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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The problem is that the "contemporary use" you cite is by no means ubiquitous, as this incident shows. I would challenge you to use this kind of language in most work places. We'll see what happens. Do you think it would be appropriate for a teacher to talk like this in front of students in class?

It's ubiquitous among young people. Watch your television.

Part of the furor over it is the battle over it's "contemporary use." I certainly don't know many people who use it in their everyday speech, and I live in a city where people say "****" in every other sentence.

Young people use it - they are a speech community (think of all the slang words you used as a teen). It's not part of my idiolect. But who am I to tell them what their words mean? Should I go over to Germany and start lecturing the Germans on what their words should mean.

The fact is that gays, among others, object to it's "contemporary use." Why? Because the phrase was derived as an insult to homosexuals, and still is implicitely so.

Only to you, not to it's users. They would say to you - it doesn't mean that anymore. And not all gays object to it - I've heard a gay person use it.

According to your line of reasoning the term "gay" was derived as an insult. Now the ordinary use of the term is as a PC synonym for "homosexual". Should we prohibit this use too because it was once a rude word?

[Drake Tungsten]

Where the hell do you THINK the insult comes from?

What insult? We're trying to tell you that the new meaning of "gay" isn't an insult, but simply an adjective synonymous with "lame".

I still haven't seen any proof that the new meaning of "gay" is an insult derived from another meaning of the word...

[Drake Tungsten]

Gay = method of taking a word that previously was inoffensive to homosexuals and making it offensive, by equating gays to stupid, bad things. And that's precisely why the phrase came into use.

Where's the proof for that assertion?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The illogic of this is so obvious it hurts.

From someone who's saying a word doesn't mean what it means, that's a bit rich.

Gay = method of taking a word that previously was inoffensive to homosexuals and making it offensive, by equating gays to stupid, bad things. And that's precisely why the phrase came into use.

Accepting it as common usage is condoning the origin of the phrase and equating homosexuals to bad, stupid things. Pretty simple.

For the last time - the way the word "gay" came to be used for stupid things is not what you say it is. It evolved from the insulting stereotype of the "fairy" which then became regarded as just silly and not at all true of gay people. This stereotype is no longer an effective insult. Because the stereotype is silly the term "gay"gets coined as a description of a certain kind of silliness and then is broadened.

The way you make it sound is that people suddenly decided to persecute homosexuals by adopting the word. That is just false.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's ubiquitous among young people. Watch your television.

I have rarely, if ever heard it it used in such context on TV.

Young people use it - they are a speech community (think of all the slang words you used as a teen). It's not part of my idiolect. But who am I to tell them what their words mean? Should I go over to Germany and start lecturing the Germans on what their words should mean.

If Germans start using the word "American" as a synonym for "warmongering imperialist pig," you can damn well bet I'd express offense over it.

Only to you, not to it's users. They would say to you - it doesn't mean that anymore. And not all gays object to it - I've heard a gay person use it.

Whether the speaker beleives"it doesn't mean that anymore" or not isn't really going to matter to the person who hears it, especially a teenager who is gay and constantly hears the word gay = bad/stupid. Nobody wants to be bad/stupid, so why would they want to be gay?

According to your line of reasoning the term "gay" was derived as an insult. Now the ordinary use of the term is as a PC synonym for "homosexual". Should we prohibit this use too because it was once a rude word?

No, that's not my line of reasoning at all. Considering I just provided the word origin of "gay" as a term for homosexuals, I'm stunned you'd think I was asserting this. I was specifically refering the the context of this usage of the word gay. You do know what context is, yes?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Gay = method of taking a word that previously was inoffensive to homosexuals and making it offensive, by equating gays to stupid, bad things. And that's precisely why the phrase came into use.

Where's the proof for that assertion?

Where do you think it came from?

[monkspider]

Hmm, both Ag and Boris make very persuasive cases. Personally I simply find the word to be distasteful and would never use it.

[Drake Tungsten]

Where do you think it came from?

I'm not claiming to know. You are and I'd like to see some proof, since your whole argument rests on the unproven fact that the new meaning of "gay" is meant to be an insult to homosexuals...

[Ben Kenobi]

Notice how none of that supports your implication that gays conspired to take the word away from you.

Take the word away from me?
Where did I insist that?

They did change the meaning of the word, from what it meant before.

That's the point, that homosexuals used the word to refer to themselves, a new meaning for the word.

To hitch from the moorings refers to the common meaning of gay well before it referred to sexuality. It has nothing to do with 'me'.

Now, if you want the word to be attached to sexuality, I think you have to live with the consequences. This is different than 'nigger' in that black people did not use the term amongst themselves.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'm not claiming to know. You are and I'd like to see some proof, since your whole argument rests on the unproven fact that the new meaning of "gay" is meant to be an insult to homosexuals...

It does NOT matter if it's meant to be an insult to homosexuals.

