DemandCurve
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2007
- Messages
- 11
Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word usage?
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Do you think the expression gay for stupid is offensive and incorrect word usage?
- Thread starter DemandCurve
- Start date
Werbung:
Enlightened One
Active Member
The term gay actually means, bright and pleasant or promoting a feeling of cheer. (which we all know) Society has mutated plenty of words into the abominations which are used today. Don't get me wrong, I too use slang, but you will never hear me say "oh that's gay." Terminology such as that just shows ones lack of intelligence. As for offensive, I would love to slap the taste out of someones mouth if they corrected me by saying that, but rising above the situation I would not. I could see how some groups could take it as offensive, and it's most certianly incorrect word usage.
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
People need to stop being so damn sensitive all the time.
saggyjones
Well-Known Member
I agree. But if someone politely asks me to not use the word around them, I won't use it.
Friendindeed
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2007
- Messages
- 206
Yes, but I think the ones who use it that way are mostly middle school kids that are going through that sexual identity phrase.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Bottom line, using something so close and personal to someone as their sexual orientation as a pejorative term is offensive. The rest of us have no means of comparison because hearing someone say, "That's so straight!" would be totally ridiculous in the context of a situation in which something "stupid" has happened. And there's the fact that admission to homosexuality is a tough thing to go through and hearing anyone who hasn't dealt with it equate that experience to simple stupidity is just plain, downright wrong. USMC, how did you feel when you heard John Kerry's comment of a while back which equated joining the armed forces to being uneducated?
USMC the Almighty
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,070
I just thought quietly to myself that he's an idiot and moved on with my life. There's no point getting all fired up about it. For what? Some phony half-assed apology? He has a history of anti-military rhetoric so I wasn't at all surpirsed.
The point I'm making is that it's not worth being hyper-sensitive, always assuming that people are insulting you because of some characteristic.
vyo476
Well-Known Member
Now imagine that he's saying that all the time. And its not just him; a lot of others are too. And imagine that everyone around him and the others who are saying it aren't saying anything back.
That's a little of what it's like to be a homosexual who hears and sees the prevalence of the word "gay" used in a pejorative manner.
Fonz
Well-Known Member
this thread is gay
vyo476
Well-Known Member
And what is your stance on this issue, Fonz?
When I was a bit younger I used to walk around shouting gay when I didn't like something. Looking back on how much I used it I'm surprised I didn't get smacked. It's not really appropriate, but its hardly the most offensive thing, seeing as its not having a dig at homosexuals, its taken on a whole new meaning and when people say it they don't say it to have a go at gays.
Everylyric
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2007
- Messages
- 62
Same goes for me.
r0beph
Well-Known Member
I think people that people fail to realize that the language itself is evolutionary. I could cite a thousand examples, I'll stick to just a couple. Often words come from other languages and lose their definition in the move, example L. Commodus meaning Comfort, became Commode the shift was based on the idea that the place was comfortable for what you tend to do there, as opposed to say an outhouse. However today Commode brings no ideas of comfort in the sense that commodus once brought. Intra-language shifts occur more often than these cross language moves. A good example aside from gay is "Piss" , O.French Pissier (to urinate) it maintains its original definition, to urinate is to piss.... however what does urination have to do with going away "piss off", or being angry, "Pissed Off". Nothing. in fact its simply a word filling a niche, often the definition shift seems a lean towards a non sequitor reasoning. Regardless, the fact remains, language changes, a large definition shift cannot be constituted as misuse. I'd save the term misuse for misnomers like oft over and misued "Ironic."
robf
robf
Werbung:
r0beph
Well-Known Member
In addendum;
I also don't believe that Gay as per things that are stupid / lame etc, should be considered derogatory to homosexuals. Gay as a term referring to homosexuals itself is a major definition shift. To use Gay in referral to homosexuals either A) insinuates they're all happy or B) is simply a definition shift with no real basis left in the usage. I choose B, since A follows stereotyping and thus is invalid in my opinion as a linguistic evolution. Just the same for Gay as something that's ridiculous or negative cannot be applied to an already once removed slangification of the original word meaning happy. That's just way too much assumption. The true nature of feeling offended by hearing a word should always apply to its context. Idiot (Original definition - person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning) original comes from L. Idiota meaning 'Ordinary person or Layman', I don't see ordinary people being upset when someone is called an idiot for doing something stupid. I mean it's a moot point, super sensitivity is problematic to lingual evolution, it's better to simply understand that the motions of language are ever changing currents that are modified by contemporary thought, no attempt or action can change the mass-conscious movement of language. With that understanding comes the knowledge that new definitions for words that in their context have no relation to another previous definition cannot be held liable for the word's connection to other meanings. Even this can be further looked into, and let's say the original meaning of this definition shift was an intended derogation to homosexuals, if someone using the word to refer to something in a negative light harbors no ill will to homosexuals than this cannot be brought forward, context is 99.9999%.
