Sorry, you’re right, I meant adjective vs. noun usage.
thanks – I just learned something.
You seem to be taking this idea as an axiom, even though it only comes from your own head. I and others have argued against this position, that words have meanings based on all speakers of that language, and you have not really given a reason that is wrong. Nor have you given a citation to back it up. Yet you still seem absolutely sure of it.
It seems to me that this is merely a hypothesis you have that has not been tested to see how well it works in real life. Because, in real life, teaching someone that a word is only homophobic if people around them believe it is has some pretty bad drawbacks—one of which is that you can’t be sure that everyone doesn’t know the homophobic meaning or will learn it. Ultimately, what is and is not homophobic (or any other bigotry-related word) depends on its effects on society, not on some ideologically pure concept of the terms that can only exist in a vacuum.
You keep on connecting this with right and wrong and whether someone deserves punishment. The point of my argument is that these are separate concepts. You can have something that was homophobic, but argue that the person who said it was just ignorant and thus not deserving of punishment.
That connection can be a huge problem. It makes it hard to tell someone that something they said is bigoted without them seeing it as an attack on their character. But it isn’t inherently so. Ideally, in fact, it would never have to be.
Membership in a group doesn’t determine intent or context.
Because debating it at length would be furthering a hijack. I stated my opinion, you stated yours; we can agree to disagree on what determines the meaning of words. If you want to continue I will refer you elsewhere,
You seem to understand my position well enough, because in my opinion calling someone a bigot, or calling their position bigoted, is an attack on their character. (Assuming, of course, bigotry is morally wrong.)
~Max
You can tell someone that they said something bigoted without calling them a bigot. That’s how we learn.
And yes, bigotry is morally wrong. How is that even a question?
It goes hand in hand with my opinion that the meaning of words is subjective. In affirmative action debates you might see some refer to AA as racist but justified. Others think racism is necessarily wrong therefore AA is not racist.
~Max
I read through some of your opinion on the matter. For instance:
Did you mean prescriptive dictionaries in the part I bolded?
Since practically all general use dictionaries are descriptive and since I’m pretty sure that the lexicographers understand language at least as well as you do, you’re simply wrong if you meant descriptive.
If you meant prescriptive, then your argument is out of scope since prescriptive dictionaries are targeted at a narrow field of users, say like how Black’s Law Dictionary is for lawyers, and are unlikely to much influence the language of people outside those fields.
I will grant, though, that all dictionaries are at least five years out of step with current trends in language at the moment of publication.
It looks like I did.
~Max
Just noticed the date on the thread. Wish I hadn’t missed it while it was ongoing.
I think you were on hiatus at the time. Feel free to revive it, or start a spin-off in GD. I won’t mind.
~Max
You are correct, not on its own. But depending on the phrasing, it can make a big difference.
A Canadian says, “Americans are all assholes.” That seems hateful and bigoted. It should be moderated outside of the Pit for sure, and possibly even in the Pit.
An American says, “Americans are all assholes.” Well, that might be a bit different, maybe not. If you didn’t know the person posting it was American, you’d (understandably) treat it the same as the previous example, as hateful bigotry. And even if you knew the author was American, you might interpret as meaning, “Everyone in America but myself is an asshole.” Regardless, I’d say it probably merits moderation outside of the Pit.
That previous person says, “I’m an American and we’re all assholes.” That’s verging on self-deprecating humor, though still potentially insulting anyone else who is American. As a person included in the group being insulted, I probably wouldn’t be offended, though it would depend on other context. For example, if it was a Cafe Society thread about cheese, and it was a reply to someone who asked why processed cheese was so popular in America, I’d definitely just laugh that off.
Finally, someone says, “I’m an asshole.” That’s pure self-deprecation as it insults a group of one, that one being the person who wrote it. That’s unlikely to cause offense anywhere. (Unless maybe it’s a person offering to do a parody of another poster…?)
So bottom line, I mostly agree with you octopus; on its own membership in a group isn’t a determining factor. But it might be a contributing factor. It’s certainly not completely irrelevant.
You seem to be missing that it’s possible to tell someone “that word you just used is bigoted” without telling them “you are a bigot”. In fact, you probably wouldn’t say that to a bigot. He used the word on purpose, and won’t learn anything from you. But it’s valuable to tell your non-bigoted friend that they are using words they shouldn’t be using.
I’m grateful to people who have told me when i used words that i didn’t realize had bigoted interpretations.
Nevertheless if you tell someone their position is bigoted, you may as well tell them they are bigots.
~Max
No. I have at times allowed my prejudices to color my positions. I have been fortunate to have friends and family point these out to me, and I have used these moments as opportunities for introspection and growth.
We all have prejudices. We all make mistakes. We are all capable of growth.
The bigot is the person who refuses to grow because they are comfortable and confident with exhibiting their prejudice and imposing it on others.
I think the topic of this thread is the usage of the word “queer”. And I am commenting because it appears that you have taken the wrong-headed (not bigoted, just wrong) opinion that a word is only has a homophobic (or racist) meaning if the person said it with homophobic intent or a person who hears it interprets it as homophobic.
People have shown you many ways in which using a word in a way that is homophobic in the general vernacular can help condition people to accept its homophobic use when they later run into that.
So I’m telling you that it’s wrong to tell your kids to play a game with a homophobic name, even if you mean it innocently and the kids don’t (yet) know that word. You are not being bigoted to do so, but even without your direct bigotry, you are aiding and abetting bigotry.
And I saw this hoping that you will reflect, and grow.
Don’t hold your breath. @Max_S has persistently expressed bizarre views on semantics.
You know, I just noticed that this is ATMB, and I’m going to drop this digression. Sorry.
Regarding nouns:
The Geography of Research on LGBTQ Life: Why sociologists should study the South, rural queers, and ordinary cities
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12638
Hindu nation and its queers: caste, Islamophobia, and de/coloniality in India
Queers of Colour and (De) Colonial Spaces in Europe
Granted, most of us can tell the difference between a scholarly tone and a rant.
There’s a difference between “Queers” and “The queers”.
Like there’s a difference between someone talking about “Jews” and “The Jews”, and anyone with any sense knows it.
Now, the original referent used the former not the latter, and claimed ingroup usage privileges to boot, so I was OK with it being merely noted. But if someone started using the latter usage, I’d hope they’d get modded for it tout de suite.