Is using the word "gay" to mean "lame" sort of homophobic?

OK, how do the handicapped DIFFERENTLY ABLED feel about this term to mean uncool or foolish?

Use of "gay" as perjorative normalizes all things straight and masculine, which is ultimately pretty offensive to ME since implied in the whole damn mess is the fact that all things masculine are superior to all things not. Addition of a flapping wrist to use of "gay" will result in a sucker punch from Yours Truly.

predictable stock response #1027

Don't be boring, please.

qed.

Oh yeah, I'm sure all the seventh-graders who routinely use "gay" as in "lame" are doing so with an ironic wink that shows that they're actually quite comfortable with homosexuality but are trying to subvert rampant political correctness.

Hahaha "routinely"!

DONNIE'S WEDNESDAY MORNING SCHEDULE

6:30 AM: Wake up.
7:00 AM: Catch school bus.
7:15 AM: Greet Billy.
7:20 AM: Tell Billy that something I saw yesterday is "totally gay".
7:22 AM: Laugh at Billy.
7:28 AM: Pick nose and flick it at girls.
7:30 AM: Try to pants Billy in front of booger girls.
7:35 AM: Telly Billy he's "gayer than the gayest gaymo who ever gayed".
7:40 AM: Exit bus.
7:41 AM: Trip on untied shoelace and fall into garbage can.
7:42 AM: Complain loudly that falling in the trash was "super gay".
7:44 AM: Get stuffed in locker by football team.
7:45 AM: Cry, then furtively masturbate before the janitor arrives to open the locker.
7:50 AM: Finish masturbating for the fourth time.
8:00 AM: Rush to 1st period classroom door. Mutter under breath that Mrs. Gagne is "an ugly dykemo" when she sends me to the principal's office for being late.

(etc etc)

"Cunt" does not have misgynistic roots anymore than "Cock" "Dickhead", "Fanny" "Knob" etc.

(multi-xpost i wasn't referring to James)

Now I've watched you walk around here.
I've watched you meet these
boyfriends, I know, and you tell me how they're deep.
Look but, if these guys, if they're really so great,
tell me, why can't they at least take this place
and take it straight? Why always stoned,
like hippie Johnny is?
I'm straight and I want to take his place.
Oh I'm certainly not stoned, like hippie Johnny is.
I'm straight and I want to take his place.
I said, I'm straight
I said, I'm straight
I'm
I'm straight and I want to take his place
All right you Modern Lovers what do you say?
(I'm straight!)
Tell the world now
(I'm straight!)
I said
(I'm straight!)
Yeah I'm straight and I want to take his place.

yeah, same with that Modern Lovers' song. A "straight" has been a homynymynymynym for a "square" in slang* since at least the '50s.

*or at Lenny Bruce called it in his autobio, "a hipster argot"

(PS Kingfish: Since when have the words "square" and "straight" been pronounced the same way???)

Ha ha ha ha

I have worse problems with the "reclaimed" use of "queer," but my feelings about the subject have been well-documented elsewhere, and boy, does that sound smug when I type it out.

ARE YOU SAYING I'M GAY ?!?!?

mmm...just the way it trickles

"A "straight" has been a cinnamon for a "square" in slang* since at least the '50s."

There. My bad.

As a gay guy I use "gay" sometimes in the pejorative 80s schoolkid way to describe something that is mawkish, wimpy, badly executed, embarassing etc. I'm from a generation that used it as slang that way when we were 8 years old and I'm no different from anyone else; now it's so corny and dated sounding as an insult, in part because of general cultural trends and changes in people's awareness about homophobia, that it's *funnier now* qua insult than when it was first a schoolyard taunt.

But . . .

I'm still not into hearing straight men use it as a pejorative. I would rather they didn't feel too cozy about it.

Hypocrisy? Yep. It sure is.

It's a straight world and fags like me have to live in it. Straight privilege is a fact of life, and the people it benefits tend not to see that they are enjoying a freedom and a safety of unchallenged cultural dominance which underwrites their confidence in saying whatever they feel, and they correspondingly tend not to see that they reinforce straight priviliege with their actions- and if you try to school somebody on this then you're the boring uncool uptight PC dork fag etc. "Having a sense of humor" means being cool with other people's bullshit and ignorance, or making the extra effort to be understanding and slow to wrath for the sake of "getting along", or worse, simply suffering the presence of jaded hipsters pretending to be so "post-PC" that they think they deserve a free ride because surely we all know that they aren't *really* bigoted, and whatever homophobic or racist slur slips out of their mouth is them just being wild and loose.

The more recent meaning of the word in reference to homosexuality is only the fourth listing in the dictionary because it is the most recent when the gay movement appropriated the term to generate positive connotations. While this has generally supplanted the older meaning, I think the pejorative "gay" is often related to both meanings and usually in the camp musical Sound of Music sense.

Coincidence? The answer to thread is yes.

Just today I thought, "Why is it straight men can have schoolgirl fetishes but if homosexual men had schoolboy fetishes they'd be viewed as pedophiles?"

Both can have whatever fantasies they like. However, if either of them act on it then they're pedophiles.

Re: the original question...

