"that's so gay!" - offensive, no?

[red robot]

Why is being called gay such a derrogatory term these days? What's wrong with being gay? Sheesh, i'm fed up with all of this "gay this" and "gay that" crap. Learn a new freaking word already.


Does anyone agree with me?

[OysterBoy]

Agreed. Especially when some things cant have a sexual prefference. Like a car.

[Python14]

lol.....silly cars.

[Target Practice]

Why is being called gay such a derrogatory term these days? What's wrong with being gay? Sheesh, i'm fed up with all of this "gay this" and "gay that" crap. Learn a new freaking word already.


Does anyone agree with me?

What are you, gay?

[Kevmaster]

imho,

if it offends someone...tough crap. I don't give a damn whether I say something offends you. That doesn't just go for the 'gay' stuff either. I'll say what I mean and what I feel...and if you don't like it, thats not my problem. You can take your whining somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.

So, if it offends you, I'm not sorry, nor will I stop doing something unless I truly wish to.

[LittlePaintballBoy]

What are you, gay?


QFT.

[OysterBoy]

If you say what you mean, you can't logically say something is gay without proof. If you do so anyways, you are a hypocrite.


Hyppie.

[dj89]

gay Audio pronunciation of "gay" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.


:confused:

[Target Practice]

QFT.

N.O.

[red robot]

imho,

if it offends someone...tough crap. I don't give a damn whether I say something offends you. That doesn't just go for the 'gay' stuff either. I'll say what I mean and what I feel...and if you don't like it, thats not my problem. You can take your whining somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.

So, if it offends you, I'm not sorry, nor will I stop doing something unless I truly wish to.


So you express yourself how you want to, regardless of other people's criticism? That's mostl likely a bad idea, especially when that course of action leads you to misuse the english language on principle.

Also, I didn't ask for an apology. I'm just surveying responses, there's absolutley no need to use such volitile connotations. I would like to keep this thread flame-free; we might be able to learn something from it. Please keep and open, kind-mind on this thread and be nice to one and other. Thanks.

[rkjunior303]

in before the lock.

[Target Practice]

I would like to keep this thread flame-free; we might be able to learn something from it.

On these boards? Heh.

HeteroEdit: Open minds are gay.

[red robot]

If you say what you mean, you can't logically say something is gay without proof. If you do so anyways, you are a hypocrite.


Hyppie.

This reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case. Heh.

People that call things gay can't do so logically without sufficient proof. Prove to me that a car can be gay. Then prove to me that a specific car is gay. Doesn't have to be a car either, anything else.

Saying something is gay is perfectly OK with me. Gay people are gay, aren't they? What I have a problem with is someone calling an unappealing car "gay."

[Will Wood]

So you express yourself how you want to, regardless of other people's criticism? That's mostl likely a bad idea, especially when that course of action leads you to misuse the english language on principle.

Also, I didn't ask for an apology. I'm just surveying responses, there's absolutley no need to use such volitile connotations. I would like to keep this thread flame-free; we might be able to learn something from it. Please keep and open, kind-mind on this thread and be nice to one and other. Thanks.
I think what he means is, he is not going to change his wording of something because it offends someone. Obviously he won't around calling all homosexuals ***gots... But he won't adapt to make people happy because a simply words offends THEM. His intention has no harm, so be it. If he did mean harm, well that's another arguement.

[red robot]

I think what he means is, he is not going to change his wording of something because it offends someone. Obviously he won't around calling all homosexuals ***gots... But he won't adapt to make people happy because a simply words offends THEM. His intention has no harm, so be it. If he did mean harm, well that's another arguement.


I see what you mean. His intent is good and harmless. However, that does not mean that his actions are harmless. If I pointed a gun to my brother's head and, ignorant of the consequence, shot him in the head, I would be causing extreme suffering while my intent remained neutral. That's a bit exaggerated, but it holds the point. Even if you have good intent, like kevmaster has by intending to use it as being non-offensive to gays, it still is!

[OysterBoy]

This reminds me of the O.J. Simpson case. Heh.

People that call things gay can't do so logically without sufficient proof. Prove to me that a car can be gay. Then prove to me that a specific car is gay. Doesn't have to be a car either, anything else.

Saying something is gay is perfectly OK with me. Gay people are gay, aren't they? What I have a problem with is someone calling an unappealing car "gay."


Exactly what i meant.. too late I guess.

[red robot]

I'm going to sleep. I'll keep replying tomorrow after school. Goodnight guys. :D

[Will Wood]

I see what you mean. His intent is good and harmless. However, that does not mean that his actions are harmless. If I pointed a gun to my brother's head and, ignorant of the consequence, shot him in the head, I would be causing extreme suffering while my intent remained neutral. That's a bit exaggerated, but it holds the point. Even if you have good intent, like kevmaster has by intending to use it as being non-offensive to gays, it still is!
Yea ok your example is a bit extreme.. but yes you do have a point.

Anything can be offensive to the right person.

Ultimately, this side of the arguement is always at fault.. there is always something that can be done. Just don't do it.

But the point is.. How do I know what you find offensive or not? If I knew something was going to be offensive to someone, chances are, unless I hate them, I won't say that offensive thing.

But I'm not going to go out of my way, choosing my words carefully, in everday life, just to try not to offend someone. There is a time and place were people DO need to do this. In the casual everyday talk, there is not.

[ojhspyro89]

The only time i feel that saying someone/something is gay is when they say it way too many times in a short amount of time.

Also wtf is up with Jrs and Srs calling freshmen gay like 8 hours a day?

[Mango]

http://www.sprayingmango.com/gfight.gif

[Hasty8]

imho,

if it offends someone...tough crap. I don't give a damn whether I say something offends you. That doesn't just go for the 'gay' stuff either. I'll say what I mean and what I feel...and if you don't like it, thats not my problem. You can take your whining somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.

So, if it offends you, I'm not sorry, nor will I stop doing something unless I truly wish to.

Typical moron response.

"I'll say what I want and I don't care how you feel about it".

Well, let me say that you are an uneducated, drooling simpelton who is in desperate need of forced castration to ensure that you do not contaminate the rest of the gene pool.

Offended?

Tough. I'm just saying what I mean and what I feel. :clap:

Personally, I think that using the term "gay" as an insult is just yet another example of laziness. Someone wants to insult another so they choose to attach to them the stigma of being gay. This is akin to a racist saying that someone has a "touch of the tar brush" or some other blithering stupidity.

I say, if you are going to insult someone be creative. Use the vernacular to create imagery that will truly ensure that your insult is not soon forgotten.

Here are just a few of my favs:
"The best part of you ran down the crack of your momm'as arse and became a brown stain on the mattress."
"We would have been better off had your mother just swallowed."
"You are the post-child for forced castration".
"You are the reason first cousins/brother-sisters should not procreate."
"You are a useless pile of gibbering monkey droppings."
"You are a waste of human reproductive materials/human genetic code."
"You are what happens when Nature is bored."
"Somehwere, a village is missing their idiot."
"Hillary was right. It does take a village to raise an idiot and man, oh man, did we succeed."
"Your wheel is spinning but I believe the hamster is dead."

There are others but these should be enough to get the creative juices flowing.

Enjoy.

[Torbo]

i dunno, "gay" seems to describe so many things so perfactly......for that reason i will continue to use it, although i do have a pretty solid vocabulary.

[Hasty8]

I think what he means is, he is not going to change his wording of something because it offends someone. Obviously he won't around calling all homosexuals ***gots... But he won't adapt to make people happy because a simply words offends THEM. His intention has no harm, so be it. If he did mean harm, well that's another arguement.

Unfortunately his stance is all about causing harm and Kev knows it.

He is just one of those immature little fleebs who gets off on getting a rise out of others. Probablly becuase his own life is so dull.

While I personally feel that PC can be taken too far I also feel that we have a responsibility to our neighbors to at least make an attempt at policing our speech.

Keep in mind that the Freedom of Speech does not extend to slander.

