Thread Tools
Old April 4, 2003, 19:49   #331
Asher
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
President of the OT
 
Asher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 40,843
And I must say that Agathon's assertion that the term gay as an insult is "innocent until proven guilty" easily debunks your entire side's arguments for the incredible stupidity of it.
__________________
"I'll never doubt you again when it comes to hockey, [Prince] Asher." - Guynemer
Asher is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 19:53   #332
Oerdin
Deity
 
Oerdin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: In a bamboo forest hiding from Dale.
Posts: 17,436
Quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Drake:

Niggard [[ ME negarde, prob. < Scan, as in ON hnoggr, Norw dial. nogg, afraid stingy < IE base *kneu (var of *ken, to scrape) > OE hneaw, sparse, stingy]]

In short, the word niggardly comes from an old Anglo Saxon meaning of stingy, while Nigger comes from Negro, or black.

Niggardly then is in no way racsist, unless you have some problem with stingy vikings, that is.
Niggardly is from the old Norweigen and the only reason I know that is because of the incident where the President of the NAACP freaked out on a speaker who used the word "Niggardly" in a speech. It was in all the news about how this guy over reacted over a word simply because it sounded similiar to another word.
__________________
Christianity is the belief in a cosmic Jewish zombie who can give us eternal life if we symbolically eat his flesh and blood and telepathically tell him that we accept him as our lord and master so he can remove an evil force present in all humanity because a woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from an apple tree.
Oerdin is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 19:53   #333
Drake Tungsten
Deity
 
Drake Tungsten's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the closet...
Posts: 10,604
Quote:
Your whole argument comes crashing down once you realize the FULL context of the word's use -- its origins and its implications, as well as who is saying it and why.
The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about. You are clinging to an argument that depends on historical developments that are not proven (and probably not known). That's what Agathon's second point clearly states.

In the absence of any clear knowledge of the historical evolution of the new meaning, we are forced to take the contemporary usage of the term at face value. Contemporarily, "gay" is not used as an insult toward homosexuals, but as a synonym for "lame". To call it a slur is a misinformed and untenable position.

You are wrong, Asher. You should just admit it, but I know you won't do that. You'll just keep talking until I get tired and quit, then you'll claim victory. Knowing this, I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm out...
__________________
KH FOR OWNER!
ASHER FOR CEO!!
GUYNEMER FOR OT MOD!!!
Drake Tungsten is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 19:56   #334
Asher
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
President of the OT
 
Asher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 40,843
Quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about.
That's PRECISELY why it doesn't matter.
It's open to interpretation, and the majority of people assume it came from the sexual orientation.

Case closed.

Quote:
You are wrong, Asher. You should just admit it, but I know you won't do that. You'll just keep talking until I get tired and quit, then you'll claim victory. Knowing this, I'm not going to waste my time anymore. I'm out...
I'm certainly not wrong, you're the one that's clearly in the wrong.

You're trying to rely on "evidence" and general stupidity to explain why people are not offended, when they clearly are.
__________________
"I'll never doubt you again when it comes to hockey, [Prince] Asher." - Guynemer
Asher is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 19:58   #335
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The point is that NONE of us knows how the new meaning of "gay" came about. You are clinging to an argument that depends on historical developments that are not proven (and probably not known). That's what Agathon's second point clearly states.

In the absence of any clear knowledge of the historical evolution of the new meaning, we are forced to take the contemporary usage of the term at face value. Contemporarily, "gay" is not used as an insult toward homosexuals, but as a synonym for "lame". To call it a slur is a misinformed and untenable position.
And what does it mean to call something lame? I provided the definition of lame above. Please point to me the positive connotations that can com form calling something lame, synonims: crippled, handicapped, just like sopmeone with a "lame" brain is an idiot.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 20:12   #336
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
Agathon stated nothing knew, just merely continued to iterate the ignorance of your point of view. What harm is there in calling bad things "gay?" Let's see.

Quote:
Most of the terms used to describe homosexuals and homosexuality have been biblical, legal, or clinical origins, none very positive: invert, pervert, deviate, pederast, sodomist, sodomite, homosexual... even the word lesbian developed negative connotations over the years, As Donald Webster Cory pointed out in his book, "The Homosexual in America," first published in 1951, "Needed for years was an ordinary, everday matter-of-fact word that could express the concept of homosexuality without glorification or condemnation.