...I caught crap for using the word "gay" during my first week of University by an overzealous member of the residence staff who was all fired up from their "how-to-be-ultra-PC" training course. I was then forced to invent a new word with which to voice my displeasure at the situation and informed them that they were, in fact, "Gay-tarded". Needless to say, it didn't go over so well. Some people need to relax and understand that it's just a silly, intentionally ironic, holdover from childhood.

You're saying this as if that isn't the meaning

I don't use the word "gay" to mean "lame"... or the word "lame", to be honest. I say "wow, you're so Jewish". If Jewish people get offended, I just tell them they're being over-sensitive.

Its very GAY, though.

(see how i cleverly worked in the word "fascist" in there? i've just offended a load of people who believe in actual fascism)

(xpost nope a woman)

maybe a more constructive use of this thread is to find a list of derogatory words that don't have any offensive meanings (erm.. apart from the primary purpose of causing offence, that is, i mean. so like, not a metaphor derived from any stereotype/group)

like oh, you're SUCH an APPLE!!

apples don't mind if you offend them. They're very relaxed.

e.g.
1. turd "don't be such a turd"
2. rubbish "this party is so rubbish"
3. woman "oh don't be such a woman about it" OK KIDDING CHILL ETC.

xp

"fuck off FM"
"hey man, stop calling me that"
"why the Hi-Fi not"
"that word was based on a stereo type!"

What about "poorly-crafted occasional table"?

THAT is a good insult. Try it, next time you're in the pub.

I wonder how different the US would be if everyone was made to live in a culture where white people weren't in control for six months.

For the record, I'm not a freshman, that story is 9 years old. Second, I'm a black guy who grew up in a suburb in Canada, so I know a little bit about racist remarks. The thing that you, and the people who get upset by the use of the word "gay" in this context, need to understand, is that it's the sentiment behind the word that matters. People who use "gay" to mean lame are not defaming homosexuals anymore than the 8-year old kids shouting it on the playground are. For that reason, any comparison to a racial slur just doesn't equate.

Furthermore, although I deplore the use of the "some-of-my-best-friends are..." argument in attempting to dispel notions of bigorty, a couple of my friends actually are gay, and they don't mind this. I've also got female friends who use the word "bitch". Should I jump down their throats the next time they say this? If you were to argue that it's stupid or childish, then I'd probably agree with you. You'll never convince me that it's homophobic though.

"Thanks for telling me to relax, I plan to do exactly that just as soon as I have the same legal rights as a straight person."

You know, where I come from you do - so relax.

Funny thing was, the same people would have happily said "thats so gay" all the time and thought nothing of it.

I'm not sure I agree with J-rock's comment "People who use "gay" to mean lame are not defaming homosexuals anymore than the 8-year old kids shouting it on the playground are." either. Surely the whole point of its origin - presumably BY kids in the playground - was to SLUR someone by implying they were gay.

Anyway the biggest point must surely be that like, dude, saying something is "so gay" went out with the ark and is best left to 8 year olds, doncha think?

Bollocks. Don't tell us what we "need to understand". Its exceptionally fucking patronising and likely to piss us sensitive homosexuals off.

Look, the reason why its defamatory has been done to death above. I'm not going over it again, because I've already done this on other threads.

When people stop being murdered, executed, discriminated against, shunned for being gay then the use of the word in that context will have lost its power. Until then, any use in a defamatory sense adds to the prejudice, and anyone using the word is part of the problem.

i think a lot of the people who use the word gay to mean lame are unconnected with the injustice of which you speak.

Look, it may seem like gay people have a chip on their shoulder about this but that's because we're forcibly reminded that we're different EVERY FUCKING DAY OF OUR LIVES and smug comments like yours tend to get fucking annoying after a while.

Phew. This is why I should avoid these threads.

they should.

Again though it's difficult because that sense of difference is perpetuated on both sides.

"By using the word in that context you are endorsing the heterosexist dynamics which underpin our society [and] feed the prejudice that feeds the attacks."

And when "gay" becomes an insult, it stigmatises, whether its meant in a flippant sense or not.

Its easy to laugh at it when it comes from an enlightened lefty sort (although it still disturbs me a bit that people think its okay) - its much less easy when it comes from a child. Kids at that age are forming ideas about the world. Use of the word in such a context at that age is extremely powerful. Especially to the other kids who really ARE gay and are starting to realise that its a "shameful" thing to be.

but because it's flippant, and not meant as an insult, does it stigmatise? i guess it does, or can.

-- Theorry Henry (miltonpinsk...), October 20th, 2005.

I think there are two distinct arguments here - firstly whether its acceptable to use it to mean "lame" (although reading this thread has made me re-consider my usage of that word) and secondly whether its an insult, even if it is flippant.

Let's leave aside the point that the line between those usages is very fine, and it isn't always possible to tell where a person is coming from when they use the word - I've already got FAR deeper into this discussion than I intended to.

I guess I've covered my argument on the first point, too..

When its flippant and not meant as an insult, does it stigmatise? Well, I suppose it depends whether the person its directed at is comfortable with its usage in such a manner, and whether the audience its used in front of are nice homo-friendly sorts or whether there are still a few prejudices lurking in there somewhere. I HAVE had this word used in such a sense by people that I know didn't mean it that way, and I have to say that while I've laughed it off, I've sort of curled up and crawled away inside. Perhaps this reflects on my discomfort and history of having that word thrown at me in a less "friendly" way. I don't know if you can ever strip a person's history and experience with a word away and apply it in a "neutral" situation. It instantly recalls less neutral situations, and the power those carry with them.

