"You can't say that because it offends me"

Messaggio di Nathanyal

Pretty much. I won't call someone stupid, unless something they say or do makes me think of them as such. And even then, I won't call them that just what they did.

I know several people that got married right out of high school. I don't call them stupid, but what they did I would call stupid. My sister isn't stupid, but half the things she does is stupid.

Messaggio di Magician22773

The trouble with "that's gay" is that it isn't a phrase used to describe two people of the same sex kissing (etc.). It's used to describe anything that the speaker doesn't like.

Asakawa, I somewhat already know the answer to this question, but I wanted others opinion on it as well.

Just as in my previous post, f@gs are an excepted term in some societies for cigarettes. (I realize that the origin of the word was "a bundle of sticks" (yes, I read that book 30 years ago and still remember it), so I can see the reasoning there, but it is still a derogatory term to gays. However, since it is not directed at them, or their sexuality, it is considered accepted.

The same thing should apply to saying that "the new 5 mans are so gay". The term is not used to mean that they have anything to do with homosexuality, so I don't see how, or why, it is offensive to gays. If someone said "My Little Ponies are so gay" (sorry Skree), that could be seen as a different use of the word, but it still would depend on the context of the comment.

The only similar use of the N-word I know of, is some people will call a "less than normal repair or assembly" of something....such as using duct tape or wire to hold something on a car together..."N%^&*r! rigging". I hear this term used a lot, and I will admit, it is uncomfortable to hear, but I think that is because the N-word is just such a vile word in any context. Even though its not directed at blacks, that word, IMHO, just has no legitimate use in language.

Messaggio di asakawa

Messaggio di Nathanyal

Something I just read reminded me of the "You throw like a girl" comment. But in a situation like that, who is really the one offended?

Is it the guy that throws something they would consider to be of female quality?

Or is it the girl that they are being compared with?

What if there is a girl that can actually throw really well, would that actually turn into a compliment?

What if it is an actual girl that threw it and they're just being a smart-ass and saying that she threw like a girl, because she is a girl?

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

Messaggio di Magician22773

Like it or not, words evolve. This one has.

This seems like a contradiction to me. I agree words evolve, and that that one has. Is has evolved from a term used to describe a homosexual, to a term to describe something boring, or easy, or something that the person doesn't like....ect. It actually has several meanings, and I honestly don't see why it is seen as being offensive to use it in that way.

Again, if it was being used to describe something that was effiminate for a male..."man, that pink shirt is gay!", then I could at least see the issue, however, I still would feel it was being overly sensitive. But how does telling16 year old he needs to clean the garage, and he replies "man, thats gay....I want to go to the mall", become offensive? The only thing the two terms have in common is they are the same word......they have totally different meanings in their use.

Its no different to me than the use of the word "phat" (fat), or "dope" to describe something cool. "Man, those 20 inch rims make your ride look phat!"

Is there really a difference since one means something good, but one means something bad? I dont see it that way. I see a word that was taken, and given a different meaning in the language.

Messaggio di Squishalot

Well, "gay" means happy. Words evolve and I think it's wonderful when that happens. If I believed that people were simply using a new meaning for the three letter word "gay" that bore no relation to homosexuals or homosexual behaviour then I'd be right behind you.

That's simply not the case.

I've been out of the conversation for a while, and am planning on staying out (really don't have the time to participate), but just wanted to say that I disagree on this point. "gay", as kids use it, has no relation to homosexuals or homosexual behaviour. It's evolved to the point where kids hear other kids use it, and come to associate it with bad stuff. Do kids know what a dou*** really is? They just associate the word with a bad / stupid person.

In context, because it's hard to tell, what is your view on this? Do you think people should not be saying "that's so gay" because it offends / harms?

Messaggio di 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Messaggio di asakawa

It's evolved to the point where kids hear other kids use it, and come to associate it with bad stuff.

Exactly, but there's no evolution there. Kids hear other kids using a neutral/positive term for anything negative and you don't think that alters the opinion of Kid A towards the formerly neutral/positive term? If you don't think that the use of the word in this way is having a massive effect on young peoples' views of gay people then I really think you're not seeing the big picture.

I'll put Jason Alexander's recent apology in a toggler because it's quite long but I urge people to read it over as it really goes to the heart of this issue.

Jason Alexander's apology for using "gay" in that way recently
“A message of amends.

