So, we have anecdotal experience telling us that “gay” obviously means homosexual in a derogatory manner, and anecdotal evidence telling us that “gay” doesn’t obvioulsy mean homosexual in a derogatory manner.
We also have a possible link between “gay” and “lame” which I offered and has no connection to homosexuality. We also have a link between “gay” and “happiness” which seems to have not breached the semantic boundries some are claiming to be destroyed.
I use, and have mostly heard, “gay” as “lame” in reference to situations. As in, for example, the boss just asked me to work this weekend. “That is so gay.” That you could construe a comment on sexual behavior from that perhaps says more about the listener than the speaker.
I’m sorry for my stubbornness, but I remain unconvinced.
How about when people refer to what is not selected as what’s “left”? Obviously it wasn’t good enough to be selected, so it must be bad.
And c’mon. Did you really miss the point of what I said so much that you quibble that my analogy isn’t exact? I even summed it up at the very end.
You’ve obviously been talking to different people than I have. When I hear people use the word in that context, they always use it as a synonym for “silly” or “stupid”.
Which is generally, in my experience, the exact same way most of them (That is, people who use gay for stupid, etc) think of gays, too. Effectively, “gays are gay”. Even if it’s not purposefully offensive, it’s most definatly inconsiderate and rude (And further more, many who use the term that way consider that just fine, even good).
Personally, I agree with the earlier post. Imagine a teen going through school, with everyone using “gay” to mean stupid, idiotic, etc (Not to mention all the insults hurled at people calling them gay - MEANING homosexual, in that case, yet still carrying the same meaning as well) and then starting to discover his interests in males. Most of his life, gay has been given a strongly negative conotation, and now he’s starting to find out that he is, himself, gay. I know some gays that are -still- nervous about being called gay (as in homosexual) because of the negative conotations they’re constantly bombarded with.
“Gay” as in homosexual was often used as an insult toward others, implying they were stupid or wrong or the like. I find it hard to believe that the use of gay for the exact same thing, minus the specific mention of homosexual, was a purely coincidental thing. It only takes so long of using it as an insult toward a person, imply that they are, actually, homosexual, before it becomes a more generall, all-around insult for other things that are targeted by the same dislike.
And the only time I’ve seen people try to reason that “gay” (used as an insult) doesn’t refer to homosexuals, but to “stupid things”, has been in places that generally don’t tolerate open hostility towards gays. In other places, the general responce is “Damn straight it refers to them!” or something to that effect (Though usually with much poorer grammer/spelling/punctuation).
I’m gay. Someone looks at something that is obviously out of place or “uncool,” or sees someone that is unpleasant or distasteful, or comments on someone doing something out of the ordinary or “lame,” and they say, “That’s so gay.”
How I identify was just equated to out of place, uncool, unpleasant, distatesful, out of the ordinary, and/or lame.
Would it be more acceptable if we insisted on saying, “That’s so black” and defending it by saying, “I didn’t mean to imply ‘black’ meant ‘bad’”? How about, “That’s so nigger?” Or, “That’s so kike?” Granted, “gay” isn’t as derogatory, but as a gay man, and as that’s how I identify, hearing it taken out of that context is just as jarring nonetheless.
Please, defend the etymology of those examples to me and justify them.
But sir, we do mean to imply that, in this example, black meant bad. What we didn’t mean to imply, in this example, was that whatever else “black” is used for should also be conidered bad. Really, I find that the equalization of context and multiple meanings of words is a slap in the face (colloquial for expression of shock ([sub]not shock in the electrical sense (sense in the meaning of “state” (“state” in the meaning of condition—really, shall I go on?))[/sub])).
We certainly do use black to mean bad, as well, even outside of hypothetical examples. “Black magic” and “a black heart” are two examples. I am not certain that champions of racial equality find that these sayings imply hidden racism. Apparently, however, they would have quite a case to present with some people (and that case wouldn’t contain shoes).
I find that these people are “left of center,” and no, I don’t mean politically. They are a few sandwiches short of a picnic, if you know what I mean, which you probably don’t since you would obviously identify “sandwiches” with food in this case (and all cases) and would go on to consider that anyone who didn’t eat a full meal at any particular siting must be crazy.