I think I may be waffling there so I'll stop.

Most things are funny because they're a little bit naughty or unacceptable. It CAN actually be funny sometimes, but that doesn't mean its not homophobic.. The gay person has to laugh AT themselves, which is a good thing to be able to do, but when do we get to laugh back??

when the dude with the big nose comes along obviously!

erm, what exactly would you laugh at? bad fashion sense? crap dancing? the inanity of lads mags and those silly adverts? Queer Eye? there's plenty of stereotypical aspects of heterosexual male 'culture' to mock out there and mocked they are. or were you talking about something on a grander scale to 'restore the balance' as it were?

For the most part, I'd try and avoid making sweeping assumptions about straight men - that just reinforces prejudice and misunderstanding again. Although I DO reserve the right to sneer at anyone who reads "nuts" (Probably while clutching a Bel Ami video under my arm. Wasn't there a bit up-thread about hypocracy? (insert smiley-face disclaimer here)) but I'd probably do that about people reading the Daily Mail too.

Btw. I do have a sense of humour, really. Its in here, somewhere.

Point is, no self-respecting homosexual would get worked up over using gay like that. If they do, they suck (maybe in both ways...) and need to be ignored. Nobody needs to watch their language because it just happens to have more than one meaning.

xpost

Gay, is perfectly fine to mean stupid. That is its meaning. It is not intended to be a slur, or anything stupid like that. You are confusing meanings when you assume that it is. Or that it is offencive. It is not supposed to be offensive, and when you think of it that way, you are not using the right meaning.

This is just about meanings. Nothing is wrong about using one of the meanings of a word. It does not matter why the meaning arose, just that it did, and you use it correctly. Afterall, am I supposed to believe that gay came about because gay people are happy? That happiness has anything to do with sexuality

idiots.

It is called linguistics. Learn it. There come times when words become removed from their original meaning, and their reason for the change. It does not matter, even if gay realy was meant to be offencive to homosexuals. It is not anymore. It has been sufficiently removed. It does not matter about history. I would say you are ignorant about language.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:G6XcdTrL008tdM:ttc.loungeplace.com/images/smiles/proud.gif

i mean when, as in the 40-Year-Old-Virgin, "making spinach dip in a loaf of sourdough" is "Gay" then im not sure i have any idea what the term means anymore.

(obviously the joke derives from the homosexual connotation of the word, but it's such a random connection im not sure what to make of it. like gay people make dip in loaves of bread? what?)

http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gifhttp://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/pimp.gif

"Sucks" is also rooted in homophobia/sexism, you cocksucker. (Notice the bite lacking in jerkoff/jerk/jackoff/jackass/wanker; that bites.) And you're right, most people don't object to "sucks." It's become abstract. (I did stop using it for a while, and actually use "stinks" more often now as a result.) But "gay" is almost never used by anyone under age 90 to mean "happy." And if you say, in a serious tone, "My older brother is gay," nobody on any playground on earth will be confused and ask you, "Do you mean he's stupid?" The word only gained the negative connotation after being made a synonym for "homosexual" by the gay pride movement in the '70s (not long before "punk rock" took "punk" from prison slang). The gag in 40-Year-Old Virgin would be meaningless without all that.

A good rule of thumb is that if you aren't it, don't say it. Let your retarded friend "reclaim" "retard," and so on. Try leaving "gay" alone for a year, and see if you miss it. You won't. I stopped using "gyp" when I was a kid, and I haven't thought twice about it.

Ironic Homophobia in America: On the increase?
did gay always mean, well....gay?

Just like gay (homosexual) does not imply happiness, gay (stupid) does not imply homosexuality. You just force it to.

Only if you force it that way.

"You're right that most people are able to distinguish the two meanings in their mind, but I do think there's something more insidious going on sometimes; without even consciously realizing it, using "gay" to mean "lame" may color one's views of "gay" to mean anything else."

Not if your brain functions correctly. If you are average Joe using gay as the adjective meaning lame, then you are not even thinking that gay also means homosexual. Not untill you say "that guy is gay," and actualy mean he is homosexual. Then you are probably not thinking that that guy is lame, unless he is both homosexual and lame, in which case it is funny. Such breakdowns in language are funny, and humor largly exists due to them.

You do not, on any level, cycle through all the defignitions for a word when you use only one of them, unless...you just happen to actively be doing it for some reason. Because of this, you are not reinforcing anything. You are just saying that thing over there is lame. It is not homosexual. It is lame. You are not saying to yourself that homosexuality is lame. You are not reinforcing the belief. It is just a word that means lame, and one uses it as such.

I'm 17

you sound juvenile.

how grown up!

see, adult slang is funny.

it's like when a guy is being an asshole, you can choose to call him a prick or a dick.
if he's a juvenile, pussy of a guy, obviously you call him a prick. because he's an asshole based on his insecurity about having a small penis.
but if he's a clever, solid motherfucker, you call him a dick. because he's an asshole with a hugeh ego due to a large penis.

i guess the point is, you're not a dick. i'm sorry i called you juvenile.

if the word 'gay' didn't come with this baggage, that you are weakly arguing no longer exists, you wouldn't ask the thread question. it is this unignorable context that makes you ask this question, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise, to pretend it doesn't exist.

it is this very solipsism that makes your argument seem so juvenile.

