Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair i dunno we used 2 say it all the time was kind the pharse for a few years just kinda faded out maybe coz it was offensive was never told it was offensive tho
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think its necessarily wrong. Language is continually evolving and meanings are continually changing.

    The word 'naff' was originally part of homosexual patois. It meant 'not for *******' (ie. straight) but now we use it in a completely different way. If it hangs around it will eventually be accepted into common parlance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    It's not me that is claiming that its separate, its a demonstrable fact:
    Go around the country, and every time you hear someone say "that's gay" ask them what they mean. If the majority of people you ask mention something about homosexuality, I will concede the point. Otherwise you will have to. Who do you think will be proved correct?
    Well of course the people who use the phrase 'it's gay' are not going to realise/admit the homophobic connotations. However, the people who use this phrase aren't the only ones who matter. You can't just use a word one way and say 'this is now one of its definitions'. It would be much more accurate to go around the country and ask everyone
    - not just the people who say it- whether they think the perjorative use of the word 'gay' is related to or separate from the standard use of it. I think the majority would say it's related.



    (Original post by py0alb)
    precisely, and the word "gay" in this context has echoes of homophobia in it.
    10 years after the word beef started to be popularly used there would be very strong connotations of the french it was derived from. Just as 10 years after the word gay started to be used popularly to mean bad, there are still very strong connotations of homophobia. The hundreds of years of beef being used to mean cow meat in our language makes its implications very different from the hugely new use of 'gay'.




    (Original post by py0alb)
    I'm afraid this is just pure ignorance on your behalf. A "bugger" or a "sod" were both pejorative terms for homosexual men (and official terms as well) that have become harmless epithets over the course of time as they have become separated from their prior meaning, in the same way that "gay" has become separated from it's original meaning over the last 10 years. It's a well known and widely accepted linguistic phenomenon. The word "gay", meaning "stupid or annoying" will become more widely accepted and used over the next 10 years, until it becomes "old-fashioned" like bugger, and is supplanted by a new word for ill-informed idiots to get worked up about.

    If you can't see the clear correspondence between the etymology of "bugger" and "gay", then there's not really much point in talking to you about linguistics, as you seem to be entirely missing the point anyway. As if the frequency of use of a particular word has any bearing on it's relevance in this discussion. Bizarre.
    Yes, I don't know much at all about the etymology of 'bugger' and 'sods law'. Since I don't use either term and don't know anyone who does, it's not really relevent to me, and I don't really have to have an opinion on it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xisforextreme)
    Sounds a lot like Newspeak to me! Any attempt to control language and it's usage is an assault on freedom, and more importantly, thought. To advocate control on the usage of any word, simply because of a dislike for it's connotations, is, in a way, an attempt to control thought.
    Do you really believe that to simply forbid or put out of fashion words or phrases associated with hatred or prejudice we can eliminate these elements from society? Even if this is the case, would the price be worth it? Simply no longer saying something is very different from no longer thinking it.

    The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. - George Orwell,1984
    Maybe you should have actually read my posts before leaping at the chance to talk about Orwell. I've stated several times that I'm totally for freedom of speech, and in no way think that saying 'that's gay' should be made illegal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    You're not messing with my head, you're just saying irrelevent things to try and justify using language irresponsibly and offensively.

    If your friends say they're anti-homophobia and still use the word gay offensively, then they're just hypocrites, that's all. And probably pretty ignorant. That doesn't prove anything.

    Language is not just 'letters and sounds'. Language is the way we communicate, it's the way we spread ideas and teach other people. We have to be responsible for the way we use language because if we don't we allow prejudice and hatred to blossom under the excuse of 'it's just language'. Since you think language is just 'letters and sounds' would you go up to a black person and call them the 'N' word to their face, and expect them not to be offended? Would you be ok with people going around calling your mother/sister/girlfriend *****es and sluts and the 'C' word? Would you expect your mum to be ok with casually being called these things, because there's 'nothing inherent' about words?

    You can't just redefine what you mean by a word and then expect nobody to be offended, or expect that to be ok. I can't suddenly say 'as far as I'm concerned, the 'N' word now is not offensive and just means black person, so I'm going to call every black person I meet a ******.' That's not how it works, and I'm at a loss to see how you can possibly claim it is.
    There is a difference between refusing to address your points and just ignoring them because you don't think they hold water.
    Seeing as you asked so nicely I shall.

    Notice how I never said language is just letters and sounds. Read back what I said and then realise what you are doing is putting words into my mouth. Look up "straw man fallacy". That is why I didn't address your point because It was replying to a point I never made.

    For prejudice and hatred to use "it's just language" as an excuse there must first be prejudice and hatred. I am not prejudice against gays and I don't hate gays. It is not an excuse for me to say "It's just language" because I have no hatred to excuse.