If I could find a meaning for “nigger” which was sufficiently different than its common usage I wouldn’t find a problem using it.
When mathematicians and flight-planners describe using curved lines as the correct path, I’m not assuming that they hate straight (“heterosexual,” for the contextually challenged) people. I find such an interpretation to be devoid of reason, even given slackened standards.
We have many, many words which have more than one definition. Those definitions can be contradictory, or even completely unrelated. It is, IMO, somewhat unfortunatate that our egos forbid (some of) us from distinguishing these definitions in certain words. That alone is not enough for me to stop using it.
Well we do have expressions regarding the equation of black being bad. Black Monday, it was a black day, I’m in a black mood. Heck they even had a movie called Black Sunday.
Well the black one was the only one I could defend. Look folks, it is just as easy to say something is lame or something sucks as it is to say something is gay. Except when you say it sucks or it is lame you won’t be bothering anyone.
If you’re going to insist on arguing etymology, explain to me, then, how “gay” went from meaning happy to promiscuous to homosexual to “lame” (for lack of a better term), with special attention to how it skipped from either happy to lame or promiscuous to lame without inferring any entendre from homosexual. Sources are expected.
Sez you. Wait 'til the quadriplegics get a hold of a keyboard and read this thread. Then the shit will hit the fan because by using “gay” as lame we have not only shown that homosexuals are stupid, but that all persons with disabilities are homosexual. And that happy people are stupid, disabled homosexuals who have promiscuous leanings.
And–obviously–etymology, an understanding of context, and a tenuous grasp on semantics will still offer us no escape from such a conclusion.
Secondly, “gay” didn’t “go” from meaning happy to homosexual. It still means both (try reading Shakespear or watching the intro to the Flintstones). We have lost the promiscuity, however; at least, in personal experience I’ve never heard it used that way. Even if it still did that doesn’t make my point any less relevant.
It still means more than one thing. An inability to distinguish meanings in a sentence really worries me. the idea that one possible meaning of a word reflects on other meanings worries me even more.
Heh heh, what the hell is the quad going to do to me? Ram me with his wheelchair and yell “TIMMY?”
Normally I’m one of the last people who buy into this PC stuff. In this case though I see it as simply being polite not to use gay in that context. Although I’ll agree that a lot of people who use it don’t really mean anything bad about gay people so I’m willing to cut them some slack.
Correct. But how, exactly, did it evolve to also mean “lame?” Did it, then, have absolutely no relevance to its preceeding meanings of happy, promiscuous or homosexual? Spontaneous definition change, perhaps? I’d love a cite, and until I get one, it seems far, far more likely to me that it derived from its most common everyday usage today, that being homosexual, and, therefore, to me implies it was derived as an insult. Using it as such only reaffirms that to me every time I hear it.
“That is so ASIAN!!!” (intended meaning: dumb or stupid)
When confronted by someone justly offended by the above, that person replies, “Oh, no, I didn’t mean asian THAT way, I just meant asian as in stupid.”
If you don’t see how ridiculous and racist this is, then there is no hope for you. You are incapable of empathy. By the way, Esprix was on the right track with his examples, but unfortunately picked words which already have negative connotations associated with them, so they might not seem unwarranted or shocking to the trained ears of bigotry.
As far as I know, the particular word “asian” is never used in a derogatory manner–but if people started to use it that way, wouldn’t it be obviously wrong? When using a word that defines a group of people in that way, you are also putting down the group as a whole, whether that was your specific aim or not.
The use of “gay” to mean stupid is not a long-accepted definition of the word. When someone says, “that’s so queer,” I find that offensive also, but less so, because the standard definition of queer IS strange or weird. As a child, my schoolmates were fond of saying, “that is so retarded.” I stopped saying it after I realized how it might make the mentally challenged and others feel when they heard this. There are other words that convey the same ideas without being offensive.
I’m usually AFK on weekends and it seemed the boards were SNAFUed yesterday so I haven’t had a chance to respond.
I did not realize there was a minimum amount of message board shorthand that I had to use before any use of it by me was onsidered legitimate. I hope someone will let me know what the mandatory minimum is.