Last week, I made an appearance on the Craig Ferguson show – a wonderfully unstructured, truly spontaneous conversation show. No matter what anecdotes I think will be discussed, I have yet to find that Craig and I ever touch those subjects. Rather we head off onto one unplanned, loony topic after another. It’s great fun trying to keep up with him and I enjoy Craig immensely.

During the last appearance, we somehow wandered onto the topic of offbeat sports and he suddenly mentioned something about soccer and cricket. Now, I am not a stand-up comic. Stand up comics have volumes of time-tested material for every and all occasions. I, unfortunately, do not. However, I’ve done a far amount of public speaking and emceeing over the years so I do have a scattered bit, here and there.

Years ago, I was hosting comics in a touring show in Australia and one of the bits I did was talking about their sports versus American sports. I joked about how their rugby football made our football pale by comparison because it is a brutal, no holds barred sport played virtually without any pads, helmets or protection. And then I followed that with a bit about how, by comparison, their other big sport of cricket seemed so delicate and I used the phrase, “ a bit gay”. Well, it was all a laugh in Australia where it was seen as a joke about how little I understood cricket, which in fact is a very, very athletic sport. The routine was received well but, seeing as their isn’t much talk of cricket here in America, it hasn’t come up in years.

Until last week. When Craig mentioned cricket I thought, “oh, goody – I have a comic bit about cricket I can do. Won’t that be entertaining?”. And so I did a chunk of this old routine and again referred to cricket as kind of “gay” – talking about the all white uniforms that never seem to get soiled; the break they take for tea time with a formal tea cart rolled onto the field, etc. I also did an exaggerated demonstration of the rather unusual way they pitch the cricket ball which is very dance-like with a rather unusual and exaggerated arm gesture. Again, the routine seemed to play very well and I thought it had been a good appearance.

Shortly after that however, a few of my Twitter followers made me aware that they were both gay and offended by the joke. And truthfully, I could not understand why. I do know that humor always points to the peccadillos or absurdities or glaring generalities of some kind of group or another – short, fat, bald, blonde, ethnic, smart, dumb, rich, poor, etc. It is hard to tell any kind of joke that couldn’t be seen as offensive to someone. But I truly did not understand why a gay person would be particularly offended by this routine.

However, troubled by the reaction of some, I asked a few of my gay friends about it. And at first, even they couldn’t quite find the offense in the bit. But as we explored it, we began to realize what was implied under the humor. I was basing my use of the word “gay” on the silly generalization that real men don’t do gentile, refined things and that my portrayal of the cricket pitch was pointedly effeminate , thereby suggesting that effeminate and gay were synonymous.

But what we really got down to is quite serious. It is not that we can’t laugh at and with each other. It is not a question of oversensitivity. The problem is that today, as I write this, young men and women whose behaviors, choices or attitudes are not deemed “man enough” or “normal” are being subjected to all kinds of abuse from verbal to physical to societal. They are being demeaned and threatened because they don’t fit the group’s idea of what a “real man” or a “real woman” are supposed to look like, act like and feel like.

For these people, my building a joke upon the premise I did added to the pejorative stereotype that they are forced to deal with everyday. It is at the very heart of this whole ugly world of bullying that has been getting rightful and overdue attention in the media. And with my well-intentioned comedy bit, I played right into those hurtful assumptions and diminishments.

And the worst part is – I should know better. My daily life is filled with gay men and women, both socially and professionally. I am profoundly aware of the challenges these friends of mine face and I have openly advocated on their behalf. Plus, in my own small way, I have lived some of their experience. Growing up in the ‘70’s in a town that revered it’s school sports and athletes, I was quite the outsider listening to my musical theater albums, studying voice and dance and spending all my free time on the stage. Many of the same taunts and jeers and attitudes leveled at young gay men and women were thrown at me and on occasion I too was met with violence or the threat of violence.

So one might think that all these years later I might be able to intuit that my little cricket routine could make some person who has already been made to feel alien and outcast feel even worse or add to the conditions that create their alienation. But in this instance, I did not make the connection. I didn’t get it.

So, I would like to say – I now get it. And to the extent that these jokes made anyone feel even more isolated or misunderstood or just plain hurt – please know that was not my intention, at all or ever. I hope we will someday live in a society where we are so accepting of each other that we can all laugh at jokes like these and know that there is no malice or diminishment intended.

But we are not there yet.