"if the word 'gay' didn't come with this baggage, that you are weakly arguing no longer exists, you wouldn't ask the thread question. it is this unignorable context that makes you ask this question, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend otherwise, to pretend it doesn't exist."

ask what question? I answered something. do you mean answer? huh? im so juvenile I don't get this.

Timaeus. Uh?

Soc: Then, if he is not coming, you and the two others must supply his place.

Tim: I know you are, but what am I?

Soc: Do you remember what were the points of which I required you to speak?

Tim: Yo mamma.

Soc: To be sure I will: the chief theme of my yesterday's discourse was the State-how constituted and of what citizens composed it would seem likely to be most perfect.

Tim: YOUR GAY.

What's more, you're arguing that, at the age of seventeen, you've arrived at this absolute truth of how language works. You do realize that people devote their whole lives to understanding how language develops, right? And that there's a possibility - just a possibility - that your "oh, get over it" talk-show approach to the question ignores some pretty big aspects of the question? Well, ok then. Wipe the shit off your lip, as Blount says. Go on: wipe it!

Yeah. It has to do with what the word means. If it is supposed to offend, then I should say that it will. If it is not, it should not. Gay, is not meant to offend anybody.

"You can say, "when I say gay it is utterly divorced from its meaning as homosexual", but that doesn't change how other people will receive it."

It does(queer anyone?), when the meaning of gay does not mean "Lame, with homosexuality added with negative undertoones." If they recieve it differently, they are not working with the correct definition.

"You could take any perjorative term, like the "n" word and say "it doesn't mean what it used to", but that doesn't make it so, and if you started bandying it about, some people might rightfully take offence, no matter what you meant, because of how you expressed it, and what these words still mean to people other than you."

The n word, does mean what it used to. That is its meaning. It is meant to be offensive, hence people take offence. They work from the normal definition, and the normal defignition is offencive.

I, nor anybody else, can be held responsible if a few people do not know what a word actualy means.

"What's more, you're arguing that, at the age of seventeen, you've arrived at this absolute truth of how language works. You do realize that people devote their whole lives to understanding how language develops, right? And that there's a possibility - just a possibility - that your "oh, get over it" talk-show approach to the question ignores some pretty big aspects of the question?"

And yet, it matters not how or why it changed, mearly that it means not anything offensive now. That is its meaning. The end.

that said, 17 is practically an adult, so even if you wanted to give YOURSELF a get out of jail free card - freeing yourself from explaining why newamp is barking up the wrong tree - that won't really wash

it might help, newamp, if you bothered reading what people have written here, especially the parts that confuse you - the parts that don't fit into your theory so well - rather than just picking out little bits you feel will help you score points. trust me, you're not scoring points anyway, so you might as well try to actually get what people are saying instead of cherry-picking the bits you think are easy to shoot down

i THINK "i am not a nugget" mistook you for the question asker; regardless, the fact you came here and posted about this, with this very firm idea of it, guarantees you've thought about this before, and wondered why some people "don't get it" the way you do. have you ever wondered WHY the people who "don't get it" - that "gay" has a double - or triple - meaning - think the way they do? hint: it's not because they're idiots. work from there.

when i was in elementary school, kids called other kids "gayfords" and i had no idea what it meant - i just knew it was bad, and not something one wanted to be. it didn't mean "gay" to me, it just meant something bad. i didn't even know what homosexuality or bisexuality was. so it was totally divorced, separate, discrete from this other meaning. for me. when i learned what "gay" really meant, could i keep using that word? call other people "gayfords," trying to make them feel bad? sure i could. and people did. and insisted it had nothing to do with homosexuality, probably. but people choose words for a reason. if you say "that's so gay," you COULD say "that's so stupid" - but say that you don't - why not? because different words connote slightly different things. and clearly, you're right that people use "gay" to mean something stupid, without reference to actual, explicit, literal homosexuality. and trust me, EVERYONE on this thread knows that. so your continued explanation of it is pretty pointless. what everyone also knows, but which you don't, is that choices of what words to use make a difference - our language is very finely tuned - the english language especially, which has many more thousands of words than most other western languages - so we have many choices of what words to use. the word "gay" automatically carries with it a TINGE, a little SHADOW (or to some people, a BIG shadow) of its other associations: of people calling other people "fags" or "gay" as playground taunts. and you may not realize it, but when you use "gay" instead of "stupid," you're partaking of that history just a little - or a lot - otherwise, you'd use some other word, wouldn't you?

exactly. you keep denying that people will take offence at what you say, newamp, becausde they will know exactly what meaning you are chosing when using a word. but like i said, you have no control over a) how they will receive the word, which meaning they will take to use, and b) the history of the word itself. and it is - and i'm scrabbling for the right word here - anti social to decide that its just your opinion that matters. and, like i said, it is disingenuous to deny that people could take your meaning the wrong way, when you are aware that they might.

and again, it isn't a 17 year old straight boy's decision, whether or not the word 'gay' is offensive or not.