By Kevs' argument there would be nothing wrong with him calling someone a nigger if he felt like it and that there is nothing to stop him from doing so. Other than the serious but-shooping he would receive should he ever do so.

No, what Kev demonstrates is nothing to be proud of. Instead, his words demonstrates a mindset that we really all should fight against.

I can understand using the term "moron" to describe someone, in this case, I could rationally put this term to Kev and I would not be wrong.

Speaking your mind is what this country is all about but insulting solely for getting a rise (i.e., calling someone gay just to insult and anger) is anathema to the First Amendment.

[Kevmaster]

I suppose I should clarify...

VERY VERY Rarely do I ever mean harm. Also, for the record, very rarely do I use the term ***/gay/similar words.

But if I choose to use that word (or any other group of words) at a certain time, I'm not going to hold back because it might offend someone or might make someone unhappy. No Chance. If i feel like it should be said, regardless of what someone else around me thinks, it will be said. I will not censor myself through a PC filter.


Basically...I will say what I say, regardless of whether you or anyone else is offended. Your reaction to my word(s) is your problem, not mine.


Hopefully thats a little clearer?

[Kevmaster]

Typical moron response.

"I'll say what I want and I don't care how you feel about it".

Well, let me say that you are an uneducated, drooling simpelton who is in desperate need of forced castration to ensure that you do not contaminate the rest of the gene pool.

Offended?

Tough. I'm just saying what I mean and what I feel. :clap:


No. I'm not. You're wrong...but I'm not offended.

uneducated? Not really. currently in my second year at Duke University, consensus top 5 university in the country. Where did you go to school? Went to high school at a top 25 high school in the country. Graduated with a 4.0 GPA

drooling? can't remember drooling recently...oh...wait...two weeks ago...but i was drunk. That shouldn't count

simpleton? perhaps...but I don't think thats entirely bad. I am from the south....and we all, to some extent, have a 'glorious lack of sophistication'.

contaminate the gene pool? if it makes you feel better...I'm scared poop-less of kids of my own. I don't do it for the kiddies.



oh...and FYI...somewhere a villiage is missing their idiot. will you go back?

[bornl33t]

gay is used to describe something you dispise....I think it's a suitble word for gays as well other things that fall into that catagory.

[Kevmaster]

I see what you mean. His intent is good and harmless. However, that does not mean that his actions are harmless. If I pointed a gun to my brother's head and, ignorant of the consequence, shot him in the head, I would be causing extreme suffering while my intent remained neutral. That's a bit exaggerated, but it holds the point. Even if you have good intent, like kevmaster has by intending to use it as being non-offensive to gays, it still is!

thats a bit exaggerated? no...you're talking another whole solar system!

But your point is right, and I think I accept that. I may say something with no meaning of malice, and you (or someone else) may find it offensive, and thats a consequence I'm willing to live with.

[Kevmaster]

Unfortunately his stance is all about causing harm and Kev knows it.
No...its not. I'm quite a caring person. I don't like harm and drama and that bs

He is just one of those immature little fleebs who gets off on getting a rise out of others. Probablly becuase his own life is so dull.
dude...you're offending all teh immature people in the world by calling me (who is not immature) immature. I think you need to rethink your words. seriously man. thats not right.

While I personally feel that PC can be taken too far I also feel that we have a responsibility to our neighbors to at least make an attempt at policing our speech.
so do it...just not the policing part.

Keep in mind that the Freedom of Speech does not extend to slander.
it should. but since it doesn't...i'm not saying anything that would hurt someone's rep!

By Kevs' argument there would be nothing wrong with him calling someone a nigger if he felt like it and that there is nothing to stop him from doing so. Other than the serious but-shooping he would receive should he ever do so.
if someone truly believes that black people are less.yadda..yadda..yadda.. (however wrong they may be), I accept that. I know they are wrong. I Know its crap. But if they believe that, thats their choice and I accept that. if part of that means using the n-word, so be it. I don't need to use it, but if they do, i accept their decision.

No, what Kev demonstrates is nothing to be proud of. Instead, his words demonstrates a mindset that we really all should fight against.
I'm proud of everything I do. Thats how I live life. If I do something I'm not proud of, I have let myself down. I will not do that.

I can understand using the term "moron" to describe someone, in this case, I could rationally put this term to Kev and I would not be wrong.
thats your opinion. you're entitled to it. I however, believe I am not a moron.

Speaking your mind is what this country is all about but insulting solely for getting a rise (i.e., calling someone gay just to insult and anger) is anathema to the First Amendment.
I don't act to get a rise out of people...jeez...

[Hasty8]

No. I'm not. You're wrong...but I'm not offended.

uneducated? Not really. currently in my second year at Duke University, consensus top 5 university in the country. Where did you go to school? Went to high school at a top 25 high school in the country. Graduated with a 4.0 GPA

drooling? can't remember drooling recently...oh...wait...two weeks ago...but i was drunk. That shouldn't count

simpleton? perhaps...but I don't think thats entirely bad. I am from the south....and we all, to some extent, have a 'glorious lack of sophistication'.

contaminate the gene pool? if it makes you feel better...I'm scared poop-less of kids of my own. I don't do it for the kiddies.



oh...and FYI...somewhere a villiage is missing their idiot. will you go back?

See how Kev is trying to explain away and otherwise rationalize my comments? Just as I knew he would.

He tries to explain how educated he is what with his school rankings and his GPA and what not. If he was true to his words then he would most liekly never have even bothered to reply to my post.

When you truly do not care what someone thinks of you the need to answer or clarify vanishes.

What a maroon!

[Hasty8]

I suppose I should clarify...

VERY VERY Rarely do I ever mean harm. Also, for the record, very rarely do I use the term ***/gay/similar words.

But if I choose to use that word (or any other group of words) at a certain time, I'm not going to hold back because it might offend someone or might make someone unhappy. No Chance. If i feel like it should be said, regardless of what someone else around me thinks, it will be said. I will not censor myself through a PC filter.


Basically...I will say what I say, regardless of whether you or anyone else is offended. Your reaction to my word(s) is your problem, not mine.


Hopefully thats a little clearer?

Actually, it a bit clearer thanks to another post of yours. The fact that you are still in college speaks volumes.

We'll just wait until you are out in the "real world" and working for a company and then we'll see how cavalier you are. :rofl:

[Mango]

gay is used to describe something you dispise....I think it's a suitble word for gays as well other things that fall into that catagory.


http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jtrussell7/mamoru-big.gif

[SlartyBartFast]

gay Audio pronunciation of "gay" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g)
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.


:confused:

4/5 I'm gay. :D

Mango is too (don't know about the first one). But we don't see eye to eye on our definitions of the four. :rofl:

[Mango]

4/5 I'm gay. :D

Mango is too (don't know about the first one). But we don't see eye to eye on our definitions of the four. :rofl:


http://www.sprayingmango.com/Haygay.gif

[Mango]

I'll tell you whats gay, this thread! *baddup CHING!*

[Gtask8]

OMG, This whole freakin post is GAY!

EDIT: Grrrr Mango beat me to it!

[wimag]

imho,

if it offends someone...tough crap. I don't give a damn whether I say something offends you. That doesn't just go for the 'gay' stuff either. I'll say what I mean and what I feel...and if you don't like it, thats not my problem. You can take your whining somewhere else as far as I'm concerned.

So, if it offends you, I'm not sorry, nor will I stop doing something unless I truly wish to.

now that is some strong internet toughness, No offense dude but there have been pics posted on here before of you and i have serious question to your being like that face to face.

[Will Wood]

Umm yea obviously if he's going for a job interview, or actually working, he's not going to say GAY.

Proffessionalism is completely different than everyday casual life, which I think I've already stated.

[SCpoloRicker]

now that is some strong internet toughness, No offense dude but there have been pics posted on here before of you and i have serious question to your being like that face to face.

Pot, meet Kettle. Tough guy.

