Well, I searched to make sure that this hadn’t been argued about in the last 90 days, but go back much further and the word “gay” gets a bit too many hits to sift through. So my apologies if I’m beating a dead horse.
The argument started in this Pit thread. (Imagine that, an argument going from the Pit to GD, for once). Rather than hijack it any further, I decided to move it here. I’ll quote all the relevant posts, and let the debate go where it will.
MrWhy said:
To which Primaflora responded:
At this point, I jumped on the bandwagon with:
MrWhy came back with this:
Crunchy Frog had the last post, saying:
So, there you have it. This debate already has a running start, and I guess this thread will take it from here.
Jester, I answered you in the other thread before I saw that you had started this one.
Here is my post:
Jester, I think we actually have quite a bit of common ground in our positions. I have no problem with the fact that sometimes, indeed probably most of the time, calling someone gay is meant as a slight on homosexuality.
I would just like to allow for the fact that it is not always the case. Sometimes it can be a friendly insult. We have to be careful not to let knee jerk, PC reactions get in the way of understanding what people are really trying to say.
I’ll try to give an example to illustrate what I mean: It used to be the case that calling someone a “bastard” was a reasonably decent insult. Now, I can happily call my friend, who has just beat me in chess or whatever “complete bastard”, and no real offence is meant or taken. It is an insult, but very mild. In fact I could call him, a “cocksucker”, and no offence would be taken. “Cocksucker” is a pretty insulting term in some circumstances (because of its gay connotations, so it may be a better example for the present discussion). But context is everything.
I believe that “gay” is in the early stages of the same type of transition, from “harsh” insult to “friendly” insult. And we should not always assume the worst.
As I said earlier, this may genuinely be different elsewhere. I do live in what some would call a “gay ghetto”.
It’s all a matter of interpretation. To a whole lot of people, “bastard” and “cocksucker” are still quite offensive insults, in any context. Though they may be “fun” insults to you and your friends, some people take offense to them, which they have every right to do since the words are still insults, either way.
Because of this, people are perfectly justified in being offended by the use of “gay.” It doesn’t make them knee-jerk, it just makes them sensitive to the word. This is especially true on a message board, where the only context that people have to judge you with are your words. Not everyone will realize that you’re using “gay” as an endearing insult, since they don’t know you well enough to know that you’re just being buddy-buddy. Therefore, they’re within their limits to view the use of the word as an offensive insult, no matter how many used-car salesman smilies you put onto the end of it. Some people just don’t look at it the same as you do, and I’m actually one of them. But I can understand your point. It just doesn’t apply to everybody.
I take offense when I hear the word gay being used as an insult, because I can’t help but think that if the author is calling nasty, stupid, or irritating things “gay”, the author is calling me nasty, stupid, and/or irritating by extension.
It seems to me that when using it the author simply doesn’t care that I or other gay people might be present. To be given such little consideration is offensive.
This makes no sense at all. If you take the word “gay” (meaning “homosexual”) and use it to mean “nasty”, you are making it mean something WORSE, not better. It’s the exact opposite process of the one you describe.
(Crunchy Frog doesn’t mean that the word is derived from homophobic sentiments, but that its pejorative use is.)
I disagree. I believe that one should look for the intent of what is said first. If the term is in fact being used as a slight on homosexuals everywhere, then I would be right there with you in condemning the speaker. I just don’t think it should be our first reaction.
I am much more likely to give someone the benefit of the doubt on a message board, simply because of the fact that words are all we have to judge.
I would say that it is being over sensitive to assume that the speaker was being malicious (so long as there was no evidence to indicate that they were being malicious).
It seems that you believe (correct me if I am wrong) that, given our limited communication medium, the added responsibility is on the writer. I place it on the reader.
I believe, that if everyone had to write fearing that they might offend someone, somewhere, then message boards would become rather banal.
True, but in many cases, when people use the word “gay,” even if it’s meant to mean “stupid,” it’s still being used maliciously. Therefore, people will group together both meanings into one insult. Either way, it’s still a negative connotation. Like matt_mcl said, changing the meaning from one insult to another doesn’t “soften” the blow, and many people will just group the new meaning in with the old one, which they have every right to do.
OK, now I’m confused. “Gay” is, in most cases, synonymous with “homosexual” these days. So…how, exactly, is it insulting at all? If I were to say “That is so gay!”, why would that be insulting? And why then is it OK to refer to homosexuals as “gay”?
And what if I say something like “Man, he is so gay!” - is that insulting?
It seems to me that someone can choose to be insulted by anything. Why, then, do people choose “gay” to be insulting in some contexts, but not others?
Please keep in mind that I do not use “gay” in the alleged perjorative sense, simply because I realize that some folks are offended by it. However, I am curious as to why, given the clearly non-insulting “standard” definition.
If the author is calling you nasty, stupid, and/or irritating by extension, then I agree with you. I’m trying to say that this is not always what they are doing, and that we should be careful not to jump to that conclusion.
I have heard the expression used in the “non-nasty” sense, so that is one of the possibilities I consider when I read it in a post.