To most people, "gay" MEANS homosexual. So you are directly equating homosexual with lame/stupid.bad or whatever. It's certainly possible that among your friends, no-one gives a second though to the word gay as between you all it means nothing but "lame". BUT, unfortunately, you and/or your group of friends are NOT the whole world, and you simply can't assume that other people will respond to the words you use in the same way.

So I am totally happy to accept that YOU have convinced yourself that gay is just another word that means lame. But you are not other people, so you have no jurisdiction to tell them how to think or assume that they think the same way as you. And you must know that there are enough homophobic people out there to understand that using words that reinforce negative attitudes towards homosexuality is an unwise and irresonsible thing to do.

People are offended by it, so you shouldn't say it. I mean, come on, be white.

Until there is consensus or otherwise authoritative statement of the meaning of a word or phrase, that word will have at least some element of equivocality, or multiple meanings. In this, you're correct.

BUT - in the event that something can be interpreted multiple ways, and, when used in a pejorative tone and context in statement, that word can be EXTREMELY offensive to certain others, it is in your best interest to stop using it that way.

I were to call someone "my nigger" and mean nothing but love, respect, and affection for them, it would still be offensive b/c I am a white man.

newamp, even if claiming something is gay is a completely innocuous term among you and your friends, it's not that way out in the world at large. My friend looked like a hateful anti-semite, and while using "gay" as an insult is more common among kids than other terms, it's no less hateful to those who claim the word on less casual terms.

i THINK "i am not a nugget" mistook you for the question asker; regardless, the fact you came here and posted about this, with this very firm idea of it, guarantees you've thought about this before, and wondered why some people "don't get it" the way you do. have you ever wondered WHY the people who "don't get it" - that "gay" has a double - or triple - meaning - think the way they do? hint: it's not because they're idiots. work from there"

I don't even know what you are talking about here. What parts are you talking about? What picking are you talking about? What are these points you speak of? Tell me, what am I ignoring?

"you keep denying that people will take offence at what you say"

Wrong. I never said such a thing, I said they should not take offence, and if they do they it's their problem who don't know what a word means.

"at what you say because they will know exactly what meaning you are chosing when using a word. But like I said, you have no control over a) how they will receive the word, which meaning they will take to use, and b) the history of the word itself"

And? Again, I can't help it if some people don't know the meaning of a word.

"And it is - and i'm scrabbling for the right word here - anti social to decide that its just your opinion that matters. And it is disingenuous to deny that people could take your meaning the wrong way, when you are aware that they might."

Nobody has said they won't. What I *did* say, was that it does not matter if they take it a different way, because the meaning they take does not exist within the word. They think it does, but it does not.

"To most people, "gay" MEANS homosexual. So you are directly equating homosexual with lame/stupid.bad or whatever"

No, it's not. I can't begin to say how many times I have adressed this, and I will not adress it again here.

"It's certainly possible that among your friends, no-one gives a second thought to the word gay as between you all it means nothing but "lame". BUT, unfortunately, you and/or your group of friends are NOT the whole world, and you simply can't assume that other people will respond to the words you use in the same way."

Myself and my friends seem to know *gasp* what the word actualy means! Amazing! Who would have thought it? Again, tough shit to those who don't know what a word means. I can't help that they pull imaginary meanings out of their asses.

"So I am totally happy to accept that YOU have convinced yourself that gay is just another word that means lame. But you are not other people, so you have no jurisdiction to tell them how to think or assume that they think the same way as you. And you must know that there are enough homophobic people out there to understand that using words that reinforce negative attitudes towards homosexuality is an unwise and irresonsible thing to do."

Gay, is not a word that reinforces negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Just because a bunch of people think it does, does not make it so. Thus, I use the word correctly. Others use it correctly. And the people who don't, are stupid and taking offence at nothing

How on earth do words gain meaning apart from "just a bunch of people believing it does." When / if you get to university and learn basic semiotics / language effects, you'll get it.

This too.

Wait, actually, that's EXACTLY what makes it so. I mean, how else do definitions of words come to be? By a bunch of people deciding to interpret a word in a particular way. And if a massive group of people take it to mean one thing, then that's good evidence that it DOES mean that. There's no one on high making proclamations about word definitions: they develop as people use them.

(xpost, obv)

Didn't occur to you that because a bunch of people think it does, then that means IT DOES? It is offensive because it offends and maligns a group of people. Thats it. End of story.

The origin of younger kids using gay as a non-homosexual perjorative IS THE FACT IT INSULTS BY IMPLYING HOMOSEXUALITY. I'm 35, I watched the word grow from that with my own eyes and ears.

You might want to take a few seconds to consider how privileged it is of you to think otherwise, k?

It would probably end up like one of those non-white cultures where the best thing most people can envision is to be able to escape their shit-hole existence and emigrate to America.

i would also prefer (as a gay person, tho perhaps that doesnt matter) that people didn't use the word gay to mean lame. i mean, obviously......

i myself do it occasionally but i mean it to be humorously selfdepricating when i do. & i mean to stop.

1. it felt to me like the gay/dumb thing happened in the past 5 years or so, and came to us from younger people. people who never grew up in the 70s (or even 80s) with gay / AIDS-awareness movements.