"How, when, and where this word originated, I am unable to say. I have been told by experts it came from the French, and that in France in early as the sixteenth century the homosexualy was called gaie... Psychoanalysts have informed me that their homosexual patients were calling themselves gay in the 1920s, and certainly by the 1930s it was the most common word in use among homosexuals themselves...

Gay! The words serves so many purposes. It is like the Z. of Tchaikovsky's diaries and letters, a secret code that will always be understood by some, never by others. "There was much Z," Tchaikovsky wrote in his diary about a party he attended on April 23, 1884, and the diarist of today would express it in almost the same words: "The party was so very gay!" Not only is correspondence quite safe from being understood in the event of interception, but even conversation can be held in which the homosexuals in a room use a language which they alone understand, but, unlike the situation prevailing were a foreign tongue being spoken, the others present are unaware of their ignorance...

Within homosexual circles, the use of the word is almost universal, but its acceptance is often with reluctance. Some object to its ambiguous meaning, which is precisely what the group has found most advantageous about it. An advertisement for a roommate can actually ask for a gay youth, but could not possibly call for a homosexual. Even Lesbian would be an impossible word to use in this connection, hence the femal inverts are beginning to use the word gay, although less frequently than the males....

The homosexual society requires a word like gay so that conversation can be free and unhampered; the fetters of conventional condemnation have not yet relegated this word to the realm of the outlawed nor associated it with a stereotype...
- Out of the Past, by Neil Miller, 1995.

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent faggot and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo č burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 20:30   #337
SnowFire
InterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
SnowFire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 3,736
I'll agree with the defense crowd that even if the context was different, the usage of "gay" as an insult, even one not related to homosexuals, is not a good thing. That said, isn't a suspension a little harsh? Suspensions should be reserved for serious misbehavior- getting into fights and things like that. This is reprimand-by-teacher worthy, and perhaps a detention if the behavior continues.

I mean, a far simpler method of disrespect, to give this something to compare to, is cursing while talking to a teacher (not cursing AT the teacher). This is hardly something you'll get a medal for, and is horribly rude, but I'd say that a detention is about the max I'd be willing to go for it. And this is just as offensive in a different way.
SnowFire is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 20:37   #338
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Kudos to Boris, kudos!
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:00   #339
General Ludd
NationStates
Emperor
 
General Ludd's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minion of the Dominion
Posts: 4,607
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon


I've admitted no such thing, much less a moral authority. My argument is with people who take the moral authority to censor other people's speech because they think it means something it doesn't.
There you go again, wandering into new conversations that don't exist.

I have not said anything about censorship... Oh, wait, I have - I said I don't agree with it. All I've been saying is that people who say this are being rude and inconsiderate. You can be a jack ass all you want, just don't look shocked when someone calls you to it.


And, as far as this specific incident goes, I don't care about it. High schools are probably the most close minded places in our societies, if they are going to censor something it might aswell be this.
__________________
Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse

Do It Ourselves
General Ludd is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:10   #340
MrFun
Emperor
 
MrFun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,595
It's amazing how some heterosexuals in this thread claim to know more about what it's like to face discrimination and insults for being gay than homosexuals do.
__________________
STFU and then GTFO!
MrFun is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:21   #341
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent faggot and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.
You know someone would have to believe everything that someone called Neil Miller wrote if Boris copied it and posted it in this forum.... That's a point off for plagiarism.

I know "gay" comes from the OFr "gai" but that is merely of historical interest. None of this has given me any reason to reconsider my arguments, since it's a moot point whether the "good" use of the word is being confused by anybody. Now you're annoyed because some spotty teenagers have borrowed the word for their own (hardly nefarious) purposes, even though no sane person could confuse the two. If you are deeply worried about this, given that today's teens are the least homophobic in history then I'm inclined to groan: especially since moaning about it will only encourage the little buggers to use it more.

I bet there are lots of people in this world who can easily see the difference between the teens use of "gay" and the use you describe above. People aren't as dumb as you think - so it would be nice if you gave them a bit more credit.