[paintballrulzs]

Honestly I think this whole debate is just stupid. I have been known to say "thats gay" or "wow he a is ***" but I dont mean it because of their sexual orienation but rather as the definition our soceity has made the words out to be. So many words used to be offensive but now dont. For examples saying "this sucks." I dont get offensive if someone ever said "wow thats straight (in a negative sense)"

I am all with kevmaster I feel that people should be able to say what they want when they want. Maybe I am too big of a conservative republican, but I think this debate is just stupid.

[SCpoloRicker]

Maybe I am too big of a conservative republican,

If you don't hate gays, your not big enough...

It's acceptable to use "That's gay" in a demeaning way because its acceptable to deman gays in our society. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[paintballrulzs]

If you don't hate gays, your not big enough...

It's acceptable to use "That's gay" in a demeaning way because its acceptable to deman gays in our society. Sorry, but that's the truth.

You don't know me very well then. Lets just say I am very opposed to homosexuality and we will leave it at that.

[Carbon]

Im not a homophobe and im not gay. But i say "thats gay"as a negative description for something, although i probably would say it around gay people unless i was joking around. But if you think about it, you dont really say "oh thats niggerish" or "yo thats hella Kyke" as a negative desription to something either.

As far as it goes "thats gay" is somewhat a more socially acceptable term for something bad. as gay people are somewaht super minorities.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

If you don't hate gays, your not big enough...

It's acceptable to use "That's gay" in a demeaning way because its acceptable to deman gays in our society. Sorry, but that's the truth.

And there we have it folks.

I don't find it offensive persay, although it is deragatory.

There are just better and more precise ways to express distaste then saying something is gay.

[ShooterJM]

Does anyone agree with me?

eh...no. ;)

[SlartyBartFast]

And there we have it folks.

I don't find it offensive persay, although it is deragatory.

There are just better and more precise ways to express distaste then saying something is gay.

Hmm. IMO (and I would think the majority opinion) derogatory = offensive.

The use of "gay" as a derision has only ONE linguistic root. Associating something with a negative view of homosexuals.

All those that use the term, yet claim not to be homophobic, are just too lazy or ignorant to actually learn some decent descriptive vocabulary. Or, they simply are homophobic.

Really, considering that the word is meaningless (unless you attach the negative homosexuality stigma) when it comes to actually describing something, what kind of communication are you expecting to establish by using the word?

As there are better, more descriptive words (and undoubtably acceptably sourced slang) to use, why the emotional attachment to the word?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Hmm. IMO (and I would think the majority opinion) derogatory = offensive.

The use of "gay" as a derision has only ONE linguistic root. Associating something with a negative view of homosexuals.

All those that use the term, yet claim not to be homophobic, are just too lazy or ignorant to actually learn some decent descriptive vocabulary. Or, they simply are homophobic.

Really, considering that the word is meaningless (unless you attach the negative homosexuality stigma) when it comes to actually describing something, what kind of communication are you expecting to establish by using the word?

As there are better, more descriptive words (and undoubtably acceptably sourced slang) to use, why the emotional attachment to the word?

I really should have taken the time to word my statement better.

What I meant is I don't find it offensive.

But I believe it to be a word rooted in someone's homophobia. If that makes anymore sense. I'm not quite sure that it does.

[SCpoloRicker]

You don't know me very well then. Lets just say I am very opposed to homosexuality and we will leave it at that.

At what point did I miss it? Seriously, I believe I implied that you dislike homosexuals, mainly because you said you were Republican. Where's the misrepresentation?

Try reading another book, moran. Or for that matter, try actually reading it for yourself instead of allowing someone else to tell you what it means?

[Kai]

I'm gay.

[red robot]

Honestly I think this whole debate is just stupid. I have been known to say "thats gay" or "wow he a is ***" but I dont mean it because of their sexual orienation but rather as the definition our soceity has made the words out to be. So many words used to be offensive but now dont. For examples saying "this sucks." I dont get offensive if someone ever said "wow thats straight (in a negative sense)"

I am all with kevmaster I feel that people should be able to say what they want when they want. Maybe I am too big of a conservative republican, but I think this debate is just stupid.


Conservative?! Shouldn't you have something to say about the degradation of the English language? Furthermore, we're discussing why society has twisted the definition of this word. Clearly it is now used as some sort of insult. It's also pretty obvious that homosexuality is unapproved of. So, if you use this word "gay" in place of 'ugly' or 'ignorant,' not only are you implying that the definition of gay is "ugly" or "ignorant" -- using gay as a synonym in this case, but you are also damaging your sentnce by replacing the proper diction with debatable non-sense.


Bornl33t, I would like to know why you "d[e]spise" gays? I don't understand how that is a logical decision for you to make. Sexual preference is such an arbitrary reasons to hate someone so strongly; why not despise them because of the color of their hair?

On another note. Kevmaster! My brother attends Duke University. He earned a full ride on the universtiy scholars program. Pretty cool.

[Echo419]

But they want my bum :(

[wimag]

Pot, meet Kettle. Tough guy.

umm you to ??

[Mango]

It's only gay if you push back. http://www.sprayingmango.com/kekekegay.gif http://www.sprayingmango.com/ohnoes.gif

[OysterBoy]

It's only gay if you push back. http://www.sprayingmango.com/kekekegay.gif http://www.sprayingmango.com/ohnoes.gif


Sorry Mango, that was a lie..

:argh:

[Willystyle21]

I have to side with Kev. And to respond to an earlier comment, only those who the derogatory comment is made to should be offended. All this PC BS has really gotten out of control. What, if you whine enough will your mommy come to stop the big kids from beating you into a mudhole. Grow up and grow a pair. You don't like it? Don't listen to it, you have that power. Or go live somewhere in the middle east where just about everything you do is regulated, then maybe you might think about somethings alittle more before complaining about them.

[red robot]

I have to side with Kev. And to respond to an earlier comment, only those who the derogatory comment is made to should be offended. All this PC BS has really gotten out of control. What, if you whine enough will your mommy come to stop the big kids from beating you into a mudhole. Grow up and grow a pair. You don't like it? Don't listen to it, you have that power. Or go live somewhere in the middle east where just about everything you do is regulated, then maybe you might think about somethings alittle more before complaining about them.


By your logic:

If I go around shooting people it should not concern you. I am not shooting you so you have no right to be upset. Wait, aren't we supposed to change that which we don't like? Shouldn't we do all we can to make this the best of all possible worlds? Even if that which we are opposed to does not directly affect us?

Also, this is not a complaint thread. I am not complaining to you, I am gathering information and telling you why it is wrong to use "gay'" as a synonym to anything other than homosexuality or any other of it's direct definitions.

The claim that you are siding with Kevmaster is false and unsupported. Kevmaster stated that the word could be proved both offensive to those who take offense to it, and inoffensive to those that do not take offense to it. Kevmaster has made a formidable defense, but the fact that all gays, and people that are saddened by the disintegration of the english language, take offense to the improper use of the word should be reason enough to stop using it.

[mcveighr]

I was going to quote one of Kev's posts but my moust isnt attached to the computer so it was too much of a hassle.


Guy1:
"Man Walmart is charging twice as much as Zellers for that snowblower!!!"

Guy2:
"They're so jewish!"


Whats the difference between this, and the saying "gay" in such a derogatory sense.
For the record I don't have anything against jews or gays.

[red robot]

It's the same argument. It implies that the definition of "jewish" includes stingy, greedy, etc..... That is not what "jewish" means. Why do people use it out of it's definition?

Hmmm, I suppose using the word "cool" would be a good attack on this statement, however, using the word "cool" doesn't cause harm to any person or persons. It is an instance of using a word out of it's true definition, but because it is not inflicting any mental or physical pain I don't find it to be harmful. There are better ways to describe something, though, and I think that someone should consult their full arsenal of vocabulary before choosing a word like "cool" or "good."

[paintballrulzs]

At what point did I miss it? Seriously, I believe I implied that you dislike homosexuals, mainly because you said you were Republican. Where's the misrepresentation?

Try reading another book, moran. Or for that matter, try actually reading it for yourself instead of allowing someone else to tell you what it means?

