opinion in this and contributed to the flame, go figure, I just wanted to school y&#39;all and this is only a reply to you in where it&#39;s said) and accept that.... Some people CAN&#39;T LET GO OF THE INFLUENCE OF REACTIONARIES INTO INSULT-LANGUAGE, and it doesn&#39;t necessarily mean THEY MEAN IT HOMOPHOBIC, EVEN IF IT TECHNICALLY IS AND WOULD NORMALLY BE. Get it?

Heck, even an actual gay man here - TAT (No, that ain&#39;t a diss, even &#39;tho I don&#39;t like&#39;im - as an administrator) - confessed he didn&#39;t get offended of a three-letter word, now what the hell you gon&#39;do? ***** some more? Yes, I wrote in big letters, only to get the point trough so you could read it - I know I shouldn&#39;t say it, but I still do, but the point is that I don&#39;t mean any harm, so just chill out, &#39;kay? I could&#39;ve meant smokes...I could&#39;ve meant being happy... who knows? It&#39;s not a problem before it IS a problem, not created as an issue ;)

I mean; If I had to talk about people who are homosexuals, how could I avoid using that word? I only wanted a short word to describe them, yet I am reactionary and gay-hating, because I used it. Except I don&#39;t have any problem at ALL with it, and now I risk my account over three letters...bah...Do what you want, but I really don&#39;t care unless an actual gay person tells me they got a problem with it, authority or not...and avatar or not&#33; :D

[TC]

however, my understanding of the word &#39;dumb&#39; was that it actually came about in the opposite way, that is dumb was used to describe people of lower intellect, and then people began using it to describe people who were physically incable of speaking, because others would associate intelligence with the amount of talking one did [which is just stupid.] but i could be wrong, that&#39;s just what i was taught.

I don&#39;t know, if you&#39;ve heard that specifically its probably right then...i think its still true of "retarded" though.


therefore using the word gay as a negative thing is then being offensive to people who use it to describe themselves.

I agree that was sort of what i was trying to say.



fair enough, i can understand that. however, i think once a gay person says "i find that offensive" you should stop, and thats it. arguing against it and saying "no you shouldnt find that offensive" is what is discriminatory in my eyes.

Yes and i agree but thats not what i was talking about. I was responding to someone saying that they thought they should tell gay people to stop using it because they "ought" to find it offensive. My point was just that i think what matters in terms of it being descriminatory or not is whether people who it could apply to feel offended by it, so i would defer to gay people in deciding how they want to use the word instead of imposing an interpretation on them. For instance, &#39;queer&#39; used to be a highly offensive word not so long ago but generally i think it means "non-straight" (as in gay lesbian or bi, not just gay) now...it would be quiet absurd for a straight kid to tell a gay kid to stop refering to a gay rights organization as a &#39;queer group&#39; on account of the offensive history of the term. Thats all i meant. Likewise i think there are clearly certain contexts where some black people use a variation of "nigger" (maybe pronounced "nigga" or something) to talk about each other, which within that context isn&#39;t offensive because the people who its being applied to dont&#39; regard it that way...but it would be offensive if a white person used the term, or if it was used in a socially inappropriate context.

[CrazyModerate]

Honestly, why hasn&#39;t anyone responded to my posts. Obviously they are immature garbage, but come on. Although its not my opinion, wouldn&#39;t any misuse of the word gay reinforce homophobic stereotypes. I was using gay in a negative way. I think if I met a gay person and was friendly with them I probably wouldn&#39;t use the word gay.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 09:42 AM
Honestly, why hasn&#39;t anyone responded to my posts. Obviously they are immature garbage, but come on. Although its not my opinion, wouldn&#39;t any misuse of the word gay reinforce homophobic stereotypes. I was using gay in a negative way. I think if I met a gay person and was friendly with them I probably wouldn&#39;t use the word gay.
i thought you were joking.

[Forward Union]

I always thought Gay meant happy.... :lol:

But ok, its considered offensive, as I have said before, a lot of words actually root themselves in some form of exploitative nature.

Hysterical, for example, comes from the Greek "Histar" meaning "To be woman like" so should we be banned from saying that as well? If you are all for censoring the use of &#39;gay&#39; in such contexts as "That&#39;s Gay" then the same logic requires you to be against &#39;Hysterical&#39; in the context of "Your Hysterical".

