Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
123457

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    david75 wrote: »
    Tone and context me hole.

    I can't and wouldn't walk around going look at yer man being all niggerish.

    People are and should be aware that these terms are no longer acceptable. It's done nothing to further the cause of equality or anything else.
    Punch anyone you hear using these terms, in the neck. Firmly.

    Through your logic, wouldn't that stop you from using "niggerish" in your post in the first place?


  • Options
    #183
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Do i need to explain the point of using that term in the basis of this argument to you, then I really shouldn't bother.
    If you don't get it, you don't get it.
    Bold words are bold. Gay and fag included. Ok? There there.


  • Options
    #184
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    So if I say I'm smoking a fag (when clearly talking about a cigarette), then I'm a homophobe? Try and answer that without undermining your argument again.


  • Options
    #185
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Semantics. I'd hope you're above that. I know I am.


  • Options
    #186
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    I'd suggest you look it up, actually.

    First you use "niggerish" in an attempt to be in an inoffensive context, then you're saying certain words such as the one you used should not be used in any context. You contradicted yourself, basically.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Using fag or gay as a pejorative or just because its become part of the lexicon, is indefensible. End of story.

    I've caught my younger brothers using it and had to explain to them they were putting down me and a huge amount of people we know. In an insulting sense. Gay=sh!t. I'm not having that. Argue it all you want, it's wrong. And in no sense whatsoever should we shrug it off and let it go. Ever.


  • Options
    #188
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    There you go again, contradicting yourself.

    If you use something something as a pejorative, then you are using it in a negative context. If you don't use it as a pejorative ie. "smoking a fag", "having a gay old time", then you're not using it in a negative context.


  • Options
    #189
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Once again, if it has to be explained to you that words can have multiple meanings, I really shouldn't bother.
    How can anyone confuse fag in terms of a cigarette as a pejorative? It's been used to describe smokes since the 1700s!
    It only became adapted to the gay community in the 1960s!
    You're being ridiculous. And as the man says. Don't argue with the ignorant. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
    Well, you win.


  • Options
    #190
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    david75 wrote: »
    Once again, if it has to be explained to you that words can have multiple meanings, I really shouldn't bother.
    That is what I'm exactly trying to point out! Multiple meanings = multiple connotations. Context acts like a "switch" to determine the connotation, ie. if it's a pejorative or not.

    However, you said certain words are offensive regardless of context. Now you're basically saying they're not. Make up your mind. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #191
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    I'm jealous of how much free time you have. If we want to get to the pubic hair caught in our teeth you're still arguing that the use of broader terms is ok. Why is that exactly?

    It was always queer bothered me. There's a venom that can be placed in that that really knocks me off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    david75 wrote: »
    I'm jealous of how much free time you have. If we want to get to the pubic hair caught in our teeth you're still arguing that the use of broader terms is ok. Why is that exactly?

    It was always queer bothered me. There's a venom that can be placed in that that really knocks me off.

    Well, I do tend to be very argumentative. I'm not overly emotional either and tend to take a more logical approach (although truth be said, not by that much). If that bothers you, stop posting now. ;)

    But yes, you unwittingly agreed with me after contradicting yourself, called me ignorant and now you're trying to snipe at my apparent free time. But hey, no point after all eh?


  • Options
    #193
    Stereomaniac
    Registered Users Posts: 6,166 ✭✭✭Stereomaniac


    I think the usage of it in television and movies needs to be looked at then. Do you ever watch movies where these words are used, movies that maybe deal with marginalisation of the gay community?


  • Options
    #194
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    I rarely watch TV.

    However, I am no stranger to documentaries regarding LGBT issues. Good one on Netflix regarding the struggles of bis/homosexuals in religion and religious families, forget the name but it's a good watch. Some good points raised.


  • Options
    #195
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    shleedance wrote: »
    Well, I do tend to be very argumentative. I'm not overly emotional either and tend to take a more logical approach (although truth be said, not by that much). If that bothers you, stop posting now. ;)

    But yes, you unwittingly agreed with me after contradicting yourself, called me ignorant and now you're trying to snipe at my apparent free time. But hey, no point after all eh?