2. i was listening to ny's free fm (after Howard Stern left) and the guys doing the "talk" thing were doing, say, lists of "top 10 ways you suspect your buddy is gay." I swear, they're obssessed by the cultural details that apparently divide the worlds.

3. There's been some discussion (elsewhere on ilx) about the way that it's now common in various circles (hip hop stars, frat radio/magazines/websites) to do the whole gay men = laughable, gay women = hot lesbian pron action...are the two things related?

i guess it's just this whole queasy feeling i have imagining straight (male) kids at parties encouraging drunk girls to kiss, while calling other guys (who aren't into it) "gay." This is a cluster of not very coherent thoughts, but anyone care to comment?

x-post: sejb: you're a fucking idiot. once / if you travel, you'll discover whole cultures and nations happily and consciously unattracted to living in the US.

but the original comment wasn't? i was just illustrating the fact that any anti-white racist comment can be easily answered with an anti-black one. "Whites supported slavery". "Really, who was it who ended international slavery. Certainly not the Africans or the Arabs" etc.

If race is an arbitrary characteristic, which to all intents and purposes I believe it is, then isn't using race as a pejorative when describing oppression counterproductive?

Correct. However, using "gay" (you know, the word that for the last 50 years has been the universal term for people wot fancy their own gender) to mean pathetic/lame/stupid makes an explicit connection between homosexual and bad/negative/wrong.

Newamp, you should be grateful people are giving you the benefit of the doubt, by and large, because your arguments, and your refusal to understand what other people are trying to explain (and doing so thoughtfully and carefully in words that even the most naive of 17-year-olds *should* be able to understand), make you look ignorant*.

I'm sure you're not going to become a regular poster, so it's no skin off our nose. It's just a shame you're incapable of learning and are defensive and stubborn to the point of idiocy*. Time to do some growing up.

*possibly the word "ignorant" means "totally rad" and "idiocy" means "hott chix wanting some big boy newamp loving" in the world of newamp, in which case I will feel very foolish.

Sorry... Firefly slang. Heh.

you entire last post, and conversation style, is an example of what i'm talking about - choosing bits to shoot down, just saying "wrong," reasserting your orig. points without adding anything new.

What are these points you speak of? Tell me, what am I ignoring?

well, for instance, i mentioned that everyone here knows that the word "gay" is used in different ways. trust me. everyone. and still you say:

I can't help it if some people don't know the meaning of a word.

so, you just skipped right over that, because it conflicts with your argument, which is that people who take offense don't realize that the word means something else, i.e. that they're idiots. WE KNOW "GAY" IS USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. what you're not getting is that there these different meanings are CONNECTED. they interact with each other. using "gay" to mean stupid has a different meaning than using "stupid" to mean stupid, because of the word's CONTINUING use as a playground insult that implies homosexuality.

i know this won't change yr point of view. i know you'll say "yes, but when I use it, it doesn't mean that." good for you. but meanings of words don't depend on you. they depend on a culture, and what people understand words to mean.

(*in the head. )

I know some hulking-leather bears who could beat the shit out of you, if you really need proof.

But isn't the 'effeminate' thing on the whole an accurate generalisation. Or are you saying that all criticisms of 'macho bullshit' should equally apply to gay men?

So no.

And I live in GAY CAPITAL USA, I know from gay stereotypes and how accurate they are.

What did I say that's so unreasonable? I wasn't making any value judgements about whether effeminacy is a bad thing! I don't think it is!

Accurate generalisation = one that holds true for the most part but not in all cases.

For example, it's GENERALLY true that people with British citizenship speak English (but far from being always the case). How would you prefer such a statement to be re-phrased?

I assumed by this you were applying your own value judgement of gays being "unmanly" and "feeble". If you just meant general perception, thats different - but its still a bit silly (even though yes, Ive met plenty of very mincing camp queens, but its as much a stereotype as the macho bullshit straight guy is).

xpost

Yeah um, if you want to hear something new from me, you need to make a new argument. I repeat myself, because your arguments are the same damn thing over and over again.

Well, for instance, I mentioned that everyone here knows that the word "gay" is used in different ways. Trust me. Everyone. And still you say:

"I can't help it if some people don't know the meaning of a word."

"So, you just skipped right over that, because it conflicts with your argument, which is that people who take offense don't realize that the word means something else, i.e. that they're idiots. I KNOW "GAY" IS USED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. What you're not getting is that there these different meanings are CONNECTED. They interact with each other. Using "gay" to mean stupid has a different meaning than using "stupid" to mean stupid, because of the word's CONTINUING use as a playground insult that implies homosexuality."

Um, that does not conflict at all with anything I say:

1 - Not a single definition of "gay" comes up as "Stupid with negativity towards homosexuals." That definition does not exist. Therefore, regardless of multiple definitions, since that definition does not exist, Gay, is not bad.

2 - Different meanings are not connected. I already freeking spoke of this. Several times. Goddamn, over and over again, I have spoken of why this is so. I don't see anything backing up your damn statement that they are.

"Wait, actually, that's EXACTLY what makes it so. I mean, how else do definitions of words come to be? By a bunch of people deciding to interpret a word in a particular way"

Definitions comes to be by how the words are used. If what you said was even remotely true, history, humanity, mankind, the fact that the masculine pronoun is also a neutral pronoun ect. would all be completely differenet words, and would be offencive.