If someone wishes to assume that my use of “str8” indicates I am a teenybopper as opposed to someone who finds “str8” easier to type than “straight,” then so be it. I have no control over anyone else’s assumptions, regardless of how assinine they are.
Using the word “gay” as a synonym for “stupid” is offensive to a great number of gay people. There is no disputing it. The proper response from a manners standpoint is to avoid using words which people use self-descriptively as insults in any context. If someone is aware that the use of the word “gay” to mean “stupid” is offensive to others and continues to use it in that fashion, then that person is rude.
Funny you should say that and then follow it up with this:
I have no control over anyone else’s interpretations of the word “gay.” Needless to say, I don’t find that sentence particularly convincing one way or the other.
Now, it is disputable because AFAIK there is no study indicating that the majority of homosexuals would find this offensive. I have known homosexuals who did not object to my usage. We have posters here who do object to its usage. This isn’t a clear-cut situation and I am willing to be persuaded on grounds that don’t resort to “You’re a big meanie.”
The proper response from a manners standpoint is…what exactly? Let us consider the following identifications that have common usages which mean something entirely different than their pejorative uses. Though I have done this once for a specific term, perhaps we should grasp the size of the problem that this “universal solution to being nice” would entail.
[ul]
[li]Black (examples given)[/li][li]Yellow (Yellow lights, yellow crayons, yellow bastards)[/li][li]Lame (That song is so lame; ever since the accident he’s been lame)[/li][li]Left (examples given)[/li][li]Crazy (She said what?–That’s crazy!; Hey, watch who you’re calling crazy. I work with the mentally insane and that isn’t a word to throw around lightly)[/li][li]Retarded (He’s retarded; that’s retarded; this compound retarded the growht of that amino acid)[/li][li]Shallow (Really, look at the way she admires herself in every reflective surface–she’s just so shallow; this pond is shallow)[/li][li]Extreme (I’m sorry, I like social programs too but socialism itself is just extreme; it is extremely urgent that ew act on this complaint immediately)[/li][li]Ignorant (You are being completely ignorant here; I am ignorant of the cause of the problem, could you please educate me?)[/li][li]Punish (We will punish you to the fullest extent of the law; Oooh, punish me baby ;))[/li][/ul]
The distinction I can see between some of the examples above and “gay” is that people, for one reason or another, choose to describe themselves as gay when they are homosexual while it isn’t likely that an Asian would call himself “yellow.” However, that certainly doesn’t remove the sting from the word when used in a pejorative sense.
I maintain that there is a stong tradition of being able to discern a particular meaning of a multiply-defined word from the context of the sentence. I am suprised that I need to say such a thing. I will also state that unless one considers the default position of people to be a state of homophobia then the context should indeed be very clear from usage.
So, I will offer another means of countering my opinion. Are there studies which show that the average schmoe is homophobic? Should this be the case I will cease using “gay” in such a manner, even though I certainly don’t intend its usage that way. For should the default postion of a person be homophobia then it seems clear that “gay” as “lame” definitely does imply a link between “wrongness” and homosexuality.
Interesting. Though it may be outside the scope of the debate, do you have any opinions on why the link would only work one way? Or why, for example, using “gay=happy” hasn’t slid over? That is–when you hear “gay” used as “happy” do you equate them as well? Why not?
What you’re doing here is looking for an excuse to continue using a term that you know, that you KNOW, is offensive to a great number of people. If even only one percent of homosexuals find the use of “gay” to mean “stupid” then it’s offensive to a great number of people. The thing is, you don’t need an excuse to continue using the term. You already have the perfect excuse; it’s called the First Amendment.
So what you’re really looking for here is permission to continue being an ill-mannered lout in the use of a term which, were it any other minority’s preferred term, would in all likelihood not even raise this question. Thing is, you don’t need anyone’s permission to be a jackass, just so long as you understand that avidly defending your right to be insulting to gay people does indeed make you a tremendous jackass.
The proper response from a manners perspective is to err on the side of not giving offense.
I’d call this a red herring but I’m sure I’d be accused of offending the native Americans and the Communists. It really makes no difference whether the majority of any given population is homophobic. The question is whether the use of the word “gay” to mean “stupid” is offensive. Clearly, to a great number of people, it is. So why is this even an open debate? “No it isn’t” as a position makes no sense, since my existence on the planet refutes it. What else is there to say? “Gay people get over it?” “Language changes?” What? It’s offensive to me and I don’t foresee a future wherein it won’t be.