Are you kidding me? You said that I can't be that big of a conservative if I don't hate gays. So where is the problem. I responded and said you don't know me very well and dont want to go into depth and possibly offend some people.

[SlartyBartFast]

It's the same argument. It implies that the definition of "jewish" includes stingy, greedy, etc..... That is not what "jewish" means. Why do people use it out of it's definition?

Hmmm, I suppose using the word "cool" would be a good attack on this statement, however, using the word "cool" doesn't cause harm to any person or persons. It is an instance of using a word out of it's true definition, but because it is not inflicting any mental or physical pain I don't find it to be harmful. There are better ways to describe something, though, and I think that someone should consult their full arsenal of vocabulary before choosing a word like "cool" or "good."

Congratulations. Someone who understands what the fuss is about.
(same goes for the jewish analogy)

[ShooterJM]

So the lesson is....

Don't say: Dude, your new pink jetta is gay.

Say: Excuse me sir, your new pink jetta, in my opinion, would seem to be an accessory to the lifestyle that a sterotypically homosexual male would choose, not that there is anything wrong with that.

;)

[SlartyBartFast]

But they want me :( [edited]

And ther'es the reason I think so many people hate gays.

If straight women don't like you, homosexual men AND women probably won't either. But it's a lot easier to lay down the hate and blame to vent your frustrations at your own inadequacies and defects than it is to better yourself and learn to respect yourself.

The same goes for the sexually repressed and/or religious types. They can't come to terms with their own sexuality and instead of confronting their internal demons, they repress their problems by converting their frustration into hate and attacking a percieved enemy instead of their own internal demons.

I think that the level of insult and discussion from many of the less mature posts in this thread is positive proof that the term is offensive and should be avoided.

Waiting for the lock....

[SlartyBartFast]

So the lesson is....
Don't say: Dude, your new pink jetta is gay.


Say: Dude, that car is hideous/disgusting/horrible/horrid/loathsome/nasty/repellent/repugnant/repulsive/revolting
.

Sure seems the English language is so laking in terms that offensive connotations wrt minorities are required to express disgust. :rolleyes: The Thesaurus is your friend.

Noy if you want to use PROPER surfer lingo:

Say: Dude, that chariot is nocty!

http://www.riptionary.com/cgi-bin/ripsearch.pl?query=ugly&stpos=0&stype=and
http://www.riptionary.com/cgi-bin/ripsearch.pl?query=car&stype=and

:cool:

[SCpoloRicker]

Are you kidding me? You said that I can't be that big of a conservative if I don't hate gays. So where is the problem. I responded and said you don't know me very well and dont want to go into depth and possibly offend some people.

So far, so good. Now hang on, I'll explain the rest.

I'll go ahead and admit I have taken the vast logical leap required to tie together that your dislike of homosexuals is based on religous doctrine of some sort.

Having attended a Jesuit school and being from a Roman Catholic background, it is my interpretation that the Bible doesn't raise a very convincing argument against homosexuality. And there are certainly other things in the Bible that are more prevalent that are essentially ignored in modern interpretation.

However, it appears (due to 11 states passing legislature) that many Christian leaders interpret this differently, and have made gays and gay rights a demon that must be slayed.

In a pithy attempt to be e-cool, I suggested you try reading the Bible for yourself, implying that you were simply taking what others say as writ, "becuase the Bible says."

I then added the ever amusing pic of a typical Bible belt denizen with his cleverly written "Get a Brain, Morans!" Which apparently was deleted.

Hope this cleared it up for ya.

[ShooterJM]

Sure seems the English language is so laking in terms that offensive connotations wrt minorities are required to express disgust. :rolleyes: The Thesaurus is your friend.


Yes it is. See but a Thesaurus is used to find alternative words that mean the same thing. Your example would require a dictionary, as all of the examples you used as replacements are not what I'm trying to say; they completely change the statment. The key is the word gay also means "of or relating to". I have gay friends, they identify themselves with the word "gay". If you find it offensive that I deem something stereotypically homosexual, then you have the problem, not me. Now if I used the word "rhymes with maggot" (don't want to challenge the filter) that is offensive to most of the gay community, then you'd have a point.

I suppose you could use the word "effeminate", but I'm sure that would offend someone somewhere because it refers to undesirable female characteristics.

:rolleyes:

[SlartyBartFast]

...
The key is the word gay also means "of or relating to".
...
Now if I used the word "rhymes with maggot" (don't want to challenge the filter) that is offensive to most of the gay community, then you'd have a point.
...
I suppose you could use the word "effeminate", but I'm sure that would offend someone somewhere because it refers to undesirable female characteristics.

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or simply don't get what I'm trying to say.

What's at issue is the intent of the word.

If you say "That car is so gay!" what is the word "gay" replacing? If it's a negative stereotype that your trying to infer, the use is offensive. Indeed no different to saying "Only a (rymes with maggot)" would drive that car."

"Rymes with maggot" is offensive for a different reason. It is offensive because it was ALWAYS a derrogatory and offensive slur. Much like the N word. However, within Gay and Black circles both Fa-- and Ni-- were "taken back" by their own slang to rise against the hate and show their own level of control. but, unless you belong to those groups and are using the terms in the correct setting and in the correct context they remain offensive.

Effeminate is not offensive. It defines certain traits and is defined in the dictionary as such. So it is difficult for a group to claim blanket offense. But, as the stereotypical traits the word describes change ti may indeed be passe or become offensive. Regardless, ANY word can be used offensively.

But, that's why intent and context play a huge role in whether a term/word is offensive or not. Evolution of the language and society have a large impact as well.

If you were to say "This carnival is really gay." What does it mean? Well, in past times it would be a compliment meaning it was a happy enjoyable place. Nowadays however it would undoubtable be taken as a slur. As usurped usage of this particular word has almost defacto become associated only with describing a homosexual it's offensive when ever used unless specifically used to describe a homosexual. Identical to the term Jew or Jewish.

The defense of saying that using gay to use the "of or relating to" meaning is weak. I'm not so sure any of your stereotypes of "gay" culture and likes and dislikes would apply to the whole gay community (or even a majority of it). Saying that a pink car or acting effeminate is "gay" would be highly offensive to the headbanging, heavy-metal, and goth type gays I've known.

edit:

Actually ***got was a perfectly good word (a bundle of sticks) as was *** and ***ging (working hard) they just got demonized before gay and is now listed as "usually derogatory" by Webster's.

But, then there was the connotation of younger boys subservient to older in British public schools.... :rofl:

Mods can figure out if the cuss filter thing is worthy of action. But without discussing even the dirtiest words in the right context, people will never learn why they should be considered dirty, or the context in which they got relegated to cuss words. But in this day and age it seems knee-jerk reactions, pathetic no-tolerance rules, ignorance, and blind faith have often replaced the knowledge and intellegence once reserved to judge actions. I hold the mods here in higher regard than the usual mindless enforcement drones that populate the world at large, so we'll see.

[bofh]

You know,

***got also refers to a bundle of stick used as a torch, or a cigerette.

Personaly, that's where I think the term "flaming" came from.

[SCpoloRicker]

The defense of saying tat using gay to use the "of or relating to" meaning is weak. I'm not so sure any of your stereotypes of "gay" culture and likes and dislikes would apply to the whole gay community (or even a majority of it). Saying that a pink car or acting effeminate is "gay" would be highly offensive to the headbanging, heavy-metal, and goth type gays I've known.

There's something else at play, too, SBF. The stereotypes exist and are perpetuated precisely because it justifies the dehumanization.

To use the Jewish example, by using it to imply cheap, it also conveys that it is acceptable to look down on these people.

[paintballrulzs]

So far, so good. Now hang on, I'll explain the rest.

I'll go ahead and admit I have taken the vast logical leap required to tie together that your dislike of homosexuals is based on religous doctrine of some sort.

Having attended a Jesuit school and being from a Roman Catholic background, it is my interpretation that the Bible doesn't raise a very convincing argument against homosexuality. And there are certainly other things in the Bible that are more prevalent that are essentially ignored in modern interpretation.

