Use of the word "gay"

I prefer to bust out "FAGGOTRY!" instead.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

I dunno, maybe I secretly hate gays like this girl seems to think, but I feel like in 2008, if someone says something is gay when they are CLEARLY not talking about homosexuals in a derogatory way, it shouldn't be an issue.

Of course it shouldn't be an issue. All you're doing is playing off of the deep-seated cultural prejudice that homosexuality is inherently wrong and backward by associating something displeasing to you with homosexuality. No grounds for offense there.

Yes, I realize that you're not intentionally speaking of homosexuals in a derogatory way. I would wager that a lot of people who use the word "gay" in that sense aren't. But does that make it better? Nope. It means that we've reached the point where we don't think about it. Homosexuality is bad, therefore "gay" equals "stupid" or "crappy." It's the same kind of thing you see in music theory, where, once upon a time, a melody that ended on a strong beat was said to have a "masculine" ending, and a melody that ended on a weak beat was said to have a "feminine" ending. Even after women's lib, some people still use these terms. Do they all necessarily believe, as the people who coined the terms did, that women are inherently weaker than men? No. But whether they intend to or not, they're perpetuating a symbol of an old prejudice, merely out of force of habit. I can't really think of a solid justification for doing that.

It's the same with using "gay" as a derogatory term. Whether you actually hate gays or not, you're bearing the standard of those who do. It'd be like decorating your walls with Nazi flags because you think they're pretty. I mean, you don't believe in what the symbol stands for, so what's the harm, right? Try telling that to your Jewish friends. It doesn't affect you because you haven't been exposed to the hate it represents. But to those who have, it is a powerful reminder of the their constant, painful war with a society that will not accept them for who they are. You are, in effect, doing the same thing as a guy I knew who, while playing Super Mario Brothers, called the Goombas "stupid niggers" every time he died.

Frankly, I find most people's insensitivity on this issue puzzling. It's like the people in the South who just can't understand why the blacks don't want them flying the Confederate flag. It's just good ol' stars 'n' bars, right? Ugh, I could go on.

Suffice it to say, yes, it is very crass of you to use the word in that manner, especially since you seem to know better. You should stop.

Originally Posted by Superhero Chuck

Of course it shouldn't be an issue. All you're doing is playing off of the deep-seated cultural prejudice that homosexuality is inherently wrong and backward by associating something displeasing to you with homosexuality. No grounds for offense there.

Yes, I realize that you're not intentionally speaking of homosexuals in a derogatory way. I would wager that a lot of people who use the word "gay" in that sense aren't. But does that make it better? Nope. It means that we've reached the point where we don't think about it. Homosexuality is bad, therefore "gay" equals "stupid" or "crappy." It's the same kind of thing you see in music theory, where, once upon a time, a melody that ended on a strong beat was said to have a "masculine" ending, and a melody that ended on a weak beat was said to have a "feminine" ending. Even after women's lib, some people still use these terms. Do they all necessarily believe, as the people who coined the terms did, that women are inherently weaker than men? No. But whether they intend to or not, they're perpetuating a symbol of an old prejudice, merely out of force of habit. I can't really think of a solid justification for doing that.

It's the same with using "gay" as a derogatory term. Whether you actually hate gays or not, you're bearing the standard of those who do. It'd be like decorating your walls with Nazi flags because you think they're pretty. I mean, you don't believe in what the symbol stands for, so what's the harm, right? Try telling that to your Jewish friends. It doesn't affect you because you haven't been exposed to the hate it represents. But to those who have, it is a powerful reminder of the their constant, painful war with a society that will not accept them for who they are. You are, in effect, doing the same thing as a guy I knew who, while playing Super Mario Brothers, called the Goombas "stupid niggers" every time he died.

Frankly, I find most people's insensitivity on this issue puzzling. It's like the people in the South who just can't understand why the blacks don't want them flying the Confederate flag. It's just good ol' stars 'n' bars, right? Ugh, I could go on.

Suffice it to say, yes, it is very crass of you to use the word in that manner, especially since you seem to know better. You should stop.

The Carillon Online: February 2nd - February 8th 2006

Originally Posted by Some brilliant Anthropologist

The usage of “cunt” –––
There are few words that garner the sort of ire that cunt does. As an insult, it is second to none. It has come to signify the basest of insults that can be hurled around a room, and is absolutely venomous when snarled properly. It is, however, just a word. And like all words, it has undergone radical changes since its initial foray into the lexicon, and will continue to shift in future. I’m not about to go into the etymology of the word, as it is both highly contested and incredibly broad. (There is, however, a wonderful history available at www.matthewhunt.com that manages to encompass the main theories while offering a historical context.)

The word was not always as profane as it is now; long before it was a taboo, it was used in medical journals and existed in the common vocabulary of English speakers. So, when did this liberal use of cunt become so maligned? Around the same time we began saying “white meat” instead of “breast meat.” This switch from the sacred to the profane came with the rise of Puritanism and has stayed strong ever since. Although words like fuck and prick have become much less grotesque over the years, cunt has managed to hold its sway over us.