    I have told you before that I am not looking for a fight, so no I wouldn't go up to a black person (or my girlfriends mum as i said in the example I used myself) and call them a N ******. Of course I would expect them to be offended, I have never said I wasn't.
    With you points about would I be fine if people called my mum a slut, you miss the point entirely. In context it is fine. If my mums friends were joking around and calling each other sluts, like I joke and call my ***** a *****, then that is fine.
    If someone comes at my mum with eyes full of hatred and said **** you slut/*****! then I would not be happy, not because of the words, but because of the hatred. It is all about context. And yes there is nothing inherent in these words. If someone said to my mum eyes filled with hatred "**** YOU WOMAN!!" I would be equally offended because of the hatred. The words don't matter.

    Again as I have said a million times before, I can redefine a word to mean whatever I rabbit. But, as I have also said before I am not stupid enough to think no one will be offended/understand what I am on cake.

    If you could understand what the last two sentences said, and what the words rabbit and cake were swapped for you have learnt a lesson about context. congratulations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    You misunderstand me. I am happy to debate my thoughts in a forum, I enjoy it and that's why I am here.

    However when I am in "the real world" debating with random strangers when I am trying to go about my day is not something I can be bothered to do. I can handle people criticising my views, but i just don't care enough to debate everyone who does unless I want to (like now). I hope you understand.
    I think that if you use language that you know is contraversial, and you know many people are offended by, then you have to put up with having to defend your use of language, really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    Okay, not homophobia then, hatred of gays.

    It's offensive and hateful that the word is used to mean something bad. It's offensive to perpetuate this usage whether you really hate gays or not. Using it anyway when you know where it comes from completely disregards and dismisses the feelings of gay people and is therefore offensive.
    Even the numerous gays in this thread who have said they use it? They hate gays? :curious:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Well of course the people who use the phrase 'it's gay' are not going to realise/admit the homophobic connotations. However, the people who use this phrase aren't the only ones who matter. You can't just use a word one way and say 'this is now one of its definitions'. It would be much more accurate to go around the country and ask everyone
    - not just the people who say it- whether they think the perjorative use of the word 'gay' is related to or separate from the standard use of it. I think the majority would say it's related.

    .
    lol. How very rigorously scientific. You might as well just answer the question for them if you're going to phrase it like that.

    How about this:

    You play them a clip of conversation in which someone says "that's so gay", or something similar. You then ask the the subject to describe what the speaker meant by that particular sentence.

    Of course, this test really wouldn't be fair unless you ascertained that the subject had heard the expression before. In the same way, you could ask me what "X" means in a certain context, where X is some London street slang term I've never heard of (not being from London), and I might make an uneducated guess that would almost certainly be wrong, and related to another meaning of the word that I was familiar with.

    Face it, the meaning is now completely different and you know it, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I think that if you use language that you know is contraversial, and you know many people are offended by, then you have to put up with having to defend your use of language, really.
    I don't have to defend anything if I don't want to. They can ask but In reality I will just ignore them. Here you are lucky because I am satisfied with the lovely controlled environment we have here to engage in happy and fun discussion.

    If people in real life make a fuss about me using gay in a bad way then **** them, I don't care. If they take things that seriously then I wouldn't really care about what they think of me anyway.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Technically, but pfft
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Even the numerous gays in this thread who have said they use it? They hate gays? :curious:
    You don't have to have literal hate for a group for something you say to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    11 pages ?

    this thread is gay
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Even the numerous gays in this thread who have said they use it? They hate gays? :curious:
    Didn't you hear? Everyone who doesn't refuse to say anything that may not be politically correct is a rascist, sexist, homophobe! :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    There is a difference between refusing to address your points and just ignoring them because you don't think they hold water.
    Seeing as you asked so nicely I shall.

    Notice how I never said language is just letters and sounds. Read back what I said and then realise what you are doing is putting words into my mouth. Look up "straw man fallacy". That is why I didn't address your point because It was replying to a point I never made.
    It was an exact quote from your post (#89). You said 'words are just letters and sounds'. My point was referring to this.


    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    For prejudice and hatred to use "it's just language" as an excuse there must first be prejudice and hatred. I am not prejudice against gays and I don't hate gays. It is not an excuse for me to say "It's just language" because I have no hatred to excuse.
    You might not, no, but this hatred and prejudice is very present in our society, and the use of the word gay to mean bad just reinforces this, and excuses other people's hatred.