However, it appears (due to 11 states passing legislature) that many Christian leaders interpret this differently, and have made gays and gay rights a demon that must be slayed.

In a pithy attempt to be e-cool, I suggested you try reading the Bible for yourself, implying that you were simply taking what others say as writ, "becuase the Bible says."

I then added the ever amusing pic of a typical Bible belt denizen with his cleverly written "Get a Brain, Morans!" Which apparently was deleted.

Hope this cleared it up for ya.

I have a question for you: Did I ever claim to be opposed to homosexuallity because of religious reasons? Consider that my friend before you go into stereotyping me. And saying that I should study the Bible is an understatement. I went through 4 years a Catholic High School in which they drilled the Bible and every part of it into our little heads. I still am confident I don't know as much as many do, but I have a very good understanding of the Bible and also one that is better than most of the population.

Even after attending 4 years of Catholic school and brough up in a Catholic high school I do not consider myself to be Catholic at all. I would not consider myself an ahteist, but rather agnostic. I repell my current learning and understanding of God, but I dont deny that he very well might exist, I just see no solid proof (lets stick to the topic here). Just because I oppose homosexuality does not mean it is because of a certain religious affiliation. Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

Maybe before you immediately kjump to conclusions you should consider all posibilities. I am not trying to be "e-cool" as you so put it.

[SlartyBartFast]

There's something else at play, too, SBF. The stereotypes exist and are perpetuated precisely because it justifies the dehumanization.

To use the Jewish example, by using it to imply cheap, it also conveys that it is acceptable to look down on these people.

Too true. And exactly why I fully agreed with the Jewish analogy.

[SlartyBartFast]

Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

See my previous post about personal repression....

Plus in your case, there may be a lesson to be learned between Catholic "education" and "indoctrination".

Perhaps they were unsuccesful in assimilating you to their world view but were quite successful in assimilating you to some of their other views.

So, instead of getting all offended about other making assumptions about why you're homophobic why not lay it on the line and tell us why you are? But all that's a little OT or the thread.

[SCpoloRicker]

I have a question for you: Did I ever claim to be opposed to homosexuallity because of religious reasons? Consider that my friend before you go into stereotyping me. And saying that I should study the Bible is an understatement. I went through 4 years a Catholic High School in which they drilled the Bible and every part of it into our little heads. I still am confident I don't know as much as many do, but I have a very good understanding of the Bible and also one that is better than most of the population.

Even after attending 4 years of Catholic school and brough up in a Catholic high school I do not consider myself to be Catholic at all. I would not consider myself an ahteist, but rather agnostic. I repell my current learning and understanding of God, but I dont deny that he very well might exist, I just see no solid proof (lets stick to the topic here). Just because I oppose homosexuality does not mean it is because of a certain religious affiliation. Many people that are atheist are completely opposed to it. Where do they get their views and opinions on it?

Maybe before you immediately kjump to conclusions you should consider all posibilities. I am not trying to be "e-cool" as you so put it.

So, your not into Jesus? Then I really am confused as to why you feel the way you do. Apologies for unfairly pigeonholing. Just for kicks, would you agree or disagree with the statement that the Bible makes a strong argument against homosexuality?

[MarkM]

Tread carefully now people..religion and political motivated views are going to turn nasty so you know what will happen to this thread, so make sure you keep it civil.
The Morans pic I didn't remove but to be fair to whoever did remove it, the influx of pictures of that and a similar nature will spin this thread into something totally different and that is not the idea? of this thread.

My own thoughts are that the use is over used and within the confines of an online forum it is attempts by kids to look cool when the connotations are such that they really have no concept of if they did then you wouldn't see the use ;). Context has been covered and correctly noted that even substitution of the word by a phrase is often offensive but again only within certain contexual situations. Unregulated access to the internet and similar mediums is the result that we are now seeing. If the parents were aware of the depth to which their little johnnys were sinking I doubt there would be quite the number of people online as there is currently. Extreme political views are just that extreme but to those that follow that creed to them it is normal....I won't direct this at any particular group but condemnation out of hand is very often the hallmark of such groups. Balance is required and without guiding no one will know what is correct or inccorect...I also agree that in certain areas Political Correctness has gone too far. This said, as long as awareness of where this poitical correctness has it's base then at least you are some way along to understanding why it has happened. I have no clue if that makes me a liberal or whatever american political belief system it applys to but that is how I see this.

All that said heed the warning at the beginng of my post, keep it civil.

[Lohman446]

Tread carefully now people..religion and political motivated views are going to turn nasty so you know what will happen to this thread,
All that said heed the warning at the beginng of my post, keep it civil.

Umm... thats the parts I understood :D :cry: :D

[red robot]

So the lesson is....

Don't say: Dude, your new pink jetta is gay.

Say: Excuse me sir, your new pink jetta, in my opinion, would seem to be an accessory to the lifestyle that a sterotypically homosexual male would choose, not that there is anything wrong with that.

;)


That made me laugh real hard.
:D

[nippinout]

I was born in 1980 and as long as I can remember, gay never seemed like a deragatory slur. The word that rhymes with hag/bag/flag, however, was a slur. I think it's just a word with two definitions. One to describe homosexuals and things of homosexual nature, and the other definition to describe something as lame/stupid/idiotic. Same word, different connotations.

We need to stop being so damn politically correct.

When was the last time you heard the word, African-American, used for an immigrant from Somalia? It's used to describe blacks in America who have been here for generations. You don't hear white people described as European-American or even Anglo-Saxon. The term African-American should be used for people who actually are direct from Africa. The adjective, black, is not racist. Despite what people say, Bill Clinton is not black, he is not European-American, he is white (and a communist :rofl:) . Kobe Bryant is black, he is not African-American.

It is possible to change a word's use and definition over time. Look at how the gay community has embraced the word, *not a bad word here*. Gay is not a bad word.

This thread is gay.

*Durr, the word that beings with Q and rhymes with beer/clear/fear is a cuss word? How gay. :rofl:

[SlartyBartFast]

I think it's just a word with two definitions. One to describe homosexuals and things of homosexual nature, and the other definition to describe something as lame/stupid/idiotic. Same word, different connotations.

Rubbish. :p

Nice theory. Unfortunately not a single dictionary or language reference would back you up.

And equating gay with even lame/stupid/idiotic is still a slur to anything else 'gay'.

[nippinout]

Rubbish. :p

Nice theory. Unfortunately not a single dictionary or language reference would back you up.

And equating gay with even lame/stupid/idiotic is still a slur to anything else 'gay'.

pwned is not in the dictionary, yet millions of Americans use it every day. Doesn't make it any less of a word.

I spray painted my computer gold. All my friends said it looked gay. They mean it looked lame, not homosexual.

[SlartyBartFast]

pwned is not in the dictionary, yet millions of Americans use it every day. Doesn't make it any less of a word.

I spray painted my computer gold. All my friends said it looked gay. They mean it looked lame, not homosexual.

But, pwoned can be found used all over and is not associated in any way to a group.

Homosexual=gay=lame your argument still doesn't hold water. Homosexuals CAN be offended because you equate the same term to refer to them and lame.

[nippinout]

But, pwoned can be found used all over and is not associated in any way to a group.

Homosexual=gay=lame your argument still doesn't hold water. Homosexuals CAN be offended because you equate the same term to refer to them and lame.

If they are offended by a word that has grown to have multiple meanings, that is their own problem and need to stop being so sensitive.

pwned is a term that does refer to a group. noobs or people who suck at games.

In this case, A=B=C does not work. homosexual=gay=lame is not true.

Snow=cold=cool=awesome=radical=jihad=terrorist=osa ma bin laden





Osama bin Laden = snow

Sure.


When someone is describing a surface defect, like a scratch, dent, or a chink... OMG!!! Chink is such a bad word! We must exclude it from our lexicon. Never again must we use it to describe any defect! The Chinese must be so offended that it is even in our language!!! A word with two meanings!?!?!??! Only the work of the devil can create a word with two meanings. :rolleyes:

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

If you ask people who use the word gay on a frequent basis, I almost guarnantee that atleast 75% of them, will say they dislike Homosexuals as a group.

edit I never knew that sigs reloaded when you post on a different page. I thought it was only once per thread.