It is this enduring ability to be offensive that makes the c-bomb so intriguing. With the re-appropriation of words like wog and queer we have seen how hateful words can be taken from the domain of the abusers and become empowering for the abused, and cunt is not far behind. As comedian Lenny Bruce said, “the word’s suppression gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness.” There is also a large movement that agrees with him. Within the domain of the so-called “cunt-power” movement, there have emerged many strong voices decrying the defamation of the word, such as “Cuntfest” at Penn. State and the “Cunt Club” at Wesleyan University.

Many people credit the modern student movement of Megan Goudy and Ashley Newton for the modern swing of taking cunt from the profane to the sacred, as their paper released in 2004, spoke of how the history of the word had become largely forgotten and that “by recognizing and reclaiming the etymological connotation of the word ‘cunt,’ women can take back part of the language that keeps them in their socially determined subordinate position.” Though this position is nothing new, it does bring one point to light that should definitely be stressed. Cunt is a word. It is not but letters arranged in a left-to-right fashion and nothing more. The meaning is entirely what you make of it, and by hiding it in a corner and shuddering whenever it is pulled to light you empower it.

Language is an ever-changing thing, and we all have the ability to prescribe our own meanings to it. I am not saying that you should not be offended if someone calls you a “raving cunt,” but be offended by the hate behind it, not the word itself. The word is nothing. At least Shakespeare got that right.

Getting that worked up about words, and not intent, is so ass backwards it's pathetic. Intent and meanings are insulting, not language. If someone says something is gay, and they obviously mean nothing by it, and you turn it into an issue, you know who the asshole is? You. If someone who is against black people voting calls a black man a 'nigger' it's not insulting because he said nigger. It's insulting because he meant nigger as a black person of lesser standing. That's the issue. Intent and meaning.

Originally Posted by Superhero Chuck

Of course it shouldn't be an issue. All you're doing is playing off of the deep-seated cultural prejudice that homosexuality is inherently wrong and backward by associating something displeasing to you with homosexuality. No grounds for offense there.

Yes, I realize that you're not intentionally speaking of homosexuals in a derogatory way. I would wager that a lot of people who use the word "gay" in that sense aren't. But does that make it better? Nope. It means that we've reached the point where we don't think about it. Homosexuality is bad, therefore "gay" equals "stupid" or "crappy." It's the same kind of thing you see in music theory, where, once upon a time, a melody that ended on a strong beat was said to have a "masculine" ending, and a melody that ended on a weak beat was said to have a "feminine" ending. Even after women's lib, some people still use these terms. Do they all necessarily believe, as the people who coined the terms did, that women are inherently weaker than men? No. But whether they intend to or not, they're perpetuating a symbol of an old prejudice, merely out of force of habit. I can't really think of a solid justification for doing that.

It's the same with using "gay" as a derogatory term. Whether you actually hate gays or not, you're bearing the standard of those who do. It'd be like decorating your walls with Nazi flags because you think they're pretty. I mean, you don't believe in what the symbol stands for, so what's the harm, right? Try telling that to your Jewish friends. It doesn't affect you because you haven't been exposed to the hate it represents. But to those who have, it is a powerful reminder of the their constant, painful war with a society that will not accept them for who they are. You are, in effect, doing the same thing as a guy I knew who, while playing Super Mario Brothers, called the Goombas "stupid niggers" every time he died.

Frankly, I find most people's insensitivity on this issue puzzling. It's like the people in the South who just can't understand why the blacks don't want them flying the Confederate flag. It's just good ol' stars 'n' bars, right? Ugh, I could go on.

Suffice it to say, yes, it is very crass of you to use the word in that manner, especially since you seem to know better. You should stop.

The problem with this is that "gay" never originally meant "homosexual."

Your argument is moot. The swastika, as far as I know, was always the symbol of Nazism, the Confederate flag was always the symbol of ignorant racist southerners, and the word nigger was always the the derogatory term for African Americans. I can't possibly justify saying the word "nigger," but "gay?" Come on, is it seriously THAT big of a problem?

Faggot I can understand, but not gay.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

The swastika, as far as I know, was always the symbol of Nazism

NO SUH.

Touché good sir! I was unaware of its humble origins.

Though my argument still stands on the Confederate flag and the word 'nigger'

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Touché good sir! I was unaware of its humble origins.

Though my argument still stands on the Confederate flag and the word 'nigger'

Yeah, just another metaphysical image Hitler lifted for his own gains. I love reading about all the crazy parapsychology crap he was into. The guy was batshit crazy.

Someone has a serious problem if they're homosexual by choice and take offense at 'gay' being used in a manner not pointed at them. After all, they're the one who signed onto that lifestyle, they should get used to hearing 'gay' used like that. They're just going to look like an ass if they get all pissy about it at some random person who pops it unaware of their sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by Josiah

Someone has a serious problem if they're homosexual by choice and take offense at 'gay' being used in a manner not pointed at them. After all, they're the one who signed onto that lifestyle, they should get used to hearing 'gay' used like that. They're just going to look like an ass if they get all pissy about it at some random person who pops it unaware of their sexual orientation.