Your arguments are wea. You don't say anything, other than "it is so." Oh good thing it's not. Definitions come mostly from their use, not from their interpretation.

"I know this won't change your point of view. I know you'll say "yes, but when I use it, it doesn't mean that." Good for you. But meanings of words don't depend on you. They depend on a culture, and what people understand words to mean."

Except not. When I use it, it does not mean that because it does not mean that by itself. The word has no offensive definition. It is not like the n word, and various slurs for hispanics and jews etc or anything like that. It's gay, and gay has no negative defignition. Once again, if it did, we would not be having this conversation.

newamp you yourself admit gay = stupid (but not "gay" as in homosexual).

Fine, thats a given. WHY DOES IT MEAN STUPID THOUGH?

Would it be because calling something (or someone) "Gay" was and is a threat, an insult to their manhood, so it morphed into a generic term as a result?

But wait, thats just too obvious, surely?

newamp if you can explain to us all why your usage of gay means stupid, and stupid alone, with NO linkage to its other meanings, and make it make sense, we might buy it.

In epistemology, contextualist accounts of knowledge became increasingly popular toward the end of the 20th century as responses to the problem of skepticism. Since the skeptic tries to undermine the very possibility of knowledge by showing that there are many states of affairs that are consistent with our evidence for a belief but these beliefs are false, the contextualist has moved to block certain states of affairs from being relevant in talk of knowledge. The claim, attributed to Stewart Cohen, Fred Dretske, Gail Stine, David Lewis, and more recently, Keith DeRose and others, is that the word 'knowledge' is a sort of indexical. The standards for knowledge, the contexualist claims, vary from one user's context to the next. Thus, if I say "John knows that his car is in front of him", the utterance is true just in case (1) John believes that his car is in front of him, (2) the car is in fact in front of him, and (3) John meets the epistemic standards that my (the speaker's) context selects. This is a loose contextualist account of knowledge, and there are many significantly different theories of knowledge that can fit this contextualist template and thereby come in a contextualist form. For instance, an evidentialist account of knowledge can be an instance of contextualism if it's held that how strongly supported by one's evidence one's belief must be if it is to count as knowledge is a contextually varying matter. And one who accepts a relevant alternatives account of knowledge -- on which to know that p one must be able to rule out all the relevant alternatives to p -- can be a contextualist by holding that what range of alternatives are relevant is sensitive to conversational context. DeRose adopts a type of modal or "safety" (as it has since come to known) account on which knowledge is a matter of one's belief as to whether or not p is the case matching the fact of the matter, not only in the actual world, but also in the sufficiently close possible worlds: Knowledge amounts to there being no "nearby" worlds in which one goes wrong with respect to p. But how close is sufficiently close? It's here that DeRose takes the modal account of knowledge in a contextualist direction, for the range of "epistemically relevant worlds" is what varies with context: In high standards contexts one's belief must match the fact of the matter through a much wider range of worlds than is relevant to low standards contexts. The main tenet of contextualism, now matter what account of knowledge it is wedded to, is that when we attribute knowledge to someone, what matters is in what context we use the term 'knowledge'. If we use it in everyday conversational contexts, the contextualist maintains, we can save most of the knowledge we think we have from skeptical hypotheses. If the term 'knowledge' is used when skeptical hypotheses are being considered, then the utterances regarding knowledge that a person has are false. It is important to note that this theory does not allow that someone can have knowledge at one moment and not the other, for this would hardly be a satisfying epistemological answer. What contexutalism entails is that in one context an utterance of a knowledge attribution can be true, and in a context with higher standards for knowledge, the same statement can be false. This happens in the same way that 'I' can correctly refer to many people at the same time.

In the philosophy of language, the context principle is a form of semantic holism holding that a philosopher should "never ... ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only in the context of a proposition" (Frege [1884/1980] x). It is one of Gottlob Frege's "three fundamental principles" for philosophical analysis, first discussed in his Introduction to the Foundations of Arithmetic (Grundlagen der Arithmetik, 1884). Frege argued that many philosophical errors, especially those related to psychologism in the philosophy of logic and philosophy of mathematics, could be avoided by adhering carefully to the context principle. The view of meaning expressed by the context principle is sometimes called contextualism, but should not be confused with the common contemporary use of the term "contextualism" in epistemology or ethics. The contrasting view, that the meanings of words or expressions can be (or must be) determined prior to, and independently of, the meanings of the propositions in which they occur, is often referred to as compositionalism.

The context principle also figures prominently in the work of other Analytic philosophers who saw themselves as continuing Frege's work, such as Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

No. The way I hear it used among most kids, it doesn't even mean "lame" in that literal sense. It's really closer to "wrong" or "fucked up," and usually doesn't apply to inviduals except to say that a person's opinions or actions are wrong or fucked up. Newamp defends it as meaning "stupid," but it doesn't really have to do with the intelligence of a person. Nobody who gets an F on a test would ever say, "I'm so gay." (Would they?)

I know you can't mean this literally. In order to use a word, you need to assign meaning to that word in your mind. This is a form of interpretation.

"You must understand something that is an absolute truth: Words don't mean anything until they are recieved. Either heard or read, they only achieve their true meanings when they are recieved."