[nippinout]

If you ask people who use the word gay on a frequent basis, I almost guarnantee that atleast 75% of them, will say they dislike Homosexuals as a group.


If you ask people who use the word gay on a frequent basis, I almost guarantee that at least 75% of them, will say they dislike eating lemons whole.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

If you ask people who use the word gay on a frequent basis, I almost guarantee that at least 75% of them, will say they dislike eating lemons whole.

Umm those two things have no relation.

Also how do you people think the word gay came to be used in this connotation?

[nippinout]

Umm those two things have no relation.

Also how do you people think the word gay came to be used in this connotation?


The two having no relation is my point. The majority of teenagers you the word, gay. They are using the word, but they are not using it in a deragatory way. It's use has nothing to do with their like or dislike for homosexuals.

I can't remember at any time in my life the word, gay, used as a slur. But I'm only 24.

[paintballrulzs]

So, your not into Jesus? Then I really am confused as to why you feel the way you do. Apologies for unfairly pigeonholing. Just for kicks, would you agree or disagree with the statement that the Bible makes a strong argument against homosexuality?

That is correct I have no real religious affiliation at all. I feel that religious for most of a security blanket and they know very little what they claim they believe in. I know many people who claim they are religious and they do many things that would be considered to go against those so called beliefs. Many people instantly assume I am religious because of many of my views and my high morals, but I live life the way I see it should be lived not the way some book tells me to. I consider myself to be a better christian than almost all my friends who claim they are christian.

Now back to the original topic. I am not going to get into my views on homosexuality for the plain and simple fact I listed in my first post: I dont want to offend anyone. I think the politically correct thing has gone way to far. I think it is absurd some of the stuff that is considered to offend someone. Yet, they can have a television show called "***** eye for the straight guy," but if it were straight guys playing homosexuals in a show with the title containing the word "*****" the emails and letters would be piled to the cieling. I think people need to just chill out. I am from the "liberal generation" as well. Almost all of my friends are "diehard" liberals. I am opposed to marriage of 2 men or 2 women. I am not one of those guys who is obsessed with 2 girls kissing, because homosexuality is homosexuality. I feel that if they are allowed to marry it degrades the definition of marriage and also opens up our society to a world of problems. What is there to stop piligromy (ya i spelled it wrong....long day of work too lazy to look it up) and sodomy. If you dont see these a problem look back in history and even today. Many radical mormans feel that it is okay to have more than 1 wife. Also religions in the third world feel the same way. So why should we be the ones adapting for them? They are coming here so why should we be the ones "evolving" to comfort them. Our society spends too much of its time trying to please everyone in everyway possible and I feel it is ridiculous. Our soceity has changed drastically for the worse I feel, but hey I have only seen 18 years of it, but nevetheless I feel things are going in the wrong direction.

[MarkM]

If they are offended by a word that has grown to have multiple meanings, that is their own problem and need to stop being so sensitive.

pwned is a term that does refer to a group. noobs or people who suck at games.

In this case, A=B=C does not work. homosexual=gay=lame is not true.

Snow=cold=cool=awesome=radical=jihad=terrorist=osa ma bin laden





Osama bin Laden = snow

Sure.


When someone is describing a surface defect, like a scratch, dent, or a chink... OMG!!! Chink is such a bad word! We must exclude it from our lexicon. Never again must we use it to describe any defect! The Chinese must be so offended that it is even in our language!!! A word with two meanings!?!?!??! Only the work of the devil can create a word with two meanings. :rolleyes:

Whilst I agree with your example of a chain of words to get to another...chink is wrong.

Pronunciation: 'chi[ng]k
Function: noun
Etymology: probably alteration of Middle English chine crack, fissure
1 : a small cleft, slit, or fissure
2 : a weak spot that may leave one vulnerable
3 : a narrow beam of light shining through a chink

The usage you are talking about is a derogatory slang word (with an alledged racial meaning) so even your usage in the world of surface defects is incorrect. since it has just the one meaning in real life and another in commonly used slang.

Main Entry: Chink
Pronunciation: 'chi[ng]k
Function: noun or adjective
Etymology: perhaps alteration of Chinese
usually offensive : CHINESE

Note the difference is the Capitilisation of the first letter.

So assuming context (plus spelling since a capital letter is actually spelling too) not just the word the usage is fine as long as you use it as you intend to and I mean if you use it as an attack you make it very plain by it's spelling and postioning within a framed sentence.
.
If you really want to stretch a point take a look at your user name...is it offensive?...to you, no, to me, no, but you could take it as very racist if you really wanted to twist things. Silly arguement that isn't it but you see how things can be taken to extremes if you really want to.

You say that since you were born in 1980 and you haven't regarded the word gay as meaning anything less than lame...well sorry BECAUSE you were born in 1980 is part of the reasoning that you are unaware of associations (you and many others were still small children when all the media was alive with the headlines of Gay plague etc in relation to AIDS)...the majority of people who attempt to justify the use are also born from the 1980's onwards. For sure new words are added to the dictionary...note added...but meaning doesn't change they may adapt. If anyone calls something gay they are indeed using it in a derogatory way which if you follow word association links as you have done it still equates as bad and not needed so anyway you divide it to use the word it is derogatory, to some more than others. Just calling the product/person/event etc lame would offend way few people and also would mean that you wouldn't get threads like this crop up.. even lame has two meanings one slang based as used formerly and secondly as something that is disfunctional.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

The two having no relation is my point. The majority of teenagers you the word, gay. They are using the word, but they are not using it in a deragatory way. It's use has nothing to do with their like or dislike for homosexuals.

I can't remember at any time in my life the word, gay, used as a slur. But I'm only 24.

Then where did the word being used in that context come from?

[red robot]

You've got the right idea, Monkey. People don't muatate the definition of a word to fit as a derogatory unless the word actually defines something they find ugly, ignorant, wrong, displeasing, bright, etc.... People won't start using the word lemon to describe someone that is stingy, however, they use the word "jew" to describe people that are stingy because of the generalization that all jews are stingy.

[Gr0dy]

can some one please delete this thread, so pointless and leading to arguements. Why is this such a big deal, Homosexuals dont get affended when you call them gay, they know there gay. They call there selves gay. They only get affended when you call them "***et".

[bofh]

I spray painted my computer gold. All my friends said it looked gay. They mean it looked lame, not homosexual.

Your friends are border-line functional retards, then.

[nippinout]

Your friends are border-line functional retards, then.

That's funny, because they said I was a retard for making my computer gangsta-fabulous. Maybe I need new friends? lol

[paintballrulzs]

can some one please delete this thread, so pointless and leading to arguements. Why is this such a big deal, Homosexuals dont get affended when you call them gay, they know there gay. They call there selves gay. They only get affended when you call them "***et".

That is the question this thread proposes. Many people that are gay get offended when you call something you dont like "gay." Most people are aware that for the most part the homosexual community doesn't mind being called gay and often refer to themselves as being gay. The problem is that when you call something or someone you dont like "gay." Basically if you saw something you didnt like and said "wow thats so straight." Many people find it offensive that the term gay is used in such a negative manner.

[Gr0dy]

That is the question this thread proposes. Many people that are gay get offended when you call something you dont like "gay." Most people are aware that for the most part the homosexual community doesn't mind being called gay and often refer to themselves as being gay. The problem is that when you call something or someone you dont like "gay." Basically if you saw something you didnt like and said "wow thats so straight." Many people find it offensive that the term gay is used in such a negative manner.
i agree with u in some way, but most people know that when your refering to something besides a gay person, that you mean it sucks or lame. ex. "This car is so gay"

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

i agree with u in some way, but most people know that when your refering to something besides a gay person, that you mean it sucks or lame. ex. "This car is so gay"

I'll ask this again but why did gay begin to be used in this context?

[BeaverEater]

I just it just caught on, as do all "fad" words.