See? When I said you should be more offended by the intent than the words? This is what I was talking about. THIS is idiotic, insulting bullshit.

Gays chose to be gay so they should be fine with being mocked for it? Yeah, because gay is a choice. And even if it wasn't, then if someone decides to be a Muslim, they should just be okay with all the ridicule they get for being a towelhead, right?

Originally Posted by Josiah

Someone has a serious problem if they're homosexual by choice and take offense at 'gay' being used in a manner not pointed at them. After all, they're the one who signed onto that lifestyle, they should get used to hearing 'gay' used like that. They're just going to look like an ass if they get all pissy about it at some random person who pops it unaware of their sexual orientation.

I wish Deni had given you a harder thrashing for this. By your logic, if i were to come up and piss all over your shoes for having pirates in your signature you should be ok with that, because you signed on to that lifestyle and with it comes certain consequences. That's a fucking prejudice to believe that man. It's no different than believing the Jews deserved what they got during the Holocaust.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Faggot I can understand, but not gay.

I heard they smoke fags in the UK.

Originally Posted by Helloween

I wish Deni had given you a harder thrashing for this.

A TQP kid might be shocked out of his idiocy by a harsh word or two of real world logic, but it's been my experience that attacking a bigot for their ignorance just further entrenches them in it.

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Faggot I can understand, but not gay.

Faggot, I think actually refers to the type of wood originally used to burn homosexuals at the stake. So, it's a lot like gay in that it had a different meaning originally.


I'm going to have to agree with Deni and everyone else here that's said it; it's the intent, not the word. I remember in junior high it was "the thing to do" to go around saying "I like girls so I'm a lesbian" if you were a guy and vis versa if you were female.

Language evolves so much that I think people forget that words are only powerful because we make it so. I'm well aware I give the n-word more power by being unwilling to say it, but I can't find it in me to say it because I feel it's still too derogatory to use. However, I take the negative meaning away from the word gay by using it as much as possible. (I don't actually really use it that often, but I used to.)

people who get pissed over something like that didnt get the entire point imo.

lesbos and gays like to be homo, so why should they get pissed if someone is abusing that word, its not an offense to them..if they take it offensive they should work on their self esteem (well most homos i know are pretty confident about themselves)

i wouldnt give a shit, sure if its firends who get pissed out of it, there might be a compromise..she learns not to get pissed so easily and you leasrn to use different vocab...but in general you really shouldnt care

none of my closest friends is homo but even if he/she was i would use that word as often as i do (especially in context with games and music)..if he/she got pissed out of it we would rather mnake more fun of him/her, because thats how were dealing with such crap here

Originally Posted by nanaman

Why don't we just bury it like we did with the N-word?

funny, thinking about how much people call themselves with that word....instead of burying such words, we should find out if these words are really that harming anymore

language, slang whatever is a pretty complicated field, because people always created borders by using certain vocab and stuff..language doesnt connect, it seperates

I think in order to take away the negative meaning of a word like "gay" it needs to be used commonly to describe things in a positive or at least neutral way. So no, using it to say something is bad in some way is not accomplishing that.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

Getting that worked up about words, and not intent, is so ass backwards it's pathetic. Intent and meanings are insulting, not language. If someone says something is gay, and they obviously mean nothing by it, and you turn it into an issue, you know who the asshole is? You. If someone who is against black people voting calls a black man a 'nigger' it's not insulting because he said nigger. It's insulting because he meant nigger as a black person of lesser standing. That's the issue. Intent and meaning.

Let me clarify. I'm not worked up. However...

Originally Posted by sprouticus

Do you think that saying something is "gay" is grounds for scrutiny and harassment? I recently said that something was gay within earshot of this uptight lesbian, and she got all pissed at me saying "nice Dave, real nice."

...that girl certainly was. To me, Sprouticus's argument seemed to be, "I meant nothing by it; therefore she shouldn't have been offended." Well, great, that works for me because I'm not gay. But it obviously didn't work for this girl because she is gay. And it offended her. I don't hate black people, but try telling that to my black friends if I use the word "nigger" jokingly. They don't like it. And they're entitled. The word "nigger" is a symbol of a level of hate that I have never experienced, but that they struggle with constantly.

It's the same with homosexuals. Whether your intentions are pure or not, using the word "gay" in that context is a symbol of the hate they struggle with, and symbolism is a powerful, powerful thing. Whether they "should" or "should not" be offended isn't the point. They are offended, and for a very understandable reason. That's why I said I find people's insensitivity on this issue puzzling. Insensitivity, i.e. not being sensitive enough to another person's point of view to understand why she reacted the way she did.

In summary: Sprouticus and Denicalis, your arguments make sense, and I'd tend to agree with you, but we're not the ones who get to decide.