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

[Tuberski]

Here is my theory:

The term gay has come to mean homosexual.

Using the term gay to imply that something is stupid or lame, also implies that homosexuals are stupid or lame.

Once again, History Of The World part 1 had it right:

"Standup philosopher"

"Oh, a bullshit artist."

And Agathon pretty much proves it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Gay (and most straight people, at least here) people assume that the term "gay" as an insult is derived from the sexuality, and find it offensive that "gay" is starting to be synonymous with "lame" and "bad" because of mainstream homophobic heterosexual usage in jr highs/high schools/immature colleges.

It's relevant because there is no proof that your assumptions about the origin of the new meaning of "gay" are true. Your whole argument is based around an unproven assertion. Can't you see the problem in that?

Several people has made the assertion that "gay" as a term for describing homosexuals was coopted from the previous meaning of "gay" as happy. This is certainly the most obvious connection to make, but it is wrong, as Boris has shown. You and Boris are making the same mistake; you are assuming that the most obvious linkage between "gay" as homosexual and "gay" as lame is automatically true. It is not and until it is proven, it is ludicrous to try and base an argument on it.

Not that I expect you to understand any of this...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
It's relevant because there is no proof that your assumptions about the origin of the new meaning of "gay" are true. Your whole argument is based around an unproven assertion. Can't you see the problem in that?

Drake.
Please.

For your own sake, please think about this.

The answer is so painfully obvious to me that I'm questioning the authenticity of your ignorance...

[Drake Tungsten]

claim that using gay as an insult somehow doesn't insult gays.

We're claiming that "gay" is not an insult, therefore gays who are offended by it are misguided. Jesus Christ, can't any of you understand Agathon's argument? No wonder you think it's pathetic; you can't even comprehend what the man is saying...

[Asher]

Hey, I'm going to start calling all gay people "Nebraskans".

And you can't prove that it is any way related to the state!

BWAHAHAHA! logik of filosofy

[korn469]

And you can't prove that it is any way related to the state!

you're wrong about that

nebraska can mean lame too

[Drake Tungsten]

Hey, I'm going to start calling all gay people "Nebraskans".

And you can't prove that it is any way related to the state!

Go ahead. I'm not going to get offended by a change in word meaning...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Go ahead. I'm not going to get offended by a change in word meaning...

Hey, good on you.
That's not the point of the example though.

The point is that the remnants of your "argument" depend on proving that "gay" means gay...which you know it's impossible to do.

You toss all of the logic and obvious derivations of the word aside and go "Aha! But can you prove it?" and act all smug about it.

The real kicker is none of that matters.

The vast majority of gay people are offended by it. You may think they're being misguided about it, but you're just being a dumbass and have no idea what those gay people go through with their life.

So why don't you be a man about it, and instead of being an ******* and refusing to bend on using a word casually that offends a large segment of society, and choose a different word?

Is your vocabularly really that limited?

[mindseye]

You and Boris are making the same mistake; you are assuming that the most obvious linkage between "gay" as homosexual and "gay" as lame is automatically true. It is not (...)

What you are conveniently ignoring is that the word "gay" already had a primary meaning, a meaning in common useage throughout the English-speaking population. To insinuate that the new useage is completely independant of this, particularly when there is no other useage of "gay" which has negative connotations, is to willfully ignore reality.

If you don't believe this, then I would have to ask why virtually all of the other posters (of various political stripes and sexual orientations) who has visited this thread finds this equation, yet you and Agathon do not? Doesn't this tell you something?

Do you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the word that shows it is not somehow related to gay/homosexual? Boris asked you on page 6, you have yet to offer one.

[Drake Tungsten]

What you are conveniently ignoring is that the word "gay" already had a primary meaning, a meaning in common useage throughout the English-speaking population. To insinuate that the new useage is completely independant of this, particularly when there is no other useage of "gay" which has negative connotations, is to willfully ignore reality.

Boris just showed that "gay" as homosexual developed independently from "gay" as happy, the most common usage at the time. You're making an assumption and attempting to justify your case based on that assumption. That's shaky logical ground...

If you don't believe this, then I would have to ask why virtually every other poster who has visited this thread finds this equation, yet you and Agathon do not? Doesn't this tell you something?

Maybe Agathon and I are the only ones who understand what "proof" is...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Boris just showed that "gay" as homosexual developed independently from "gay" as happy, the most common usage at the time. You're making an assumption and attempting to justify your case based on that assumption. That's shaky logical ground...

Why do you not understand when to apply logic?

I'm a computer science major, and even I know that logic has its limits.

People's emotions operate independently from logic. If 99% of gays are offended by something, perhaps instead of dismissing them as as misguided fools, perhaps you could admit that the 2 of the people posting in this thread who argue otherwise are the misguided fools?