I just think it sould be considered a possibility.
I am not, for one second, saying that we should not condemn those who use the term in a hurtful way.
Damn, I must be bad at this. I am not suggesting that the word “gay” be taken to mean “nasty”. I know that unfortunately some people use it that way. (BTW, it seems to me that by assuming that is what people always mean when they say “gay”, one is perpetuating that meaning.) Just don’t assume that is what is meant, because I know that some people do not mean it that way.
MrWhy, you’re doin fine. I see your point now, and agree with it. For a while there, I just thought that you meant that it was always okay to use “gay,” because it no longer meant “homosexual” as a negative connotation. I see now that that is not the case.
However, most of the times that the word is used here on the boards, it’s used as an insult. That is mainly what Crunchy was referring to. In real life, true, it can be used as something other than an insult, but even then, it’s a fairly rare occurance most places. Thanks for clearing up your point, I agree with you now.
Tengu, I’m saying that the intent of the speaker, the context etc are very important things. We have to look at everything before we can say whether anything is offensive or not.
So whether your example is offensive depends on whether the speaker is a Jew himself, if he said it in fun or not, if the guys are friends and know each other well enough to know each others feeling on Jewry etc.
My whole point is that you can’t always tell if it’s offensive or not from the words alone.
So I guess my answer is: “I don’t know, and I’m not willing to make a guess without further information.”
I dissagree that the reader has to be the one to judge things. The author should learn that there is a difference between joking among friends and joking on a messageboard. If you can’t tell wether or not its offensive then why bother using it?
It seems to me that there is a possibility here of a misunderstanding arising due to location. MrWhy’s profile reads as Sydney, Australia, whereas the remainder seem (where listed) mainly in North America. As a fellow resident of Sydney, it’s quite possible to call a friend gay, or a bastard, or a cocksucker and for it not to be offensive, but a term of endearment.
Though I’ll be the first to admit that using any of the above to describe anyone other than a mate would be offensive, regardless of the intended context. So I guess that I’d consider it OK to use potentially offensive terms between friends, I would definitely not recommend using it as a general term of address.
So even though I see MrWhy’s pint, I have to agree with Sterra that you should avoid those sort of terms on a message board, as the majority of people you’re holding a discussion with are strangers, and may well miss the intended context of your comments. I don’t really see it as a knee-jerk reaction for the sake of being PC, it just seems reasonable to me to avoid offending people unless absolutely necessary.
As somebody mentioned in the other thread, I see “gay” and “retarded” being used in quite similar ways. I always took: Oh man, that’s so gay! or That is, like, sooooo retarded! as “these things possess the same qualities as gay/retarded people and are therefore bad”.
Of course, context is important, but on a message board where body language, intonation and facial expressions cannot be deduced, it is difficult to emulate real-life interaction and speech-patterns.
Of course, context is important, but on a message board where body language, intonation and facial expressions cannot be deduced, it is difficult to emulate real-life interaction and speech-patterns, and it is sometimes necessary to either provide the context or choose a different word.
Darn! It seems like everything anyone says offends homeosexuals these days!
BTW, the origonal usage of gay, before the Homosexuals decided to corrupt it, meant happy, pleasent and cheerful.
A ‘gay blade’ was a good sworsman. He’s gay meant cheerful. A gay old time meant a happy occassion. A gay color was a bright, cheerful hue. A gay day was a pleasent day.
The same as ‘fruit’ meant just that; fruit! Later fruit stood for mentally unballanced. Now it’s a derogatory term for homosexuals.
Why does a homosexual need to be called gay anyhow? Who came up with this term? What’s wrong with ‘homo’? Ir’s not an insult until you apply it as such. Like Blacks call each other nigger, but let a White use the term and it’s an insult.
You know, I can wander around for days and not find anyone using any derogatory term for homosexuals and suddenly, on TV, some homosexual is pissed off because someone used something that just might be slanderous towards them, but which no one would have even paid attention to had he not opened his big mouth about it.
Then, they took over the term ‘gay.’ None of them asked me if they could, nor did they ask if any heterosexual minded, they just took it. Now, if anyone uses the term gay around one, he gets pissed. They also stole the descriptive noun ‘Rainbow,’ which pissed off members of the Rainbow Coalition and around 1000 Internet users whose handles begin with ‘Rainbow.’ I know 4 ‘Rainbows’ on the web and they’ve started switching to alternate names because of all of the ‘gay’ IM’s they get along with advertisement spam for gay porn. One was asked via IM why, if he was not gay, did his screen name begin with Rainbow!!
I’m kind of getting tired of having to watch my words because various ‘rights’ groups have decided to alter their meanings and take offense if they mistake what I and others say, using such terms.
I see the point that the author should take reasonable care, and I agree, but I still think that they should be given the benefit of the doubt, in case they screw up. Innocent until proven guilty, so to speak.
Myself, I wouldn’t deliberately use any terms that I thought could be taken as offensive. But if I inadvertently do, I hope that I m not judged too harshly.
As vorfod says, it could be simply a regional difference that makes the author think there is nothing wrong with their comments for example.