So, I can only apologize and I do. In comedy, timing is everything. And when a group of people are still fighting so hard for understanding, acceptance, dignity and essential rights – the time for some kinds of laughs has not yet come. I hope my realization brings some comfort.

Thanks,
Jason “

In answer to Squish wondering which side of this I'm coming down on I'll try to be clear. My position is that shutting down discussion is bad. Censorship is bad. Nothing gets solved if you stop people from even approaching a subject. However, people need to take responsibility for what they say. They need to recognise when they're saying something with which others take umbrage.

Jason Alexander's thing really sums up the entirety of my feelings on this. He said something he thought was fine. He was challenged on it and took the time to really explore the issue and the deeper implications of what he was saying. He then took responsibility for what he said. I've got a massive amount of respect for that approach but it's a process that never gets to even take place if discussion is shut down - if the subject is made taboo and unutterable.

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

From http://www.merriam-webster.com
gay
Definition of GAY

1 a: happily excited : merry <in a gay mood>
b: keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits <a bird's gay spring song>
2 a: bright, lively <gay sunny meadows>
b: brilliant in color
3: given to social pleasures; also : licentious
4 a: homosexual <gay men>
b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <the gay rights movement> <a gay bar>

Show me where it lists their use and defines it? Use the word with one of its actual definitions. That's all I ask. I never get it. But I will always ask of it.

Messaggio di Magician22773

Messaggio di SquireKel

Since we are really discussing a slang term here, maybe we should consult the Urban Dictionary. Oh, would you loot at that.

lame, not worthy of attention, waste of time, stupid or idiotic

Sometimes used as a synonym to stupid, idiot, or dumbass

1. To describe an occurrence or event that is unwanted or disliked.
2. To describe a person that is usually annoying or hard to deal with

The problem is that the slang use of "gay" is offensive and harmful to the homosexual community. So yes, while Urban Dictionary does list those definitions, the problem is that those definitions even exist, slang or otherwise. Fatalheaven listed the "true" definitions of the word "gay," in that they are the ones published in a widely accepted dictionary. Because one of the "true" definitions of "gay" describes a community of persons or an individual person based on something not of their choosing (ie. sexuality), using "gay" as slang for a derogatory comment isn't ok.

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

Let us look to the merit of Urban Dictionary shall we?

For instance my name: Christina.

The coolest, cutest, nicest girl ever. With the best personality, also very quick witted and very smart. Everyone should get to meet her at least once.
Christina, is a lovely whip smart, worldly person with a slight streak of madness that enlivens conversations and entertains anyone who meets her. She is a magnetic artist. She lives every day like an artist. She instantly put me at ease with a warm feeling of familiarity. Maybe she has this effect on everyone, of giving the impression that she is an instant friend, or maybe we hit it off in some unusual way. She has a pure heart and believes in fairness. She is a team player and will put as much effort into a loved ones project as her own. She has a wicked sense of humour. Her beauty is timeless and classic. She values nuturing above all else. She puts you at ease with her beauty but at a turn can remind you she is the most stunning and intelligent woman in the room.
an extremely AWESOME person. so much fun to be around, and so freakishly awesome. christinas tend to be really funny and cool, and so cool

Does this seem legit? Ummm no. Flattering maybe... but in no way legit. Urban Dictionary has no relevance to anybody with half a brain cell. It's something you hit random on, and laugh but never should one take merit in anything it says.

Edit: After posting I thought it would be interesting to see what Urban Dictionary says about itself:

A place formerly used to find out about slang, and now a place that teens with no life use as a burn book to whine about celebrities, their friends, etc., let out their sexual frustrations, show off their racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-(insert religion here) opinions, troll, and babble about things they know nothing about.
A site where users attempt to mock and explain everyone and thing in life, under the guise of cynical quasi-intellectualism.

Yeah, totally speaks for itself.

Messaggio di Squishalot

I'll put Jason Alexander's recent apology in a toggler because it's quite long but I urge people to read it over as it really goes to the heart of this issue.

I don't think the Jason Alexander situation is relevant. He was using gay in the context of a homosexual man, not as a general negative term. He willfully portrayed gay men as being effeminate when using the reference to cricket. (He obviously never met Viv Richards or Jeff Tommo... David Boon, anyone??)

In answer to Squish wondering which side of this I'm coming down on I'll try to be clear. My position is that shutting down discussion is bad. Censorship is bad. Nothing gets solved if you stop people from even approaching a subject. However, people need to take responsibility for what they say. They need to recognise when they're saying something with which others take umbrage.