Maybe Agathon and I are the only one's who understand what "proof" is... :rolleyes?

I know full well what constitutes a proof.

No one in here has come close to proving anything, on either side.

But that's fine, because it's not possible. You and Agathon have attempted it, failed miserably, and demanded that we prove that it's insulting because it's related to the sexuality.

You're intentionally being obtuse, and you continue digging your own grave because of it. You KNOW you have no argument, which is why you've fallen back on "prove that gay means the sexuality when people are insulting eachother" because you know it's impossible to do. You've somehow pinned your success on the perceived failure of us to prove something.

It's not a very clever trick, in fact it's something that's quite lame and obvious to everyone reading this thread.

I'd suggest you cut your (heavy) losses and abandon this thread, like you bragged about doing a few posts ago...

[mindseye]

You're making an assumption and attempting to justify your case based on that assumption. That's shaky logical ground...

Do you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the word that shows it is not somehow related to gay/homosexual? Boris asked you on page 6, you have yet to offer one.

Note: I edited this into my previous post while Drake was responding. No intention to confuse.

[Drake Tungsten]

The vast majority of gay people are offended by it. You may think they're being misguided about it, but you're just being a dumbass and have no idea what those gay people go through with their life.

That is the gayest thing I've ever heard in my life. Your perceived victimhood makes your misguided viewpoint acceptable? That black woman who was offended by "niggardly" was just as much a victim as you are, but I didn't see you defending her stupidity. I guess being a hypersensitive moron is alright as long as Asher is the one doing it...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That is the gayest thing I've ever heard in my life. Your perceived victimhood makes your misguided viewpoint acceptable?

It makes it a reality.

Deal with reality, Drake...

Do you even notice that once again you're arguing that it's not acceptable for gays to be offended by people using their sexuality as an insult?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

claim that using gay as an insult somehow doesn't insult gays.

We're claiming that "gay" is not an insult, therefore gays who are offended by it are misguided. Jesus Christ, can't any of you understand Agathon's argument? No wonder you think it's pathetic; you can't even comprehend what the man is saying...

Your cognitive abilities are amazingly low, considering we've said time and time again that it IS an insult, whether you intend it to be or NOT. That you can't grasp that is baffling.

Agathon is committing one of the most basic logical fallacies by using the Appeal to Ignorance: "unless you can absolutely prove A, you can't disprove B, can you?"

He is also ignoring Occam's Razor, which is that the simplest answer is the most likely. It's HIS burden to disprove the simplest answer.

Fact: Gay = homosexual was commonly in use by 1970s.
Fact: Gay = stupid/bad came into use probably early 1990s
Fact: In the period when gay = stupid/bad began coming into use, homosexuals were still widely not accepted and viewed mostly negatively
Fact: Of all the places where such negative attitudes towards homosexuals exist, schools are probably the most pernicious bastions of them.
Fact: School-age kids regularly taunt each other with homophobic slurs, calling each other "fags" and "queers" and "********ers."

Now, given all those facts, tell me...is the most logical (i.e. simplest answer):

A) Some people decided to use gay= stupid/bad to mock a stereotype of the effeminate "fairy," despite that they used (against all common sense) the general word for homosexuals instead of "fairy" or such.

or

B) Gay = stupid/bad came into being because people thought being gay was stupid/bad and therefore saying something was "gay" was a great way to deride it?

It won't take most people too long to think about which is more logical.

Oh, and answer me another thing... we all know "queer" also can be used to denote homosexuals, right? And I have heard from our youth the phrase, "That's so queer," being used EXACTLY as "gay" is used in such a phrase (stupid/bad). Now tell me, is that just an outrageously odd coincidence that two words referring to homosexuals are used interchangeably as synonyms for "stupid/bad."

I am getting my arsenal ready.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you have an alternative explanation for the origin of the word that shows it is not somehow related to gay/homosexual?

Agathon gave one that was pretty believable. "Gay" may have developed as a way of mocking sterotypically gay actions. Just like I make fun of my friends for being "painfully white" when they do something that's stereotypically white, gay people might have started poking fun at the more flamboyant among them by saying that they were "sooo gay". This weak chiding is certainly more in line with the current, weak negative meaning of the word "gay" than the derogatory slur that some here seem convinced gay's new meaning developed from. In the absence of any proof, this theory is just as viable as anyone else's.

Luckily, Agathon and my arguments don't rest on our unproven assertion...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Agathon gave one that was pretty believable. "Gay" may have developed as a way of mocking sterotypically gay actions.

In that case, I withdraw my objections! That's a-okay by me!

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves, and either way it's unacceptable.

[Drake Tungsten]

Do you even notice that once again you're arguing that it's not acceptable for gays to be offended by people using their sexuality as an insult?

You have the right to be offended. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to kiss your ass and pretend that your offense is an intelligent opinion...