Languages evolve. Saying "That&#39;s Gay" doesn&#39;t really express hatred toward homosexuals, it just shows how a word that once meant "happy" now means "Bad"...

[TC]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 27 2005, 09:52 AM

Hysterical, for example, comes from the Greek "Histar" meaning "To be woman like" so should we be banned from saying that as well? If you are all for censoring the use of &#39;gay&#39; in such contexts as "That&#39;s Gay" then the same logic requires you to be against &#39;Hysterical&#39; in the context of "Your Hysterical".
...actually hysterical comes from the greek word for womb, "hysterikos" (through the latin "hystericus", the same root as the english word hysterectomy)...there was a bizzar theory that hysteria came from some sort of problem in people&#39;s wombs.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Unless someone&#39;s primary language is ancient greek, they should not be banned for saying something is hysterical.

They should, however be arguged with and convinced not to say "that&#39;s so gay" the same way a comrade should be argued with if he says "that&#39;s my nigger" even though he means "that&#39;s my good friend" and not the n-word in the sence that a KKK member uses it. It&#39;s easy enough to say "that&#39;s so stupid" or "my-man" so why use language that promotes a backwards view?

You don&#39;t want to make jokes about gulags or something that promotes a right-wing stereotype of communists (even if you don&#39;t mean it or it&#39;s in jest) at the same time you are trying to promote socialism/communism as a serious and more democratic alternative to capitalism; you don&#39;t want to say "that&#39;s gay" at the same time you are trying to defeat an image of gay people being "weak" "stupid" or "wrong" or any other synonym that "that&#39;s so gay" stands in for.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 27 2005, 10:52 AM
Languages evolve. Saying "That&#39;s Gay" doesn&#39;t really express hatred toward homosexuals, it just shows how a word that once meant "happy" now means "Bad"...
And why has it made that transformation from "happy" to "bad"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 03:10 PM
Heck, even an actual gay man here - TAT (No, that ain&#39;t a diss, even &#39;tho I don&#39;t like&#39;im - as an administrator) - confessed he didn&#39;t get offended of a three-letter word, now what the hell you gon&#39;do? ***** some more?
Apparently you stopped reading at that part.

I&#39;m not offended by the word, but It still shouldn&#39;t be used because, as I said in the other post, it plays to a status quo opinion which is maintained in order to opress homosexuals.

[Forward Union]

As far as Im concerned &#39;Gay&#39; means happy.
It&#39;s also slang for &#39;bad&#39;
It&#39;s also a term for a sexual preference....

I can&#39;t see any direct links to oppressive or offensive language. Agreed that many people see &#39;Gay&#39; in it&#39;s slang form and &#39;Gay&#39; as a sexual preference synonymous, I don&#39;t&#33; and think that such assumptions are wrong (as everyone else here does)

Granted, the type of people that generally use such slag are homophobic, I know many, many people that use the term who are not homophobic, and are in many cases homosexual themselves. The question is, to what extent is it offensive. If a Gay rights activist, were to use the slang "that&#39;s gay" would you consider it homophobic? Would if a homosexual used it?

Personally I avoid using the term "That&#39;s Gay" as it&#39;s fairly poor English. However if people do use it, im not overly concerned. I am however concerned with homophobia.

[cccpcommie]

everyone is gay -curt cobain

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

I must&#39;ve forgot to mention that my parents are gay (2 mothers/1 lesbian, 1 bisexual). Now, in Dutch we use the word "flikker" to appoint a gay person (usually in a rather negative context), which would mean "fag" in English.
My parents also use this as well and are never offended by someone saying it IF they clearly don&#39;t mean it in a negative way. I&#39;m just saying, you can&#39;t simply generalize and say "every gay person dislikes the word fag" , and neither can you say "not a single gay person has problems with the word fag". So it would be best not to use such terms on an open forum as this one, and only use these terms if you know for certain that the person you talk about will not be offended.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 20 2005, 02:01 AM
it&#39;s easy to say that the term &#39;gay&#39; being used as an insult isn&#39;t derogatory to queer people if you&#39;re not gay yourself, and haven&#39;t been exposed to homophobia. i&#39;m assuming you&#39;re not queer, because otherwise you wouldn&#39;t be so callous and insensitive to the nuances of the term.

patchy realised how offensive it could be, why can&#39;t you?
my friend is gay, and he has no problem calling people queers, or with anyone calling people gay as a derogatory term, because he understands that the meaning behind the word is what counts. most people just use that word as a derogatory term because it is used that way in society, so it is incredibly hard not to just pick it up. its not right, but its more less unavoidable.