If a bunch of teens use the term "gay" to describe clothes or records they have a mild or semi-humorous dislike of (repeat: not a strong and virulent contempt for, or willingness to burn, kill or persecute) it must be only a matter of time until society marches all the "deviants" to the plaza and burns them at the stake. Indeed using "gay" to describe Mariah Carey's latest film obviously displays a deep and abiding hatred towards the homosexual community: just like I, when I say that TV is lame these days, express an evil form of disrespect to disabled folk (who use the word just like everyone else does).
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:23   #342
Uncle Sparky
NationStates
King
 
Uncle Sparky's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,166
I think rather then suspend the student, he should have had to write a 500 word essay on the social implications of South Park.

I think chicanery in our schools gyps the students of a good education. How will we ever be able to compete with the gooks then ?

All words depend on the context, too. For example, a person working in the distribution department of a candy manufacturing company might legitimately be a fudge packer...
__________________
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.
Uncle Sparky is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:26   #343
Getao321
Settler
 
Local Time: 23:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4
lemmie get this straight:


According to this thread, I can tell my mother, my relatives, anyone, to "****" off, or stfu, because in my mind, it's just telling them to "be nice and give me some apple pie please"? Even though it has been known for years, even longer, as a way to tell people in a very rude way to be quiet and leave me alone. But of course, according to my views, it is obviously a nice saying, and my intent is nice, and as such, I am in the clear and everyone else is a bunch of ignorant thought police officers out to stop the evolution of language?


Cool!
Getao321 is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:28   #344
MrFun
Emperor
 
MrFun's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Posts: 8,595
Quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov

- Out of the Past, by Neil Miller, 1995.

To summarize, there did not exist a positive, casual word for homosexuals before the word "gay" gained widespread use among the community. In the face of being called sodomites or deviants, or today's more virulent faggot and ****, homosexuals simply have to have a means of self-reference that is free from both bad connotation and clinical psychiatry. To this day, there exists no other such word.

To take the only term the homosexual community has for positive self-reference and once again twist into a negative, whatever the intent, is at best an extremely inconsiderate, selfish and inappropriate thing to do. It's just another slap in the face, intended or not, of a group that has been trying to climb out of an abyss of self-loathing and societal rejection for decades. If you can't see it as such, then I suppose you're one of those who don't understand Z.
completely agree

And why are there some heterosexuals who think they know more about what it's like to suffer discrimination or insults for being gay than homosexuals?
__________________
STFU and then GTFO!
MrFun is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:33   #345
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Quote:
If a bunch of teens use the term "gay" to describe clothes or records they have a mild or semi-humorous dislike of (repeat: not a strong and virulent contempt for, or willingness to burn, kill or persecute) it must be only a matter of time until society marches all the "deviants" to the plaza and burns them at the stake. Indeed using "gay" to describe Mariah Carey's latest film obviously displays a deep and abiding hatred towards the homosexual community: just like I, when I say that TV is lame these days, express an evil form of disrespect to disabled folk (who use the word just like everyone else does).
Semi-humorous? NOw, what evidence do YOU have about the true intent of its use? You keep avoiding the point, a point Boris's post makes rather clear. as it stands, gay is, besides homsexual, the only word to use when describing individuals with that sexual persuation. Turning that word into a derogatory word (no matter how mild you care to view it) is not somehting that should be encouraged or tolerated. You talk about the "language police", well the fact is we have the right to try to shape usage and meaning, specially if a word is being missused.

You make light of it, but the point is beyond that: should we tolerate this word, which is so completely tied now to homosesual identity to become a derogatory term, and I say no. Clearly, teens will be able to find another word to use. I know, they can use Quizibuck, and finally give Duke Phillips the meaning of it.

Now, does any boy deserve two days suspension for any verbal offense? No, but some punishment was not uncalled for.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:46   #346
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
You know someone would have to believe everything that someone called Neil Miller wrote if Boris copied it and posted it in this forum.... That's a point off for plagiarism.
Most of the quote was from Donald Cory, whom Miller was citing. Point off for careful reading.

You're still blithely ignoring other arguments and persisting in your own nonsense. Why bother arguing with people when you plainly just want to see your own stuff in writing?