So going back to some of the first points in the topic, should the correct phrase be "Sure you can say that, but it doesn't change that you're a #$%@", then? I don't think the issue has ever truly been about censorship - I don't think anybody is trying to ban certain words / topics / discussions. For me, it's always been more about appropriate and respectful usage, and if someone is offended, by the way something's been said, then it's a cue to consider whether what's been said is appropriate and respectful, rather than making the bold assumption that what was said was always fine, and that the listener should harden up.

Urban Dictionary has no relevance to anybody with half a brain cell.

Do you know anybody with half a brain cell? I don't - most people I know have billions.

Do you see what happens when you take things at a literally defined level?

Consider the word 'google', as in, to google something. This word didn't exist in the dictionary until just recently, last one or two years. Do you believe that it had no meaning prior to being included? Same goes with 'tweet' and other tech-words.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Messaggio di 392412

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

1. To describe an occurrence or event that is unwanted or disliked.
2. To describe a person that is usually annoying or hard to deal with

Because gays aren't annoying, unwanted, disliked or hard to deal with to a lot of people?

How can people not see why people use the word 'gay' in the way that they do. It makes sense to me.

You don't like gays --> something happens you don't like -->you call it "gay"...

I understand that some don't find it offensive. Even some actual gays claim to not find it offensive. However, the majority of people I talk to IRL, face-2-face, find it rude and demeaning to gays.

Messaggio di MyTie

Messaggio di Squishalot

I understand that some don't find it offensive. Even some actual gays claim to not find it offensive. However, the majority of people I talk to IRL, face-2-face, find it rude and demeaning to gays.

Should we be restricting people from saying it because it's offensive?

This holds true for referring to things you don't like as "retarded" also, which I think is deplorable.

I never really appreciated this until my girlfriend started studying psychology.

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

Urban Dictionary has no relevance to anybody with half a brain cell.

Do you know anybody with half a brain cell? I don't - most people I know have billions.

Do you see what happens when you take things at a literally defined level?

Consider the word 'google', as in, to google something. This word didn't exist in the dictionary until just recently, last one or two years. Do you believe that it had no meaning prior to being included? Same goes with 'tweet' and other tech-words.

Actually, yes. It had a assumed meaning but it had no actual meaning. I'm sorry that I tend to stick to an actual dictionary. Prior to "ain't" being included in the dictionary, I didn't give it credit as a word either. Don't get me wrong, I say words all the time that aren't in a dictionary but if asked I will respond "It's just slang." Generally, my slang doesn't offend people nor is it something that a vast amount of humans find demeaning. And when it comes down to it I will tell someone that those words, aren't actual words. Nor do I get bothered if they point that out, since they are right. Not to mention that if someone told me a word (actual or assumed/slang) offended them (on a serious level and not being sarcastic) I would seriously reconsider its use in my vocab and in the most likely case, irradicate it from my vocabulary. So me asking others not to use 'gay' outside of it's actual meaning seems completely acceptable as I would hold myself to the same standard.

As far as using the phrase: Urban Dictionary has no relevance to anybody with half a brain cell.
No I do not know anyone with half a brain cell. It was a figure of speech to insinuate that someone who wasn't an idiot wouldn't put merit on the site' definitions. (However all the words I used were used within there actual definitions.)

So Squish...
Do you see what happens when you take things at a literally defined level?

Cause it goes both ways...

SquireKel, FatalHeaven, I know you two don't like off-topic debates that much, but I personally like the two of you quite a bit. Maybe you should check out the recycle bin on occasion or maybe even join interest's vent sometimes (most of us don't use mics, we type for the most part.)

Maybe I'll see you there sometime. It isn't that I don't like the debates, but I often need to feel a personal interest in one to take part. It goes along the same lines of if I have no knowledge or experience about what I am speaking about, I tend to remain on the sidelines.

Thank you for the invite :)

Messaggio di FatalHeaven

Yeah. I wouldn't appreciate it if someone called something unpleasant "Christian" because they thought Christians were unpleasant. Referring to unpleasant things with generic characteristics of people that you find unpleasant is insensitive. This holds true for referring to things you don't like as "retarded" also, which I think is deplorable.

I agree. Recently when I told someone that using 'gay' in the wrong context was 'retarded', they called me out on it. And they were completely right. I was being a hypocrit. I have since stopped using the word.

"You can't say that because it offends me"

Invia risposta