'Fag' and 'that's so gay' -- do they bother you?

bodice ripper wrote: »

I can. I used to be an angry, angry young woman about these things. thankfully I grew out of it before I drove good friends who cared about me away becuase of semantics.

For that particular quote^^^, never a truer word spoken.

just my little bit: "Throughout life people will make you mad, disrespect you and treat you bad. Let God deal with the things they do, cause hate in your heart will consume you too"

old hippy wrote: »

Don't patronise us with your god bobbins. People need to be made aware of the offence they cause here and now. Not in some non existent afterlife.:mad:

when you say us don't you really mean you? If other's beliefs cause you such affront perhaps it's better if you don't speak for all of us. At least, don't speak for me. Thanks.


sweet fcuking mother of jjesus

CheekyChappy wrote: »

Yes words change, but today ****** is still a derogatory term for a gay person and its not acceptable

To you. To me it's perfectly acceptable. So I won't use the word around you. But to me and my friends any word is perfectly acceptable as long as the intent isn't malicious. So I/we will continue to use whatever words we like as long as it's not offending anyone else.

CheekyChappy wrote: »

Well then I'm afraid you're wrong. If these words continue to be used, even if they're not meant in a malicious way, people will continue to think that its ok to use them

I DO think it's ok to use them. Why should I be censored as what I can and can't say?

Is there any other words you want to ban me from saying?

You can't control what words people use. You can only inform people that particular words or phrases offend YOU personally. You can't speak for me or the gay community or anybody else, you can only speak for yourself.

Over the years the use of certain words to describe people in what some consider a derogatory way has been a source of much argument.
Within Feminism we have argued words describing women and all other non dominant groups for many years.
People have argued that certain words and phrases hurt others and have at times expected that once that hurt was understood it would stop.
That as I understand it is the origins of the much maligned expression, Politically Correct.
But people didnt stop using hurtful words or expressions for a variety of reasons and there are some reasoned counter arguments besides "I will do what I like and I dont care who gets hurt" that need to be considered.
Usually I am on the side of those wishing not to hurt others or to name them in ways that they find insulting and I think some common sense all round wouldn't go astray.

Although political correctness gets a lot of bad press, arguments over words have already changed language and some would say gone on to change the way we think.
As I said feminists have been arguing about the role of women in society for many years and have been arguing about language that presumes maleness for certain jobs and attributes. Now 50 years on, since the beginning of some of those campaigns, jobs that were once closed to women are now open and we no longer think certain jobs should be male only. Language change and social change have gone hand in hand, with the same kind of opposition and support as we find in other language arguments.

Some people may find the thoughts in this article of interest.
http://http://aggslanguage.wordpress.com/the-impact-of-political-correctness-on-language-change/ Although the thread title does not mention political correctness, nevertheless many of the arguments brought up in this article are already being argued in this thread.
The article is pro pc generally but does briefly give the basis of the counter arguments too. There are many more sites available giving a more populist anti pc argument.

Arguments For

The theoretical foundation of the PC movement is this: language creates categories for thought, and words can create either opportunities or boundaries..... All of language is a construct that attempts to signify abstract meaning, and any construct will be lacking. The language we use affects not just the messages we communicate, but the fundamental ways that we think and act. The problem arises when the linguistic constructs we use influence our way of thinking in negative ways. These negative influences from language can be called politically incorrect.

The three categories of this kind of language:

1. Subtle: Words like policeman, mailman, fireman; referring to all people as man; referring to an androgynous individual as he. These exclusionary words subtly influence our way of thinking. The first three imply that these are roles for men only. This kind of language can keep women from being comfortable aspiring to these positions. The other general references of man and he are simply inaccurate and unnecessarily exclusionary. They imply that masculinity is the default and superior gender trait.
2. Offensive: Words like gay or retarded to refer to something undesirable; words like fag or retard to refer to people. The first set shows how these descriptions inherently link certain types of individuals to anything bad by using terms that refer to them as insults for other undesirable concepts. The second set is offensive because of the pejorative connotations implied by these slurs. There are appropriate ways of referring to individuals that does not unnecessarily demean them.
3. Blatant: The n-word to refer to black people or the c-word or b-word to refer to women. This type needs little explanation. These words are highly offensive and indicate a great deal of disdain. They objectify and belittle entire groups of people based on one trait.

Arguments Against

Critics argue that political correctness is censorship and endangers free speech by limiting what is considered acceptable public discourse. Other critics say that politically correct terms are awkward euphemisms for truer, original, stark language, comparing them to George Orwell’s Newspeak...........

Some critics of political correctness argue that it is a form of coercion rooted in the assumption that in a political context... by this argument, ultimately, it means force or compulsion.

Another criticism is that enforcers rarely consult the minorities they claim to be protecting, and controversies are therefore based on assumptions that the minorities want this, when this is often not the case,

wonderfulname wrote: »

1Zred, watch your tone

old hippy and ashers, take it to PM

Can we drag this thread back on course please?

Taking the piss, relax

wonderfulname wrote: »

I am aware, no more please. If you want to discuss it further then PM.

This a completely serious forum, no bother.

old hippy wrote: »

Don't patronise us with your god bobbins. People need to be made aware of the offence they cause here and now. Not in some non existent afterlife.:mad:

I just saw your post.... Patronise? What! Your Username lets you down on so many levels! old hippy? Old usually equals aged (but with wisdom), Hippy normally equates to: relaxed, chilled...open to all?!?!?! I feel sad, sad that people like you use titles that are pure and utter contradictions in terms!!!! but use such to disguise an absolute Hypocrite!!!