For all your talk of language, it’s difficult to understand why it is that you don’t understand that language has power far beyond the intent of the speaker.
I think your reading of my argument is both lacking in comprehension and a sense of debate. Your response is more PIT-worthy than anything else. If you cannot refute my presentation without resorting to calling me a jackass (and you certainly can’t refute it by calling me a jackass), then I would invite you to start a pit thread on my presentation exclusively and call me a jackass to your heart’s content. Until such a time I expect a rebuttal which doesn’t amount to “as long as it offends one person we shouldn’t use it” when there is clearly no precident for such an stand.
My goal is to present a case that “gay” as lame is not inherently offensive, and that it may be possible that general usage of the term can be gained without offense. I think I am doing a decent job.
Though this is sarcasm, perhaps you at least see my point on some level.
Certainly it does. [Lt Ripley]Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?[/Lt Ripley] I offered a possible source for that interpretation of the word. Esprix mentioned that even were that true he can’t help but read into it more than I put into it. Fine. Since I am not into the study of word origins themselves I don’t expect my argument to be rock solid. And so I mentioned that the idea that most people are homophobic would certainly lend much credence to the origin of the word and its corresponding offensiveness.
Otherwise I find that being offended is somewhat irrational. I don’t thing GD is the place for irrationality. I am trying to sort the matter out. Hopefully there can be such a conclusion.
Perhaps the conclusion will not come from you. It certainly won’t come from this comment. I find your use of the word “clearly” here to completely gloss over what this debate is about. Given any particular individual it is very likely that one can find something which offends him/her but which is not considered offensive by any particular social group this person belongs to or would identify with. I am asking for evidence that the gay community truly find this usage offensive, or evidence that most people are homophobic. Given that my background in statistics is pretty limited, even a semi-reputable news report will suit me. I have not set out an impossible task. Your anger at my callousness is misplaced.
Since I didn’t say this, I’d have to say that your reading of my argument is both lacking in comprehension and a sense of debate.
No word is “inherently” offensive, because no word has an absolute meaning. The question is not whether the use of the word “gay” in this context is “inherently” offensive.
I find this comment unusual for someone complaining about the Pit-worthiness of the comments of others.
The origin of the word and the relative homophobia of the general population is irrelevant to whether gay people find the use of the word “gay” in this fashion to be offensive. A number of gay people on these boards have explained that they do. Whether that offense is taken for “rational” or “irrational” reasons, the offense is still taken. Your saying “no look, see, there’s a way that this could have come into the language without being rooted in prejudice” does exactly nothing to change the fact that a great number of people find the usage offensive, and that a person with any manners would, instead of trying to justify the insult, stop being insulting.
Re-read the thread. Is it not clear to you that a number of people, gay and str8, have said they find the usage offensive?
The gay community does not speak with one voice. Obviously there are going to be gay people who do not find the usage offensive. Which is why I continually qualify my comments by saying “a great number” or “many.” You have been presented with several pieces of anecdotal evidence that members of the gay community find the usage offensive, and again, I don’t believe for a moment that were this any other disenfranchised group under discussion this would even be an issue.
With whom should I be angry at your callousness? Your mother, for not teaching you good manners?
The average schmoe does not say things like “That is SO GAY!” as an insult. The expression is not common among the general population, it is common among adolescents. Adolescents are dealing with sexuality issues for the first time. Many of them are confused and frightened. This leads many of them to become intensely homophobic. I don’t think it would be unfair to say that the average adolescent is, in fact, homophobic.
Adolescents frequently use terms related to homosexuality such as “dyke” or “fag” as insults. They also use the word “gay” as an insult. Would you honestly have us believe that this is a mere coincidence, that adolescents just happened to start using the single most common popular synonym for “homosexual” in a derogatory sense without ever intending it to evoke the idea of homosexuality? Do you really think that they began using “gay” as an insult due to an obscure and long out-of-date use of the word to mean “marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness”? That’s absurd on so many levels that I don’t see how you could even bring yourself to post it in GD.