It's pretty obvious, to thinking people, why using gay in that connotation is going to be problematic for homosexuals. When first meeting people in any social situation, it becomes an instant issue. Your argument about intent being all that matters is stupid, because most listeners can't gauge intent so easily. Your own preconceptions may give it this innocuous intent you want it to have, but that obviously does not hold true for many people. Interpretation is indeed vastly important, since language is pretty damned difficult without it.

When I first meet someone in a social situation, I have no idea what his attitudes towards homosexuals are (assuming non-gay venues, of course). For every person who doesn't care about gays, there's another who dislikes/hates them, for whatever reason, and views them as something less than fully people. So when I hear a stranger shout out that something is gay, which am I to believe this person is? How do I know his intent? Perhaps he's one of the blithely unthinking who says such things...or perhaps he's another Aaron McKinney.

Why the **** should I risk dealing with a person who could potentially loathe what I am in this instance? Especially since he might be one of the bastards who would do something more than just express disgust. Considering the times I and others I know have been the target of attacks, what reason do I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially if, in the most extreme case, that benefit could end in my being pistol-whipped to death?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the innocuous claim. For every kid who's using it as such, there's another who probably takes delight in making derogatory remarks against homosexuals. Unless you're going to deny the intense homophobia that still permeates school environments (which wouldn't be a wise idea), you can't deny that the use of "gay" in any negative context is still going to be a source of hurt and intimidation for gay students, however subtle it may seem to be.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo č burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:52   #347
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by Getao321
lemmie get this straight:

According to this thread, I can tell my mother, my relatives, anyone, to "****" off, or stfu, because in my mind, it's just telling them to "be nice and give me some apple pie please"? Even though it has been known for years, even longer, as a way to tell people in a very rude way to be quiet and leave me alone. But of course, according to my views, it is obviously a nice saying, and my intent is nice, and as such, I am in the clear and everyone else is a bunch of ignorant thought police officers out to stop the evolution of language?
In short, as things stand, my position is no. This is a long thread - don't torment yourself by reading the whole lot.

Quote:
Semi-humorous? NOw, what evidence do YOU have about the true intent of its use?
The usual - hearing people use it in context. Besides my view is not the one in the dock here. In a liberal society the burden of proof is on the censors. I've already agreed that unless there is some decent empirical research on the matter the issue cannot be decided. I think that's a fair attitude to take - if the evidence came out against me I'd happily retract my claim. But Boris, et al. are in the same boat: they don't have the requisite evidence either - just what I have: personal experience and hypotheses. That's why this debate is basically dead in the water and has been for a while. Of course this doesn't sit well with them since the burden of proof is on the censors.

So far we have established that they are offended by it. But so what? You need to say more than that to justify a ban. If we banned everything that people were offended by purely on the grounds of offence it would produce ridiculous results.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 21:55   #348
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
A basic question about language:

How can intent ever be drawn out, except from context clues, other than by the agreed upon meaning of thwe word? We use language cause we can't read minds. We develop common usage, becuase otherwise all meaning is lost, if no single definition of one word is agreed upon. What else is there but how it was heard? how it was heard defines its meaning.

I could honestly, honestly believe that by calling a complete stranger in a very neutral voice (and thus removing context clues) a buddy by saying "hey, you motherfvcking imbicile!", but could I honestly expect the stranger to understand my meaning? How can you possibly garner the intent of what was said, if the only way you have to acertain it, again, besides context clues, is by asking someone what they meant? And in a situation were your answer about what you meant makes the difference between punishment and nothing, how could one trust the answer to be true?
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:09   #349
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Most of the quote was from Donald Cory, whom Miller was citing. Point off for careful reading.
Touche

Quote:
You're still blithely ignoring other arguments and persisting in your own nonsense. Why bother arguing with people when you plainly just want to see your own stuff in writing?
Hardly, I've read your arguments and I find them wanting. I've told you why and if you can't come up with anything better, that's your fault, not mine.

Quote:
It's pretty obvious, to thinking people, why using gay in that connotation is going to be problematic for homosexuals. When first meeting people in any social situation, it becomes an instant issue. Your argument about intent being all that matters is stupid, because most listeners can't gauge intent so easily.
Yes we can and we do all the time. The only time we can't is when we are being paranoid.