This is because it is offensive to homosexuals, ANYWAY, and you saying they shouldn't be offended by it WON'T change that.
Simple stuff...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
From someone who's saying a word doesn't mean what it means, that's a bit rich.

And when did I say this? You're creating strawmen left and right, Mr. Philosopher.

For the last time - the way the word "gay" came to be used for stupid things is not what you say it is. It evolved from the insulting stereotype of the "fairy" which then became regarded as just silly and not at all true of gay people. This stereotype is no longer an effective insult. Because the stereotype is silly the term "gay"gets coined as a description of a certain kind of silliness and then is broadened.

The way you make it sound is that people suddenly decided to persecute homosexuals by adopting the word. That is just false.

I'd like to see your own support for this claim. You first stated it as a theory and now you are asserting it as fact...nice leap! But it doesn't hold up, because when the phrase came into use, it wasn't just effeminate behavior that people despised in homosexuals--it was their very nature. The term is broadly cast at gays--it doesn't single out fairies or fags or whatever term you want to make for the effeminate men. And it developed in a time period when the stereotype of the fairy was already known to be false.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Agathon


Bullsh*t. This would mean that all those loonies who hear some insult in everything that's said to them would be justified.

It basically comes down to this:

You can not say Hello if you intend to say Goodbye and expect people to understand that.

If you say something is gay, people - especially who are gay* - are going to interpret that as a comparison to gays. This is a very basic logic.

People are as 'justified' in being offended by vulgar words as someone is to not be offened - it is, as has been said many times, a matter of interpretation.

This is what the entire concept and workings of language is based on, and I'm surprised some people can have such difficulty understanding it. Words are not magical, their only meaning is what the listener gives it.


*I shouldn't have to explain this, but I will: The reason it is especially true with gays is because, being gay, they will be much more likely to associate the word with sexuality, or even themselves. People who are not gay are more prone to giving the word other meanings, because it does not relate to them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Where do you think it came from?

I'm not claiming to know. You are and I'd like to see some proof, since your whole argument rests on the unproven fact that the new meaning of "gay" is meant to be an insult to homosexuals...

Considering that, when the phrase came into use, "gay" was most commonly used as a term for homosexuals, and that using "gay" in the "happy, merry" context had pretty much stopped, it defies any logic to imagine that it didn't have this as its root.

At any rate, being a bit older, I can distinctly remember in middle school that calling someone "gay" was often accompanied by calling them "fag" and "queer." Gee, nope, must not mean homosexuals at all...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Where do you think it came from?

I said so in the previous post. I think it is much more like "nigga" than people realise. Let's not exaggerate - this is a very mild insult.

For example, if I saw the pink car with the Julio Iglesias airhorn I mentioned before. I'd say, "that's pretty gay", and I would primarily mean, "that's pretty silly". Teens have picked up on that use and turned it into a word roughly equating to "lame".

I think it is ridiculous and mean to pick on teens for using their own slang, especially when no real harm is intended by it. Maori people in NZ used to use "honky" in a similar way (e.g. your "honky" car - meaning "your lame underpowered Japanese sedan") - no white person I know was deeply offended.

[Drake Tungsten]

Considering that, when the phrase came into use, "gay" was most commonly used as a term for homosexuals, and that using "gay" in the "happy, merry" context had pretty much stopped, it defies any logic to imagine that it didn't have this as its root.

So you don't have any proof? Duly noted...

[Asher]

I'm confused how people can be so stupid.

Argue until you're blue in the face (or if you're really dense, continue asking for 'proof' about the origin of the term), it won't change the fact that homosexuals find using a term (which also happens to mean their sexuality) as being very insulting.

Not only this, but to gay teenagers growing up in an already terrible environment (jr high, highschool), it subtly continues to equate "gay" to be a bad thing.

There is absolutely NO reason we need to use "gay" as an insult, and we SHOULD discourage it.

Anyone who says otherwise is a moron and/or a bigot.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
So you don't have any proof? Duly noted...

Since you've not offered any rational alternative to its origin, your argument means diddly-squat.

[Drake Tungsten]

Since you've not offered any rational alternative to its origin, your argument means diddly-squat.

Agathon has and his theory has just as much proof behind it as yours...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
I said so in the previous post. I think it is much more like "nigga" than people realise. Let's not exaggerate - this is a very mild insult.

Except that, as I pointed out twice, Nigga is the exact opposite scenario.

For example, if I saw the pink car with the Julio Iglesias airhorn I mentioned before. I'd say, "that's pretty gay", and I would primarily mean, "that's pretty silly". Teens have picked up on that use and turned it into a word roughly equating to "lame".

No one is denying that the use of the word gay in this context is meaning "lame." Jesus, that' exactly what we're arguing about! The use of a word that is most commonly used as an identifying label for a group being co-opted to mean something bad.