[Gr0dy]

I'll ask this again but why did gay begin to be used in this context?
you got me there :confused: , i cannot answer that.

[red robot]

i agree with u in some way, but most people know that when your refering to something besides a gay person, that you mean it sucks or lame. ex. "This car is so gay"


Exactly. The definition of "gay" is not 'something that sucks. something that is lame.' Why do people use it as a synoym with "suck" or "lame?"

[nippinout]

Someone used it, and thus began a ripple effect across America. The same way the word, bogus, entered mainstream American use mid to late 80's

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Someone used it, and thus began a ripple effect across America. The same way the word, bogus, entered mainstream American use mid to late 80's

So it was just acoincidence that gay is being used for something that is lame, or sucks. And there was no reasoning behind the choice of the word.

I didn't ask how it came into thsi context, I asked WHY.

[nippinout]

I didn't ask how it came into thsi context, I asked WHY.

Who cares?

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Who cares?

It is the entire reason for this thread.

Is gay deragatory, or just some other slang word?

[nippinout]

It is the entire reason for this thread.

Is gay deragatory, or just some other slang word?


It's just another slang word. People are too uptight and hung up on being PC.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

It's just another slang word. People are too uptight and hung up on being PC.

And I see it as a word rooted in prejudice.

[paintballrulzs]

Honestly there are so many words that we use that could be offensive to someone. The words "indians" and "blacks" are politcally incorrect. We are supposed to say "native americans" and "african americans" but do we? and do they really care? One of my best friends is black and i say black because I have never met one black person who is offended by that. Its just like saying I am white. Im not offended at all. I dont care if you call me caucasion or white. Too much crap is considered PC. I use the word gay all the time and i wont change it either. I dont care if there is a gay guy standing right in front of me. I have no qualms about using it in the context I do.

[MarkM]

Someone used it, and thus began a ripple effect across America. The same way the word, bogus, entered mainstream American use mid to late 80's
You really are not understanding very well about the subject are you? Your reason for use is basically "because others use it" at least try and understand the why. Since you appear fond of double meaning words/terms...what about AGG.....first meant as A Gay Guy....use now = cool??? so you can't have it both ways.

To Gr0dy as long as the thread stays civil the thread remains...you don't have to take part nor read it.

[red robot]

Honestly there are so many words that we use that could be offensive to someone. The words "indians" and "blacks" are politcally incorrect. We are supposed to say "native americans" and "african americans" but do we? and do they really care? One of my best friends is black and i say black because I have never met one black person who is offended by that. Its just like saying I am white. Im not offended at all. I dont care if you call me caucasion or white. Too much crap is considered PC. I use the word gay all the time and i wont change it either. I dont care if there is a gay guy standing right in front of me. I have no qualms about using it in the context I do.

Aye, calling black people black is fine. Black people are, by definition of the word, black. White people are white. There is no intent of offense when I refer to my friends being black. However, if you called them, let's say red, it would make no sense. It makes no sense because they are not, by definition of the word, red. If you call a broken computer gay you are using the afforementioned nonsense.

I do recognize the problems with political correctness today, and my take on it is this: if the word used to describe the person or persons is correct by definition, then it should be acceptable to use.

[MarkM]

Honestly there are so many words that we use that could be offensive to someone. The words "indians" and "blacks" are politcally incorrect. We are supposed to say "native americans" and "african americans" but do we? and do they really care? One of my best friends is black and i say black because I have never met one black person who is offended by that. Its just like saying I am white. Im not offended at all. I dont care if you call me caucasion or white. Too much crap is considered PC. I use the word gay all the time and i wont change it either. I dont care if there is a gay guy standing right in front of me. I have no qualms about using it in the context I do.


You posted this reply as I was typing so I will quote all of it since I agree and disagree with a couple of the things you have said.
First the disagree part. You would use the word Gay in front of someone you know to be gay?...you said in front of, not at, a world of difference but still very inconsiderate and that is not being PC that is plain politeness. I am sure that you have something in your character or manner that you would be offended by if it was brought up in front of you. (however minor it was since we all have weak parts to our makeup).

The agree part.. Black...well I can see the reasoning for native american but think that american should suffice (who cares who was there first...actually the native americans since there are discoverys being made that are contrary to the whole being first arguement but that is another discussion entirely)...of course a black man is not offended by being addressed as black any more than you are offended by being addressed as white. The exception to this would be of course using the term in a different way and cuts both ways for both black and white.

Also what is with America's perceived stance on insisting that you are not Americans but African Americans or Irish Americans and the list goes on and on. You are Americans pure and simple. I am English but my family tree isn't but I don't use that family tree in my description of myself. I am English end of story just as you are an American end of story.

[SCpoloRicker]

you got me there :confused: , i cannot answer that.

I'll go ahead and say it again.

Gay in the context you are referring to began because we as a society view homosexuals/gays/we as second-class/non-equal/worthy of discrimination. Therefore we will occasionaly refer to other things that are second-class/non-equal/worthy of discrimination (such as a car) as gay.

That's why its wrong. Not PC, "ohh he's African American" PC. More like, a class of people is being denied rights. Seems we as Americans have done this a few times already. Women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement. Now that I think about it, we amended the constitution (x2) to establish that EVERY American citizen is entitled to certain rights. First, to give women the right to vote, and then to remove "seperate but equal" *cough, civil union*

The fact that you don't consider your and your friends homophobic doesn't mean that calling anything other than a gay "gay" isn't offensive. Which was the title of the post.

[edited]

[paintballrulzs]

You posted this reply as I was typing so I will quote all of it since I agree and disagree with a couple of the things you have said.
First the disagree part. You would use the word Gay in front of someone you know to be gay?...you said in front of, not at, a world of difference but still very inconsiderate and that is not being PC that is plain politeness. I am sure that you have something in your character or manner that you would be offended by if it was brought up in front of you. (however minor it was since we all have weak parts to our makeup).

The agree part.. Black...well I can see the reasoning for native american but think that american should suffice (who cares who was there first...actually the native americans since there are discoverys being made that are contrary to the whole being first arguement but that is another discussion entirely)...of course a black man is not offended by being addressed as black any more than you are offended by being addressed as white. The exception to this would be of course using the term in a different way and cuts both ways for both black and white.

Also what is with America's perceived stance on insisting that you are not Americans but African Americans or Irish Americans and the list goes on and on. You are Americans pure and simple. I am English but my family tree isn't but I don't use that family tree in my description of myself. I am English end of story just as you are an American end of story.


I agree with you 100 percent. I just mean that I wouldn't change the way I talk even if someone was gay and would hear me. When I say "that is gay" i dont mean wow it sucks because gay people suck and i said its gay so yada yada. Its just a term that has more than 1 definition to many people. It isn't necessarily derrogatory its just a different meaning for the word gay that it has adopting in my vocabulary. Yes I do have a problem with gay people but everytime i say "thats gay" I am not referring to gay people at all. If that makes any sense....

[red robot]

I agree with you 100 percent. I just mean that I wouldn't change the way I talk even if someone was gay and would hear me. When I say "that is gay" i dont mean wow it sucks because gay people suck and i said its gay so yada yada. Its just a term that has more than 1 definition to many people. It isn't necessarily derrogatory its just a different meaning for the word gay that it has adopting in my vocabulary. Yes I do have a problem with gay people but everytime i say "thats gay" I am not referring to gay people at all. If that makes any sense....


Why not say "oh, that's lemon!" Why not use some other completely arbitrary word? That's what it is, a completely arrbitrary word. It is arbitrary because the definition of the word that you are using has no connection to that which you are trying to describe. You could make just as much sense calling things lemon, racket, spoon, etc.... Unless, of course, that which you're describing actually is a lemon, racket, spoon, and so on.

[paintballrulzs]

Why not say "oh, that's lemon!" Why not use some other completely arbitrary word? That's what it is, a completely arrbitrary word. It is arbitrary because the definition of the word that you are using has no connection to that which you are trying to describe. You could make just as much sense calling things lemon, racket, spoon, etc.... Unless, of course, that which you're describing actually is a lemon, racket, spoon, and so on.