Quote:
Your own preconceptions may give it this innocuous intent you want it to have, but that obviously does not hold true for many people. Interpretation is indeed vastly important, since language is pretty damned difficult without it.
But it isn't a major hurdle - and I've pointed out that allowing the interpreter to own the meaning results in a ridiculous view of how language works.

Quote:
When I first meet someone in a social situation, I have no idea what his attitudes towards homosexuals are (assuming non-gay venues, of course).
If I meet a teenager who tells me that he thinks Mariah Carey is "gay" all I have to do is ask him what he thinks of homosexuals.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy the innocuous claim. For every kid who's using it as such, there's another who probably takes delight in making derogatory remarks against homosexuals.
If someone wants to make derogatory remarks about homosexuals they aren't going to use that word in that sense. Because that's not what it means. If they want to be understood they have to use a stronger word.

Quote:
Unless you're going to deny the intense homophobia that still permeates school environments (which wouldn't be a wise idea), you can't deny that the use of "gay" in any negative context is still going to be a source of hurt and intimidation for gay students, however subtle it may seem to be.
As I said before, if people are going to be intimidated because they (mistakenly) think they are being showered with the mild derision usually reserved for unfashionable clothes then I think the problem lies elsewhere.

Anyway, that's enough from me - you can have the last word if you like. This is getting nowhere in terms of argument. As I said I don't use the word (I'm too old for a start), and I don't feel antagonistic towards homosexuals or wish to see them beaten up or punished by God or anything like that. If this thread continues it looks to me as if it is just going to degenerate into worse name calling and insults and attract the attention of the Merciless One or one of his cohorts (this page seems to be starting to get that way). I don't see any point in this because it looks like we will continue to disagree and neither of us has enough independent evidence to convince the other.

So no hard feelings from my side anyway.
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:24   #350
Agathon
Mac
Emperor
 
Agathon's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:05
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wal supports the CPA
Posts: 3,948
Quote:
Originally posted by GePap
A basic question about language:

How can intent ever be drawn out, except from context clues, other than by the agreed upon meaning of thwe word? We use language cause we can't read minds. We develop common usage, becuase otherwise all meaning is lost, if no single definition of one word is agreed upon. What else is there but how it was heard? how it was heard defines its meaning.
OK - one last thing on this point since it is a general point about language and unlikely to produce howls of outrage.

My answer is that its use determines its meaning. E.g. we use certain terms to denote things and there is a shared norm as to which ones are used for which. In fact there is basically broad agreement over meanings, otherwise we wouldn't be able to interpret enigmatic utterances - this is because when you say something ambiguous I know what sort of questions to ask you in order to disambiguate your usage. Usage is nice and neutral between speaker and hearer because the normal case (i.e. the vast majority of communication) occurs when transmission of the thought occurs flawlessly. If we made meaning dependent on the hearer alone then there wouldn't be any way of formulating the notion of misunderstanding since that is precisely when the speaker's meaning isn't picked up by the hearer even though what the speaker said may have perfectly meaningful.

There's a lot of thinking behind my view of language and I won't bore you with the rest, so that's enough.

Quote:
I could honestly, honestly believe that by calling a complete stranger in a very neutral voice (and thus removing context clues) a buddy by saying "hey, you motherfvcking imbicile!", but could I honestly expect the stranger to understand my meaning? How can you possibly garner the intent of what was said, if the only way you have to acertain it, again, besides context clues, is by asking someone what they meant? And in a situation were your answer about what you meant makes the difference between punishment and nothing, how could one trust the answer to be true?
In verbal communication tone and gesture are actually part of fixing the meaning. That's why, as everyone knows, we have more trouble understanding people over the phone or (worse) through email. I don't buy into views which make communication mysterious since it successful communication is the norm and we actually don't ruminate over interpreting most of the utterances we hear. Of course the exceptions are really important to us like my old favourites, "Would you like to come up for a cup of coffee?" or "would you like to come back to my place?"

I think I'd understand you if you called me that (weird that Apolyton censors the I-word), although I'd be puzzled at your tone of voice, since our conventions on insulting people are that we do it loudly or sarcastically, etc.