I think it is ridiculous and mean to pick on teens for using their own slang, especially when no real harm is intended by it. Maori people in NZ used to use "honky" in a similar way (e.g. your "honky" car - meaning "your lame underpowered Japanese sedan") - no white person I know was deeply offended.

Since "honky" wasn't a word whites used to describe themselves, this isn't comparable, now is it? Did the term originate specifically to compare the lame cars to white people?

[Drake Tungsten]

Anyone who says otherwise is a moron and/or a bigot.

Well, we've stooped to name-calling, have we? It appears the day is ours...

[Ben Kenobi]

it subtly continues to equate "gay" to be a bad thing.

Asher:

That's the second time you posted something along these lines. This is what the whole debate is about is it not? It's not about insulting gay people, its about expressing disapproval for anything that gay people do.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Since you've not offered any rational alternative to its origin, your argument means diddly-squat.

Agathon has and his theory has just as much proof behind it as yours...

Agathon's theory still relies on the origin being one of mocking homosexuals, now doesn't it?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

I'd like to see your own support for this claim. You first stated it as a theory and now you are asserting it as fact...nice leap! But it doesn't hold up, because when the phrase came into use, it wasn't just effeminate behavior that people despised in homosexuals--it was their very nature. The term is broadly cast at gays--it doesn't single out fairies or fags or whatever term you want to make for the effeminate men. And it developed in a time period when the stereotype of the fairy was already known to be false.

The last sentence is part of my claim. You want my support for it?

Can't you see that wishy-washy effeminate behaviour is silly (even in women)? You have noted that the stereotype of the fairy is known to be false of gay people - I know that. But the name for that stereotype is still "gay" - there is a fork in the meaning of the term here occasioned by the recognition that the stereotype is not true of homosexuals. I'd argue that the mild nature of the teen insult means that the teens are picking up on "gay" from the second fork - silly effeminate, etc. If they were trying to use it along the lines of "fag" it would be a much deadlier insult, but it isn't. Case closed.

At any rate, being a bit older, I can distinctly remember in middle school that calling someone "gay" was often accompanied by calling them "fag" and "queer." Gee, nope, must not mean homosexuals at all.

So can I, but I've noticed that things have changed. No teen-ager who wanted to insult a homosexual would use "gay", they wouldn't even use "queer" or "fairy" because these are a bit old and quaint. "Fag" is still verboten though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Well, we've stooped to name-calling, have we? It appears the day is ours...

I'm not calling anyone names in specific, but if people continue to put forth incredibly stupid arguments I think it's safe to call them morons.

Such as telling millions of people that we can continue using a word and that they shouldn't be offended by it. The person with such an argument clearly doesn't understand that people WILL continue to be offended by it, regardless, and it also isn't clear from the context.

Gay is used both as a catch-all insult and as a description of sexual orientation these days. Idiots can argue that they are completely separate, but they're obviously not -- it's the same stupid word.

And since we don't know exactly where it came from, and nobody will ever know, gay people will continue to assume it's because of the sexuality (which logically makes the most sense).

[mindseye]

Agathon, if you go back through your logically-challenged arguments and replace "gay" with "nigger-rigged" you might get the point.

On second thought, you probably wouldn't.


Where is David Floyd? I had this exact same argument with him in OT about two years ago. Same imperviousness to logic.

[Drake Tungsten]

Agathon's theory still relies on the origin being one of mocking homosexuals, now doesn't it?

No, it involves the mocking of absurd stereotypes.

[Boris Godunov]

mindseye, we brought up that point with the "Jew" phrase, but they repeatedly ignored it, because it doesn't compute to their illogic.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm not calling anyone names in specific, but if people continue to put forth incredibly stupid arguments I think it's safe to call them morons.

I don't see why mine and Agathon's arguments are "stupid". We're saying that one of the commonly accepted meanings of "gay" is as a synonym of "lame" and has no relations to the sexual meaning of "gay". No one has disproved this. Where's the stupidity?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Except that, as I pointed out twice, Nigga is the exact opposite scenario.

So it's similar in some respects, different in others. Big deal.

No one is denying that the use of the word gay in this context is meaning "lame." Jesus, that' exactly what we're arguing about! The use of a word that is most commonly used as an identifying label for a group being co-opted to mean something bad.

Good.

Since "honky" wasn't a word whites used to describe themselves, this isn't comparable, now is it? Did the term originate specifically to compare the lame cars to white people?

"Gay" wasn't a word that gays used to describe themselves, but they do now. Similarly, "honky" is used by many white NZers. Calling a car a "honky" car is a subtle dig at white people, but it is a mild and friendly dig using a word that was formerly much stronger.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by mindseye
Agathon, if you go back through your logically-challenged arguments and replace "gay" with "nigger-rigged" you might get the point.

On second thought, you probably wouldn't.

Well you are obviously too dopey to see that two words might have different histories and thus your case is a false analogy.