    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    I have told you before that I am not looking for a fight, so no I wouldn't go up to a black person (or my girlfriends mum as i said in the example I used myself) and call them a N ******. Of course I would expect them to be offended, I have never said I wasn't.
    With you points about would I be fine if people called my mum a slut, you miss the point entirely. In context it is fine. If my mums friends were joking around and calling each other sluts, like I joke and call my ***** a *****, then that is fine.
    If someone comes at my mum with eyes full of hatred and said **** you slut/*****! then I would not be happy, not because of the words, but because of the hatred. It is all about context. And yes there is nothing inherent in these words. If someone said to my mum eyes filled with hatred "**** YOU WOMAN!!" I would be equally offended because of the hatred. The words don't matter.
    Intention doesn't matter, lets say there's no intention to offend. But say you invite a mate back to your house to meet your mum, and he greets her with 'hey *****'. Would you expect your mum to not be offended, and to accept that he's simply 'redefining' the word? Of course not. We cannot ignore the history and implications the words have. That history will always be there. Saying you're 'redefining' the word is crazy. What if- with no malicious intent- you went up to your girlfriend's mum and called her a ******? Would you just explain that you're redefining the word to mean 'black person' and expect her to think that's ok? You say the words don't matter- of course the words matter. Words are symbols, they have history and implications.

    (Original post by HyperGiant)
    Again as I have said a million times before, I can redefine a word to mean whatever I rabbit. But, as I have also said before I am not stupid enough to think no one will be offended/understand what I am on cake.
    But I thought your whole point is that people shouldn't be offended. You can redefine words, but they are only redefined for you. Just because you choose to ignore the offence they hold, that doesn't mean the offensive connotations aren't there for other people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    god this thread is so gay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Maybe you should have actually read my posts before leaping at the chance to talk about Orwell. I've stated several times that I'm totally for freedom of speech, and in no way think that saying 'that's gay' should be made illegal.
    Legal or illegal isn't really the point. The Nazi party is illegal in Germany (and many other places) - does that mean that there are no more Nazis or that the Nazi ideology is dead?

    All I'm saying is avoiding saying things which offend people does not necessarily change any of the underlying issues (homophobia, hatred of Jews/Muslims/Atheists etc.).
    In fact, to phase out certain parts of language simply to avoid offence is akin to plastering over the cracks in our society's broken down masonry. All it does is allow hatred/discrimination to fester in other less perceptible forms. Making something taboo or "off limits" often has the curious effect of engendering it's spread.

    A person who hates gay people will continue to hate gay people whether or not he or she is allowed to use certain phrases. Whether or not someone takes offence to something is a matter of their personal beliefs and their judgement.
    There are people who would be offended at being addressed as a man or a woman simply based on the physical appearance of their gender - they may appear to be one sex physically, yet identify themselves as another. I then propose that in the same vein we should actively curb our usage of all forms of address, such as "man, "sir", "madam", "miss/ms/mrs", "mr", which involve a gender determination!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by py0alb)
    lol. How very rigorously scientific. You might as well just answer the question for them if you're going to phrase it like that.

    How about this:

    You play them a clip of conversation in which someone says "that's so gay", or something similar. You then ask the the subject to describe what the speaker meant by that particular sentence.

    Of course, this test really wouldn't be fair unless you ascertained that the subject had heard the expression before. In the same way, you could ask me what "X" means in a certain context, where X is some London street slang term I've never heard of (not being from London), and I might make an uneducated guess that would almost certainly be wrong, and related to another meaning of the word that I was familiar with.

    Face it, the meaning is now completely different and you know it, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it.
    No, not at all. You are specifically focusing on what the person means when they say 'that's gay'. This isn't what I'm talking about. I have no interest in what their intention is. I have no doubt that most of the people who use this language don't mean to be homophobic. As far as I'm concerned that's besides the point. Asking the population what they think the speaker's intention was is very different from asking the population whether they think the term has homophobic connotations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xisforextreme)
    Legal or illegal isn't really the point. The Nazi party is illegal in Germany (and many other places) - does that mean that there are no more Nazis or that the Nazi ideology is dead?

    All I'm saying is avoiding saying things which offend people does not necessarily change any of the underlying issues (homophobia, hatred of Jews/Muslims/Atheists etc.).
    In fact, to phase out certain parts of language simply to avoid offence is akin to plastering over the cracks in our society's broken down masonry. All it does is allow hatred/discrimination to fester in other less perceptible forms. Making something taboo or "off limits" often has the curious effect of engendering it's spread.

    A person who hates gay people will continue to hate gay people whether or not he or she is allowed to use certain phrases. Whether or not someone takes offence to something is a matter of their personal beliefs and their judgement.
    There are people who would be offended at being addressed as a man or a woman simply based on the physical appearance of their gender - they may appear to be one sex physically, yet identify themselves as another. I then propose that in the same vein we should actively curb our usage of all forms of address, such as "man, "sir", "madam", "miss/ms/mrs", "mr", which involve a gender determination!

    You're missing the issue of reinforcement. I'm against the perjorative use of the word gay because it reinforces the idea that gay=bad. If I thought that the people using it were actually homophobic and intending to spread hate it would be a very different issue.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    i think it doesnt really make sense when people say it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nolongerhearthemusic)
    You don't have to have literal hate for a group for something you say to be racist, homophobic, sexist, etc.
    So the word 'gay' is homophobic in itself?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.