[Black Dagger]

my friend is gay, and he has no problem calling people queers,

Well your friend also happen to be gay- and besides &#39;queer&#39; there has been a determined effort to appropiate queer- away from its homophobic use.



my friend is gay, and he has no problem calling people queers, or with anyone calling people gay as a derogatory term,

This i find less likely to believe, this &#39;gay friend&#39; of yours, s/he doesn&#39;t mind when people use the word gay to denigrate people? I.E. homophobia?



people just use that word as a derogatory term because it is used that way in society,

Which given the nature of our society, is quite possibly the worst defence of that position possible.



so it is incredibly hard not to just pick it up. its not right, but its more less unavoidable.

Not really. If you&#39;re a conscious revolutionary you should make a concerted effort to rid yourself of reactionary prejudices, homophobia, heterosexism and so forth. It may be &#39;more or less unavoidable&#39; that you &#39;pick it up&#39;- but it&#39;s not a hard habit to drop, you just have to actually try.

[citizen_snips]

It can be offensive, not always, but more than the person saying it might realise at times. In terms of manners, it&#39;s probably best to avoid it. Don&#39;t take it too seriously if it&#39;s obviously meant harmlessly, but if there&#39;s serious ignorance or homophobia behind it then by all means, give them a slap in the face.

Unless you&#39;re gay yourself, in which case that&#39;s pretty much freedom to make homophobic sounding comments as much as you like&#33;

Nae joy, ya hetero bufties&#33;

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 02:01 AM
It can be offensive, not always, but more than the person saying it might realise at times. In terms of manners, it&#39;s probably best to avoid it. Don&#39;t take it too seriously if it&#39;s obviously meant harmlessly, but if there&#39;s serious ignorance or homophobia behind it then by all means, give them a slap in the face.

Unless you&#39;re gay yourself, in which case that&#39;s pretty much freedom to make homophobic sounding comments as much as you like&#33;

Nae joy, ya hetero bufties&#33;
Citizen, it&#39;s about far more than "manners" and offending people. It&#39;s about people, especially people claiming to be progressive like us, perpetuating inequality and discrimination through our use of language. What you&#39;re saying would make it ok to be homophobic when you know there are no queer people around.

It&#39;s not on.

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 3 2005, 01:14 PM

Cover your faces, whatever, being ID&#39;d would be gay.

How is being ID&#39;d a sexual experience? And specifically, why is it gay?
Why do you use &#39;gay&#39; as a negative adjective? Do you think that gay members of revleft/people in general, appreciate this association?
Guess what, retard, meanings change over time. You realize gay originally had nothing to do with sexual preference. If you&#39;re going to be so anal over the meanings of words, then gay should only ever be used to refer to someone happy.

Many now use words like gay simply as negative adjectives. What&#39;s your view on calling people retards, idiots, or stupid? You realize these used to be used to describe specific social groups. Should we never use those words in a negative way too?

[Black Dagger]

Guess what, retard, meanings change over time.

Of course i do, this whole discussion is about how the meaning of the word &#39;gay&#39; is changing.



You realize gay originally had nothing to do with sexual preference.

Yes, but this is irrelevant to whether or not using &#39;gay&#39;- a term which now overwhelmingly refers to a sexuality rather than a &#39;state of happiness&#39;- as a negative adjective should be acceptable amongst revolutionary leftists and in society more generally.



If you&#39;re going to be so anal over the meanings of words, then gay should only ever be used to refer to someone happy.

"Guess what, retard, meanings change over time"- dakewlguy

Does that sound familiar? :lol:



What&#39;s your view on calling people retards, idiots, or stupid? You realize these used to be used to describe specific social groups.

I refrain from calling people &#39;retards&#39;, but idiot and stupid i use commonly and have no problem with. Idiot and stupid are rarely if ever used in their outmoded medical context, when used commonly they do not imply prejudice, precisely because their meaning has changed over-time. &#39;Retard&#39; is still used within its medical context in common speech, so i avoid it.