Anyway, if someone wanted to start up a "nature of language" thread I suppose a few hard bitten people could contribute (and bore others to death).
__________________
Only feebs vote.
Agathon is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:25   #351
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
Quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Hardly, I've read your arguments and I find them wanting. I've told you why and if you can't come up with anything better, that's your fault, not mine.
And I've explained why your own arguments hold no merit, and yet you just reiterate them as if they did...

Quote:
Yes we can and we do all the time. The only time we can't is when we are being paranoid.
Malarky. If guaging intent was so easy, there'd be a lot less friction in this world. I can think of at least a dozen examples offhand from this very board where the intent of a poster was misinterpreted by many, if not most readers.

Quote:
But it isn't a major hurdle - and I've pointed out that allowing the interpreter to own the meaning results in a ridiculous view of how language works.
It is far more ludicrous to assert the speaker owns the intent. I could arbitrarily decide to change the meanings of the words "nigger," "kyke" and "wop" to mean something totally different. If I then went around using them casually, would it be the fault of listeners if they got offended? If I decide to start using "Jew" in place of "stingy," without intendind any offense to Jews, then do Jews have no cause to be offended? That's simply ludicrous.

Quote:
If I meet a teenager who tells me that he thinks Mariah Carey is "gay" all I have to do is ask him what he thinks of homosexuals.
Not being a homosexual, you don't realize that this isn't as easy for gays as you make it sound.

Quote:
If someone wants to make derogatory remarks about homosexuals they aren't going to use that word in that sense. Because that's not what it means. If they want to be understood they have to use a stronger word.
Oh bullshit. This is patently stupid. What ignorant bigot is thinking "well, even though my friends use 'gay' commonly to mean something not associated with homosexuals, I won't use it that way, because I don't want them to confuse my saying that with my expressing my contempt for homosexuals." Come on, this is the most ridiculous assertion made yet in this thread.

Quote:
As I said before, if people are going to be intimidated because they (mistakenly) think they are being showered with the mild derision usually reserved for unfashionable clothes then I think the problem lies elsewhere.
Once again, if people don't know the intent and beliefs of the speaker, they are being safe rather than sorry to assume the more negative connotation and avoiding people who say such things. Your lack of empathy with gays in this regard is rather baffling. Seeing as how you weren't a gay teen exposed to this kind of thing, it is pretty condescending to tell me I was just overreacting and being paranoid when I would hear such things and get a knot of fear in my stomach.

You really need to try and see it from the perspective of a closeted gay kid who is terrified of being outed to understand why such usage really does carry a hurtful impact.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo č burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:28   #352
Asher
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
President of the OT
 
Asher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 40,843
Agathon, is this debate representative of the kind of crap that goes on with philosophy professors in today's public universities?

If so, I may have to bump that old thread with a new exhibit.

I mean, clearly, this has no grounding in reality and you're just blowing a bunch of hot air of what people are allowed to be offended by.

It's complete bullshit, and you know it, but you're so used to dealing with other people who will agree with your bullshit that you have no idea how baseless it is.
__________________
"I'll never doubt you again when it comes to hockey, [Prince] Asher." - Guynemer
Asher is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:45   #353
Jarvin
Chieftain
 
Jarvin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: America!
Posts: 35
Isnt this cencorship really getting out of hand? He wasnt actually harrassing an outed homosexual, so if he used the word gay in a negative way that's really just his opinion. Last time i checked people were allowed their own opinions, even if they dont agree with the PC crowd.

Since when did free speech only apply to minorities?
__________________
Shouldn't you be dead or something?
Jarvin is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:47   #354
Asher
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
President of the OT
 
Asher's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 40,843
Quote:
Originally posted by Jarvin
Isnt this cencorship really getting out of hand? He wasnt actually harrassing an outed homosexual
So?
He's insulting homosexuals in general by using "gay" as a slam against something, equating the identity with "lame" or "bad".

Quote:
so if he used the word gay in a negative way that's really just his opinion. Last time i checked people were allowed their own opinions, even if they dont agree with the PC crowd.