Because if I was to pick some completely arbitrary word noone would understand me.

[MarkM]

wimag posts like that will get the thread closed and some people unable to log on

[red robot]

Because if I was to pick some completely arbitrary word noone would understand me.


I'm sure the first person to use the word "gay" to describe a vehicle was looked at with a raised brow, but it caught on didn't it? Try it, just to see what happens; use a word like "lemon" to describe somethint that sucks or is lame. If the word is short enough and catchy I bet it could stick.

[HoppysMag]

i now find any application or occasion of "E" in a word insulting, and must not pup up in any post for now on.
with a 50,000 word logical story by Ernest Wright to confirm it is doable. "E" must not occur again on AO !


/ rant

ok to use what i learned in college


THIS THREAD IS MOIST!

[red robot]

i now find any application or occasion of "E" in a word insulting, and must not pup up in any post for now on.
with a 50,000 word logical story by Ernest Wright to confirm it is doable. "E" must not occur again on AO !


/ rant

ok to use what i learned in college


THIS THREAD IS MOIST!


You have to temper that logic before you can use it. What about "E" insults you? Because there is no long definition of the letter E, besides it being letter, member of the alphabet, containing one syllable, and making an (ee) noise, there is no stated reason for you to be insulted.

[HoppysMag]

You have to temper that logic before you can use it. What about "E" insults you? Because there is no long definition of the letter E, besides it being letter, member of the alphabet, containing one syllable, and making an (ee) noise, there is no stated reason for you to be insulted.


its to point out that everyone and thier mother is offended by the stupidest things. and some people are so anal as to question the logic of an obviously exagerated example.


good job, your a winner there.

oh and what is the word "gay" but a combination of sounds to make a word whos definition is ultimatly decided by the populas

[spantol]

I'm not sure that I agree with this. I've been known to occasionally refer to things as being "gay" not because they're second-class, non-equal, or particularly discrimination worthy, but because they're consistant with stereotypes associated with homosexuality. There's no hate behind it, it's more of a linguistic shortcut.

While I try to be sensitive to my audience, I've nonetheless caught myself doing this while in front of some gay people (what's the appropriate collective noun? Gaggle?), and ended up saying "Man, that's ga...tarded. Extremely gatarded. *cough* [quick subject change]."


I'll go ahead and say it again.

Gay in the context you are referring to began because we as a society view homosexuals/gays/we as second-class/non-equal/worthy of discrimination. Therefore we will occasionaly refer to other things that are second-class/non-equal/worthy of discrimination (such as a car) as gay.

[red robot]

its to point out that everyone and thier mother is offended by the stupidest things. and some people are so anal as to question the logic of an obviously exagerated example.


good job, your a winner there.

oh and what is the word "gay" but a combination of sounds to make a word whos definition is ultimatly decided by the populas


Definitions of words in the english language are unchanging. They are, and must be, constant.

People are offended by things. Noted. Bad input. Please keep yourself from adding to bad input. Thank you.

[spantol]

Since when? Only dead languages are static.


Definitions of words in the english language are unchanging. They are, and must be, constant.

People are offended by things. Noted. Bad input. Please keep yourself from adding to bad input. Thank you.

[Dubstar112]

I avoid using the word gay on message boards because it is commonly taken out of context. Especially on a forum with immature guests.

There was a time when a thread like this was not needed to discuss our local behavior(local to AO). The issues were obvious then... I guess

[paintballrulzs]

I always see that pic that says "wow this thread is gay" and not once have i ever heard someone complain about the PC of the picture

[Lohman446]

Exactly. The definition of "gay" is not 'something that sucks.

At this risk of a ban I have to di... :D .... oh nm

:cheers:

[ShooterJM]

At this risk of a ban I have to di... :D .... oh nm

:cheers:

:rofl: :clap: :rofl: :spit_take Funny!

[SlartyBartFast]

Why not use some other completely arbitrary word? That's what it is, a completely arrbitrary word.

No. Get an education and look into the etymology of words and slang.

There a few, if any, completely arbitrary words or associations, slang or otherwise.

Trying to argue that the use of gay as a derogatory adjective, knowing full well its history, is simply an arbitrary is both stupid and ignorant.

If you DO think it is simply an arbitrary word, and are too pig-headed to learn and accept the history and offensiveness behind the use of the word, at least you could not be a hypocrit and live up to your own arguments.

Seeing as YOU are the one who finds it arbitrary, YOU should be able to accept changing your usage to another arbitrary word (or heaven forbid educate yourself and use proper descriptive grammer and vocabulary).

[red robot]

No. Get an education and look into the etymology of words and slang.

There a few, if any, completely arbitrary words or associations, slang or otherwise.

Trying to argue that the use of gay as a derogatory adjective, knowing full well its history, is simply an arbitrary is both stupid and ignorant.

If you DO think it is simply an arbitrary word, and are too pig-headed to learn and accept the history and offensiveness behind the use of the word, at least you could not be a hypocrit and live up to your own arguments.

Seeing as YOU are the one who finds it arbitrary, YOU should be able to accept changing your usage to another arbitrary word (or heaven forbid educate yourself and use proper descriptive grammer and vocabulary).


Hah, you misunderstood that post. My point was that when the word is used in describing something outside of it's definition, the word becomes arbitrary; you may as well use any other word because any other word would work just as well, unless you actually think that the word "gay" carries some offensive or insulting connotations -- but at that time you are using it as a derrogatory and that is wrong.

I have taken no offense to your post though it is very rude. I have not meant any offense to the people I am debating with and I intend on keeping it this way. Please do not "flame" anyone on this thread. Thanks.

[OysterBoy]

I found your post (Bart) to be rather arrogant and pig-headed (as you so eloquently put it). You find fault in anothers definition, so you decide to chastise them for their lack of intelligence... regardless of the fact he shows signs of intelligence and is, over-all, well read ?

It really all comes down to opinion, so I beleive it is a dead issue. Whether we're right or not, it isn't worth beating into the e-ground.

[Willystyle21]

By your logic:

If I go around shooting people it should not concern you. I am not shooting you so you have no right to be upset. Wait, aren't we supposed to change that which we don't like? Shouldn't we do all we can to make this the best of all possible worlds? Even if that which we are opposed to does not directly affect us?

Also, this is not a complaint thread. I am not complaining to you, I am gathering information and telling you why it is wrong to use "gay'" as a synonym to anything other than homosexuality or any other of it's direct definitions.

The claim that you are siding with Kevmaster is false and unsupported. Kevmaster stated that the word could be proved both offensive to those who take offense to it, and inoffensive to those that do not take offense to it. Kevmaster has made a formidable defense, but the fact that all gays, and people that are saddened by the disintegration of the english language, take offense to the improper use of the word should be reason enough to stop using it.

I didn't realize I had to give supporting info on why I agree with someone or not. And wether or not the English language is falling apart or not doesn't matter. I have read that in just about every civilization there are words used which have double or triple meanings ( yes I am quite cynical and sarcastic by the way). However if someone were to shoot at me, I would shoot back. Doesn't matter what they shot, bullets or stide comments.

[HoppysMag]

I have not meant any offense to the people I am debating with and I intend on keeping it this way. Please do not "flame" anyone on this thread. Thanks.

you havnt been that bad

but realize a language is what the people make it. its not a preset order of words and definitions.even the word gay doesnt traditionaly mean homosexuals, it too is a slang word, that has come to be accepted as a legitimate word. language decides the dictionary, not the other way around. and to try to change the course of a languages evolution is not only unnatural, but ultimatly futile. to take offense to the unfavorable use of a word is also pointless. you wont be able to change the peoples use of the word, and will only bring on the perception of a whiner upon yourself. to steal a line from my coach "gotta be like an orange. thick skin"

"but the fact that all gays, and people that are saddened by the disintegration of the english language, take offense to the improper use of the word should be reason enough to stop using it."

yet again, the use of the word gay to describe homosexuals is slang ( since acording to you languages dont change). so you should be disopointed with yourself.