[dakewlguy]

Yes, but this is irrelevant to whether or not using &#39;gay&#39;- a term which now overwhelmingly refers to a sexuality rather than a &#39;state of happiness&#39;- as a negative adjective should be acceptable amongst revolutionary leftists and in society more generally.
Then whats to say its meaning isnt now changing again from sexuality to a more general negative term.


"Guess what, retard, meanings change over time"- dakewlguy

Does that sound familiar?
"If you&#39;re going to", I was suggesting what would happen if your logic was followed consistantly, not saying that we should use that definition myself.


Idiot and stupid are rarely if ever used in their outmoded medical context, when used commonly they do not imply prejudice, precisely because their meaning has changed over-time. &#39;Retard&#39; is still used within its medical context in common speech, so i avoid it.


Ok, well whats the difference with using the word gay then? I personally rarely use it, but the words meaning too I suggest has changed, from a sexuality based meaning, to more generic negative term such as idiot or stupid.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Well your friend also happen to be gay- and besides &#39;queer&#39; there has been a determined effort to appropiate queer- away from its homophobic use.

so when some jock calls me &#39;queer&#39;, is he calling me strange? it is possible, but i highly doubt it. maybe ill ask him next time.


This i find less likely to believe, this &#39;gay friend&#39; of yours, s/he doesn&#39;t mind when people use the word gay to denigrate people? I.E. homophobia?

yes, believe it or not, he doesnt care. i guess its because its used so much nowadays, if he freaked out every time someone used the word &#39;gay&#39; as a derogatory term, he would be in a very bad place...


Which given the nature of our society, is quite possibly the worst defence of that position possible.

um... what??

afraid i dont quite understand that one...


Not really. If you&#39;re a conscious revolutionary you should make a concerted effort to rid yourself of reactionary prejudices, homophobia, heterosexism and so forth. It may be &#39;more or less unavoidable&#39; that you &#39;pick it up&#39;- but it&#39;s not a hard habit to drop, you just have to actually try.

i never said it was a hard habit to drop. i said it was easy to pick up, and you agreed with me.

[Black Dagger]

so when some jock calls me &#39;queer&#39;, is he calling me strange? it is possible, but i highly doubt it. maybe ill ask him next time.

I don&#39;t understand how that relates to what i said.


yes, believe it or not, he doesnt care. i guess its because its used so much nowadays, if he freaked out every time someone used the word &#39;gay&#39; as a derogatory term, he would be in a very bad place...

That does not mean he does not &#39;care&#39;, it&#39;s just in order to &#39;get by&#39; he does not dissent- it&#39;s a &#39;sticky&#39; situation- esp. in a school context where homophobia is rampant. So his position is fair enough, but it nevertheless does nothing to challenge normative homophobia, in the school or when applied more broadly, in society either. People should not be silent to their opression, and as a communist- and this persons friend, neither should you.


um... what??

afraid i dont quite understand that one...

You said:
"people just use that word [gay] as a derogatory term because it is used that way in society,..."

I said:
"Which given the nature of our society, is quite possibly the worst defence of that position possible."

That is, we live in a reactionary society, so its foolish to &#39;just use&#39; language because its normative for society. If the norm of society is heterosexism/homophobia, it is problematic for someone who is meant to be struggling against such prejudice, to &#39;use&#39; words that refer to gay/queer people, in the same (reactionary) way they are used by society.


i never said it was a hard habit to drop.

So have you dropped it then? Are you explaining to others why they should do the same?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don&#39;t understand how that relates to what i said.

well then i guess i misunderstood again. sorry. i was v.tired when posting that message.


That does not mean he does not &#39;care&#39;, it&#39;s just in order to &#39;get by&#39; he does not dissent- it&#39;s a &#39;sticky&#39; situation- esp. in a school context where homophobia is rampant. So his position is fair enough, but it nevertheless does nothing to challenge normative homophobia, in the school or when applied more broadly, in society either. People should not be silent to their opression, and as a communist- and this persons friend, neither should you.

don&#39;t think im silent to it. i do try to combat homophobia in my school, and have gotten into a few vicious arguements about it. and im not defending homophobes, or trying to say that homophobic society is a good thing, i believe my first post was just me and my friends point of view, just trying to explain why the word is used so much.