Since when did free speech only apply to minorities?
So it'd be okay for a white boy to express his opinion that all "niggers" work as slaves, as long as he's not harassing a black person in specific, in a public school?
__________________
"I'll never doubt you again when it comes to hockey, [Prince] Asher." - Guynemer
Asher is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 22:48   #355
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Just as with drake, there is a basic point of view that i find at best idfficult to understand:

You admit that the use of "gay" in this circumstance is negative, only you state that the virulence of it is low, if any, so even if its derogatory, its is just lightly derogatory but that's OK. Well, the fact is that it is derogatory and no matter how mildly or not a pseaker intents it to be, it remains derogatory.

Maybe some kids don;t really mean it, but the fact is that i hardly see actually gay people, or those that are non-homophobic use it. The times I hear it, it has always been said by people who also have an open distrust or disgust of homosexuality, and keeping the phrase around only makes it worse.

You keep saying language chnages: yes, yes it does, and we can pu active pressure on it to make certain "changes" not happen, like turnign "that's gay" into an acceptable term. I am sure the kids are quite capable of coming up with a term for the though that is not offensive to any sinificant group, much like, I don;t know, saying : that's stupid.

And no, there is no large "stupid lobby" out there (knowing this board, insert political group here).
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 23:02   #356
Uncle Sparky
NationStates
King
 
Uncle Sparky's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,166
But seriously though-

I have black friends that use the term nigger; gay friends who call each other fag and queer; a 1st nations friend of mine uses the word squaw.

If you were to throw a pointy white sheet over your head and hurl these words at people, many would consider you to be non PC, or worse.

However, if you use them in the company of friends, are you doing anything wrong?

Some words, like chicanery and gyp have remained as an accepted part of the English language, though they started as slurs. Gay used to mean "happy". It was co-opted in the 1960's to mean homosexual. If society decides over time to attribute another meaning to it, so be it. Being over 40, I don't understand most lyrics in hip hop...and I don't care !

English is a living language.

Do you feel that if someone uses the words chicanery or gypped, they should be punished?

If not, why do you hate Mexican Americans & Romany ???!!! Bigot !!!!!!
__________________
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.
Uncle Sparky is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 23:13   #357
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
Quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Gay used to mean "happy". It was co-opted in the 1960's to mean homosexual.
How many times do I have to prove this wrong?

Homosexuals were using the term "gay" to refer to themselves commonly in the 1930s. The usage of "gay" for homosexuals was NOT immediately derived from the meaning of gay to be "happy." It is many orders removed from any such meaning.
__________________
Tutto nel mondo č burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 23:28   #358
Uncle Sparky
NationStates
King
 
Uncle Sparky's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,166
The word 'gay' for homosexual male came into general usage in the late '60's. Prior to this, 'gay' was used by the majority of the public as a synonym for "happy".

Tomorrow, it might mean something altogether different.

Chicanery used to specifically mean what was then thought of as typical thieving and unscrupulous behavior by Chicanos. The ethnic slur attached to the word has faded, and chicanery is commonly used, without consequence.
__________________
There's nothing wrong with the dream, my friend, the problem lies with the dreamer.

Last edited by Uncle Sparky; April 4, 2003 at 23:37.
Uncle Sparky is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 23:29   #359
Boris Godunov
Civilization II MultiplayerApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
Boris Godunov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,412
Quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
The word 'gay' for homosexual male came into general usage in the late '60's. Prior to this, 'gay' was used by the majority of the public as a synonym for "happy".
It only came into general usage for the general public...gays had been using it for decades. That isn't "co-opting" anything.

And again, it isn't directly derived from "gay = happy."
__________________
Tutto nel mondo č burla
Boris Godunov is offline  
Old April 4, 2003, 23:31   #360
Tuberski
 
Tuberski's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:05
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: ACK!! PPHHHHTTBBBTTTT!!!
Posts: 7,022
Quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov


How many times do I have to prove this wrong?

Homosexuals were using the term "gay" to refer to themselves commonly in the 1930s. The usage of "gay" for homosexuals was NOT immediately derived from the meaning of gay to be "happy." It is many orders removed from any such meaning.
Seriously, what is it derived from, if not "happy"?

Teach me something.


ACK!
__________________
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside. Look out, he's fuzzy, let's get out of here."
Tuberski is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 19:05.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright Š The Apolyton Team