    No there was one, but you want to argue semantics.
    Pointless. Nothing to do with the topic at hand whatsoever.


  • Options
    #196
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    Erm, no. I didn't argue about semantics. I argued about your contradiction.


  • Options
    #197
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    mango salsa wrote: »
    That doesn't really work at all. If "gay" is being used in a derogatory manner about something - why on earth would we encourage people to be proud of it

    but it is ok with "dyke" and especially "queer", right? that makes no sense.


  • Options
    #198
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,033 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    By the way, only a small minority of gay people use or refer to other gay people as a "queer", "fag" etc. Most gay people detest these words.


  • Options
    #199
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    By the way, only a small minority of gay people use or refer to other gay people as a "queer", "fag" etc. Most gay people detest these words.

    Can you cite a source for this statement, or just going with argument by assertion?


  • Options
    #200
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Can you cite a source for this statement, or just going with argument by assertion?

    Most people I know; straight/gay/bi etc don't use the words. Anecdotage, I know but my tuppence worth.


  • Options
    #201
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    old hippy wrote: »
    Most people I know; straight/gay/bi etc don't use the words. Anecdotage, I know but my tuppence worth.

    and most of the people i know do use them. it is not enough to allow me to say "most gay people use them".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    and most of the people i know do use them. it is not enough to allow me to say "most gay people use them".

    Right so, we've learned people here use them & don't feel bad about it. We've also learned that people here don't use them & feel offended by such names.

    What's the solution?


  • Options
    #203
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    old hippy wrote: »
    Right so, we've learned people here use them & don't feel bad about it. We've also learned that people here don't use them & feel offended by such names.

    What's the solution?



    there isn't one. you can't control the evolution of language, and you certainly shouldn't try and control what people can say. which is why I encourage people to not take offence when offence isn't intended


  • Options
    #204
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    there isn't one. you can't control the evolution of language, and you certainly shouldn't try and control what people can say. which is why I encourage people to not take offence when offence isn't intended

    I think that language can be changed when social pressure is used - words like nig ger, retard, handicapped, knacker are seen as taboo and insulting because of social movements - I see no problem with social movements pointing out that certain language is pejorative in its use. I don't see this as control. I see this as social movements asserting their identity and rights as citizens and challenging dominant groups in society so that they are given more respect.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #205
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I think that language can be changed when social pressure is used - words like nig ger, retard, handicapped, knacker are seen as taboo and insulting because of social movements - I see no problem with social movements pointing out that certain language is pejorative in its use. I don't see this as control. I see this as social movements asserting their identity and rights as citizens and challenging dominant groups in society so that they are given more respect.



    bang your head against the wall of your choice. I do not believe it will work.

    And speaking only for myself, I am asserting my identity and rights as a citizen. I'll not be told what I can say, or what my words mean by others. No way.


  • Options
    #206
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    bang your head against the wall of your choice. I do not believe it will work.
    It does work though. People change their language all the time through the pressure of social movements.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #207
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    So "idiot" must be out too, right? and moron, cretin, fool, lunatic, feeb, lame, simple, imbecile, maniac etc.


    it'd be a dull language with your rules and I therefore reject them.


  • Options
    #208
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    mango salsa wrote: »
    It does work though. People change their language all the time through the pressure of social movements.



    Yeah, it has worked real well with fag, retard and ni gger. As evidenced by their use on tv constantly.


  • Options
    #209
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,814 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    So "idiot" must be out too, right? and moron, cretin, fool, lunatic, feeb, lame, simple, imbecile, maniac etc.


    it'd be a dull language with your rules and I therefore reject them.

    I'm not setting any "rules"

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #210
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I'm not setting any "rules"

    Sorry, guidelines. I suspect that in practice these guidelines are often enforced with the threat of the word bigot. (Not by you personally, btw)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    And speaking only for myself, I am asserting my identity and rights as a citizen. I'll not be told what I can say, or what my words mean by others. No way.
    I'm not sure people are saying you can't use gay, lame, or whatever, they're just voicing an opinion that they find it offensive.

    It’s then up to each individual to decide if the perceived offence is worth taking into account and if so altering your behaviour to accommodate them.


Advertisement