-----edit
I must add here that this is a largely different issue. The use of gay in reference to something, as I've covered before, has no contextual value to anything negative towards homosexuals. The word gay was definition-jacked already to refer to homosexuals. Another situation where this isn't really an issue but holds similar for comparative purposes. African-Americans are often referred to as "Black" (a word that means chromatically the lack of reflected light, and obviously they are a lighter tint and brown, which is quite unrelated to "black" definitively, comparitively this is to african american as gay is to homosexual) Hackers who do bad, are Black-Hats (denoting criminal intent etc.) Witchcraft (When it is a negatively viewed subject matter) is referred to as black arts, A Black out of information in the media is when there is no information on the subject (perhaps an african american should be upset, are they saying that to be "black" means you don't know much?) The point here is that these are all homonyms, not the same word. Gay - 1. Happy 2. Homosexual 3. lame, ignorant, stupid; This is how I view this word. It's not Gay - 1. Happy 2a. Homosexual 2b. lame, ignorant, stupid; Language simply does not function this way.
While on the subject let me add this; The contextual use of the word matters greatly and in the slanderous usage of "Gay" in name calling such as "You are gay" I can see being felt as an offense by homosexuals since you are using it to derogatorily refer to a heterosexual, thus imbuing the classification as homosexual as demeaning. This I don't condone and don't feel it is hypersensitivity or otherwise overzealous to dissuade people from using it as such.
I also don't believe that Gay as per things that are stupid / lame etc, should be considered derogatory to homosexuals. Gay as a term referring to homosexuals itself is a major definition shift. To use Gay in referral to homosexuals either A) insinuates they're all happy or B) is simply a definition shift with no real basis left in the usage. I choose B, since A follows stereotyping and thus is invalid in my opinion as a linguistic evolution. Just the same for Gay as something that's ridiculous or negative cannot be applied to an already once removed slangification of the original word meaning happy. That's just way too much assumption. The true nature of feeling offended by hearing a word should always apply to its context. Idiot (Original definition - person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning) original comes from L. Idiota meaning 'Ordinary person or Layman', I don't see ordinary people being upset when someone is called an idiot for doing something stupid. I mean it's a moot point, super sensitivity is problematic to lingual evolution, it's better to simply understand that the motions of language are ever changing currents that are modified by contemporary thought, no attempt or action can change the mass-conscious movement of language. With that understanding comes the knowledge that new definitions for words that in their context have no relation to another previous definition cannot be held liable for the word's connection to other meanings. Even this can be further looked into, and let's say the original meaning of this definition shift was an intended derogation to homosexuals, if someone using the word to refer to something in a negative light harbors no ill will to homosexuals than this cannot be brought forward, context is 99.9999%.
-----edit
I must add here that this is a largely different issue. The use of gay in reference to something, as I've covered before, has no contextual value to anything negative towards homosexuals. The word gay was definition-jacked already to refer to homosexuals. Another situation where this isn't really an issue but holds similar for comparative purposes. African-Americans are often referred to as "Black" (a word that means chromatically the lack of reflected light, and obviously they are a lighter tint and brown, which is quite unrelated to "black" definitively, comparitively this is to african american as gay is to homosexual) Hackers who do bad, are Black-Hats (denoting criminal intent etc.) Witchcraft (When it is a negatively viewed subject matter) is referred to as black arts, A Black out of information in the media is when there is no information on the subject (perhaps an african american should be upset, are they saying that to be "black" means you don't know much?) The point here is that these are all homonyms, not the same word. Gay - 1. Happy 2. Homosexual 3. lame, ignorant, stupid; This is how I view this word. It's not Gay - 1. Happy 2a. Homosexual 2b. lame, ignorant, stupid; Language simply does not function this way.
While on the subject let me add this; The contextual use of the word matters greatly and in the slanderous usage of "Gay" in name calling such as "You are gay" I can see being felt as an offense by homosexuals since you are using it to derogatorily refer to a heterosexual, thus imbuing the classification as homosexual as demeaning. This I don't condone and don't feel it is hypersensitivity or otherwise overzealous to dissuade people from using it as such.
Similar threads