Dictionaries don't exist. Got it.

Okay. You use gay to mean lame and nothing else. However, many people will hear you using that word and think, "hey, that guy is using a word that means queer as a term of abuse! Therefore, he is implying that queer = bad!"

So you see - it's not YOUR reading of the word that matters when you use it in a public space (such as here), it's how OTHERS choose to interpret it. Only your close friends and acquaintances will know you mean no offence by it; anyone else, including all us liberals in internetland, think you should appreciate the impact certain words and the different ways they can be read.

Thing is, the deal with verbalising your thoughts is that, by definition, they become communicative - the whole point in speaking is to tell other people your thoughts. If you are speaking solely for yourself, all you have to do is think the words.

If you respond to this post with "gay means lame and nothing else because I decree it so" I shall start talking to you in baby talk as clearly you're not bright enought to use grown up arguments.

Oh, you're falling back to dictionary definitions now? I just checked dictionary.com and Merriam Webster online, and there's not "lame/stupid" definition for "gay" there. What dictionary are you desperately clinging to that has that definition?

Get one semiotics, kid.

then, using 'gay' to mean 'lame' or 'bad' like you do is incorrect, isn't it?

You can tell if it's meant to be offensive due to the context. Those who get offended regardless of the context should be taken in by the PC brigade.

i mean, the chance is that many non-'17 year old straight males who need to feel oppressed somehow' you come across in your life won't share your interpretation of the word, and might well assume something of you because of it. again, if you're okay with that, go ahead. if being justified in your own mind is enough, then that's cool. but you don't have divine authorial control over language or how it is interpreted, and you have even less control over peoples' perception of you as a result of behaving this way. if you have no problem behaving without concern to the sensitivities of those around, then sure, go ahead, but you have no-one but yourself to blame if they assume you are some ignorant immature shithead. first impressions last you know.

Not a single definition of "gay" comes up as "Stupid with negativity towards homosexuals."

You're right. If you say "that's so gay," meaning "that's so stupid," in outer space with nobody else around, and you don't mean it in a homophobic way, you're not expressing "negativity towards homosexuals."

However, if you're surrounded by people--each with his or her own possible usage/definition/interpretation of any given word--it's another story. Hear me out on this.

Let's say you're at a party, and the host tells everyone to go home, the cops are shutting it down. "That's so gay," you say. By saying this loudly (without irony), you're communicating more than one thing. You're actually saying to the people around you:

1. "That's so stupid."
2. "By 'gay,' I mean 'stupid.'"
3. "I assume you all understand this."
4. "I assume you're not offended by it"
or
5. "If you are offended, I don't care. It's the correct usage."

Since you know there are people on this planet who do take that usage of "gay" as an insult to gays in any context (correctly or not), and since you know there are gays who might themselves feel insulted or dehumanized by this (correctly or not), you're further saying:

6. "I don't care if you think I'm insulting gays."
7. "I don't care if you think I'm insulting you."

And since it's a party, where being antisocial isn't exactly the norm, you're also in effect saying:

8. I assume most people here feel as I do.
9. If you don't, you're the odd one out.

Since you can't read the minds of even your closest friends, you have no way of knowing whether any of them is the odd one out. To the person who might feel differently than you, you're essentially bonding with others against him or her. If he or she doesn't complain (nobody wants to be a killjoy, or seem overly sensitive), it's a psychic victory for your arrogance, not necessarily the consensus you imagine.

And if that person happens to be homosexual, I've just outlined the dynamics of the closet. Unless you turn to a gay friend after dropping the g-word, and say, jokingly, "No offense," you run the risk of making other GLBT partygoers feel unwelcome or worse.

I've watched the term "politically correct" go from being an ironic in-joke on the left (in the early '80s) to becoming what it largely is today: a cover for being thoughtless. Let me ask you:

Do you agree that we live in a violently and absurdly homophobic world? Do you agree that outside you and your friends, an overwhelming majority of English speakers equate "gay" with homosexual? Do you know that "gay" is a common first term of pride for GLBT youth? (Hard to imagine out gay kids dropping it to mean "stupid." Do you know any?) If so, then it should be no stretch of your imagination to guess that some kids out there will be confused, thinking that maybe all the people using "gay" to mean "bad" actually think gay is bad.

If even one person feels that way, why is it so important to preserve this bit of unoriginal slang? I notice you don't address the use of "Gyp" or "Jew" as verbs above. I'm guessing those aren't part of your vocabulary. Ever wonder why? Because somewhere along the line, one version or another of your imagined "P.C. brigade" (an outspoken Jew or Gypsy, probably) said enough was enough. It was gay activism that got the clinical-sounding noun "homosexual" replaced with "gay" in the first place, as I already said. Language changes. It's people that do the changing.

My point is: Your indifference is what expresses "negativity towards homosexuals."

(I mean saying it explicitly, it's not like he gets implicit undertones or anything)

Yes they do! Look!

The BBC thinks it's OK that Chris Moyles described a ringtone as 'gay' while on air. But is it really acceptable that the word has come to mean 'rubbish' - and should a Radio 1 DJ be joining in? Tim Lusher, for one, thinks not

that is not a bottle for actual babies, surely? but for big fat hairy homos who dress up in diapers, right?

-- kenan, Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:25 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Link