That is, we live in a reactionary society, so its foolish to &#39;just use&#39; language because its normative for society. If the norm of society is heterosexism/homophobia, it is problematic for someone who is meant to be struggling against such prejudice, to &#39;use&#39; words that refer to gay/queer people, in the same (reactionary) way they are used by society.

yes, agreed, but i was just stating the way this person thinks. he is not a commie, and he doesnt want to change the world, but he is gay, and he does have to put up with homophobia on a daily basis, and this, apparently, is how such a mind adjusts to such a situation. i wasnt trying to argue that homophobia is ok.


So have you dropped it then? Are you explaining to others why they should do the same?

yes. and yes. :hammer: =D

[Enragé]

so this is where the thread went...

anyways

the whole point is the meaning of the word gay doesnt always have to be a derogatory term for homosexual. Gay even originally means "happy".

I agree that it might be better to not use this word, and i actually never do...but if we ***** about semantics..dont we kinda loose sight of what its really all about?

[Publius]

So tell me, is the phrase: "Let&#39;s go out back and smoke a fag" offensive?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hrm, a red herring.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:15 AM
So tell me, is the phrase: "Let&#39;s go out back and smoke a fag" offensive?
if by &#39;smoke a fag&#39; you mean &#39;shoot a homosexual man&#39;.

[Patchy]

Yes. Referring to anything as "Gay" is derogatory, because in this age it&#39;s pretty much guaranteed that you aren&#39;t referring to it as happy. If you are, that&#39;s fine.

I&#39;ve realised my mistake, and I was pretty ashamed once it was actually pointed out to me, especially considering how theres umpteen other words you can use to describe something negatively, such as; stupid, idiotic, lame, shitty, bunk. Or if you&#39;re into the more articulate words; harsh, cruel, unacceptable.

[Publius]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 1 2005, 10:36 PM



if by &#39;smoke a fag&#39; you mean &#39;shoot a homosexual man&#39;.

Do I?

[Black Dagger]

Do you what? Want to be warned for spam? Because it appears so&#33;

Do you or not? Why are you asking us to tell you what you mean?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since "smoking a fag" as in smoking a cigarette isn&#39;t remotely used in the derogatory sense, this is a major red herring on your part, Publius.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:06 PM
I&#39;ve realised my mistake, and I was pretty ashamed once it was actually pointed out to me, especially considering how theres umpteen other words you can use to describe something negatively, such as; stupid, idiotic, lame, shitty, bunk. Or if you&#39;re into the more articulate words; harsh, cruel, unacceptable.
eh, it happens. the thing is you realised your mistake straight away and apologised. a lot of people on here seem to be defending homophobic language. i know how you feel though, its a hard habit to break, and i didnt even ever use it that much. sometimes i go to use it and manage to stop myself and use another word instead. usually that word is &#39;shit&#39; or &#39;crap&#39; or &#39;pathetic&#39; - just proving how insulting it really is to gay people.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by rioters bloc+Nov 1 2005, 10:36 PM--> (rioters bloc @ Nov 1 2005, 10:36 PM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 10:15 AM
So tell me, is the phrase: "Let&#39;s go out back and smoke a fag" offensive?
if by &#39;smoke a fag&#39; you mean &#39;shoot a homosexual man&#39;. [/b]
so if he doesnt...its not offensive is it?

So it would be logical to conclude that if you by saying "that&#39;s gay" you dont mean thats something is homosexual and therefore bad...but instead you just mean "thats stupid"...its not offensive either now is it?

WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT

[KC]

so if he doesnt...its not offensive is it?

So it would be logical to conclude that if you by saying "that&#39;s gay" you dont mean thats something is homosexual and therefore bad...but instead you just mean "thats stupid"...its not offensive either now is it?

WHICH IS EXACTLY MY POINT


Fag meant cigarette before it was used as a derogatory term to describe gay people. You can&#39;t compare them.

Why has the word gay gone from homosexual to stupid? I think TAT asked this earlier, and I never saw a response to it.

[Enragé]

gay first was happy
then derogatory term for homosexual
and now some people use it who dont realise its such a derogatory term, they just think it means "stupid"...this might be kinda dumb or whatever..but its not homophobic

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 08:28 PM
gay first was happy
then derogatory term for homosexual
and now some people use it who dont realise its such a derogatory term, they just think it means "stupid"...this might be kinda dumb or whatever..but its not homophobic
Bullshit. People use it as a derogatory term BECAUSE it is/was a term used to describe queer people. I don&#39;t quite buy the "people don&#39;t know" excuse, especially as "gay" used to describe queers is still in very general usage.