[Drake Tungsten]

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves

Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

Look at Boris' post above.

It is so incredibly obvious to anyone with the most basic analytical skills...

I find it tremendously amusing that you and Agathon are absolutely the most inept with logic in this thread, and it's been you two that have been accusing others of not understanding logic.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

It's far less likely than making fun of gays themselves

Yet another BAM. Do you have any arguments that don't rest on baseless assertions?

Considering Agathon's ENTIRE rationalization for why gay=stupid/bad isn't insulting was based on a BAM (and you've both admitted as such, while asking for people to prove your own BAM wrong), this is just a load of hot, stinky air.

[Drake Tungsten]

Your cognitive abilities are amazingly low, considering we've said time and time again that it IS an insult, whether you intend it to be or NOT. That you can't grasp that is baffling.

The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not. If they did, "niggardly" would be an insult. So would "chincanery" and "gypped". Whether a word is an insult is not determined by either the speaker or the listener, but by societal norms. Why YOU can't grasp this simple point is what's truly baffling...

Gay is not made an insult just because you say it is. You need to prove that it is, which you have not been able to do.

And I have heard from our youth the phrase , "That's so queer,"

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

[Drake Tungsten]

Considering Agathon's ENTIRE rationalization for why gay=stupid/bad isn't insulting was based on a BAM (and you've both admitted as such, while asking for people to prove your own BAM wrong), this is just a load of hot, stinky air.

You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not.

So if I used "nigger" to casually refer to all black people, this is not offensive, provided I do not intend it as an insult to someone in specific?

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

I've heard it in high school.
"********er" is also an incredibly common insult...

Why don't you go ahead and try to rationalize why you believe that one has nothing to do with gay people as well.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

This whole thread, you've been Agathon's b1tch, and instead of dealing with everyone shooting down your argument, you:

Call "BAM" at them

Insist they don't understand the argument

Ignore it completely

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


You didn't understand a damn word of Agathon's argument.

**** this ****. I don't have the time to waste on this anymore. Claim victory all you want; it won't make up for the fact that you are both idiots.

Victory was obtained on page 6. This is a bloody massacre, overkill...

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view? I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Later. Have fun making bullshit claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
The listener does not have sole authority over determining whether a word is an insult or not. If they did, "niggardly" would be an insult. So would "chincanery" and "gypped". Whether a word is an insult is not determined by either the speaker or the listener, but by societal norms. Why YOU can't grasp this simple point is what's truly baffling...

Once again, you're playing a word game, since

1. Niggardly is not now nor has ever been used as a group identifier.
2. Niggardly has no etymological relationship to the word "nigger," which is an entirely different word.

Gay is gay--the word is the same, for christ's sake. Not only that, the bad/stupid meaning came AFTER it already meant homosexual. You are continually side-stepping the crux of the argument and relying on dumb smoke and mirrors.

I was not around when gyped or chicanery were coined...but had I been, I would have no problems with people voicing objections over such usage. The fact that the unthinking majority was able to slip those into common usage during a time when consideration for minorities wasn't of much concern is IRRELEVANT to this debate.

Once more... is going around using "jew" as a synonym for stingy or cheating acceptable? Should it be tolerated in schools?

Gay is not made an insult just because you say it is. You need to prove that it is, which you have not been able to do.

I rather succinctly did in the last post, you are not responding to it, no doubt because you are unable.

I've never heard "that's so queer" used. Since I'm surrounded by immature twits out here in Nebraska, I probably would've heard it if it actually existed...

So you now accuse me of lying? Last gasp of the cornered debater. Trust me, I have heard it several times. I can remember hearing people use it when I was in high school, which was 10 years ago!

There isn't any logical basis for your claim that it isn't an insult anymore, so we're waiting for what other fantastical claims you can make on how making a group identifier into an synonym for stupid/bad is somehow not an insult to members of that group.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

I'm curious -- why can't you put forth your own argument?

Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view? I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Later. Have fun making bullshit claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

Agathon's argument was dealt with, you've failed to make your own at all. I understand what Agathon is saying more than YOU do, it seems. So now I understand why you don't make your own and cling to his: you can't comprehend it, but know it is in line with your own opinion, so you just cite it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Why would I put forth an argument when Agathon has already put forth an elegant argument that reflects my point of view?

If you're not going to actually debate, don't post.

You did nothing but spam and keep pointing at Agathon's post, when it was debunked and destroyed numerous times throughout the thread, which you still ignore...

I don't have the ego that you do; I'm comfortable with playing second fiddle to someone if they are representing my view in an intelligent fashion.

Oh, I had no doubt that you are a follower.

Later. Have fun making bullshit claims about how you "destroyed" an argument that you never addressed.

edit: That crosspost made the last line even more appropriate...

How prophetic of you...you somehow knew that everyone thought you lost the debate.