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

shleedance · 27-03-2013 5:05pm

mango salsa wrote: »

Please acquaint yourself with the forum charter - specifically point 14

I think you're missing the point. I have no problems with homosexual/bisexual people. I see them as my equal and I'm all for same-sex marriage and so on. I have no intentions to demean or to lower anyone's dignity.

How is it eroding someone's dignity if I say "this television is gay"? I'm not specifically insulting anyone, and it's silly to assume the TV has any sort of sexual orientation to begin with. This is often the context I use such words, and this is why I'd tell someone to grow up if they find offence when it's used in this context.

If I said "That person is gay" or "Don't be a queer", then that is a different manner, since both are said with intent to insult. I don't agree with that, and would never say it to anyone as an insult to their sexual orientation.

Annasopra · 27-03-2013 5:30pm

shleedance wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. I have no problems with homosexual/bisexual people. I see them as my equal and I'm all for same-sex marriage and so on. I have no intentions to demean or to lower anyone's dignity.

How is it eroding someone's dignity if I say "this television is gay"? I'm not specifically insulting anyone, and it's silly to assume the TV has any sort of sexual orientation to begin with. This is often the context I use such words, and this is why I'd tell someone to grow up if they find offence when it's used in this context.

If I said "That person is gay" or "Don't be a queer", then that is a different manner, since both are said with intent to insult. I don't agree with that, and would never say it to anyone as an insult to their sexual orientation.

Taken to pm as per charter

old hippy · 27-03-2013 6:41pm

bodice ripper wrote: »

are you straight?

if so, maybe you shouldn't be lecturing gay people about how they should feel, and dismissing their opinions based on age...

if not, you still shouldn't be dismissing opinions based on age.

I don't do labels but if you must put me in a box, I'm bisexual.

And I'm not dismissing opinions or lack of due to age. More dut to interests/experience or lack of.

jaffacakesyum · 27-03-2013 8:17pm

old hippy wrote: »

I don't do labels but if you must put me in a box, I'm bisexual.

And I'm not dismissing opinions or lack of due to age. More dut to interests/experience or lack of.

You are though. You're patronising younger people on here by saying basically saying that "when you're older, you'll realise these words are actually offensive". I don't find gay jokes, the word 'fag' 'queer' etc. offensive and frankly I probably never will. It's not about age, it's about how laid back you are and your sense of humour, in my opinion. Again, people can be offended by what they like but respect that others don't feel the same way too.

shleedance · 27-03-2013 8:26pm

It really, really, really depends on the context. Saying "that's gay" is not instantly offensive. Making jokes about it is not instantly offensive.

Intent and context is key. Words are just words otherwise.

old hippy · 28-03-2013 1:42pm

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

You are though. You're patronising younger people on here by saying basically saying that "when you're older, you'll realise these words are actually offensive". I don't find gay jokes, the word 'fag' 'queer' etc. offensive and frankly I probably never will. It's not about age, it's about how laid back you are and your sense of humour, in my opinion. Again, people can be offended by what they like but respect that others don't feel the same way too.

I'm delighted for you. I suppose it's down to what individual experience during their lifetimes.

And for the most part, young people are removed from some of the harsher realities of life. Simply because they haven't been around long enough.

wonderfulname · 28-03-2013 1:54pm

old hippy wrote: »

And for the most part, young people are removed from some of the harsher realities of life. Simply because they haven't been around long enough.

Enough of the ageist generalisations, if that's something you need to draw upon in discussion you seriously need to reevaluate your position and why you hold it.

Speaking of which can we try and keep this related to the topic at hand?

old hippy · 28-03-2013 2:02pm

wonderfulname wrote: »

Enough of the ageist generalisations, if that's something you need to draw upon in discussion you seriously need to reevaluate your position and why you hold it.

Speaking of which can we try and keep this related to the topic at hand?

Hang on a moment there, we have some people of a certain age using derogatory comments left, right and centre 'cos they don't see any harm in it and only older folk like me are bothered and I'm the one generalising????

Sheesh. It's ignorance like that which keeps us down.

Ash885 · 28-03-2013 3:09pm

old hippy wrote: »

Hang on a moment there, we have some people of a certain age using derogatory comments left, right and centre 'cos they don't see any harm in it and only older folk like me are bothered and I'm the one generalising????

Sheesh. It's ignorance like that which keeps us down.

I'm young and find the words offensive. You're really not helping your argument by spewing all this stuff out. Being a little hypocritical by tarring us all with the same brush. And fyi, just because I have not been on this earth longer than you, does not make my experiences with those words any less valid than yours. I respect if people want to use the words (I really wish they wouldn't :pac:) but at the end of the day I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

The thread has helped me realise that yeah, intent really is important to the words. It doesn't stop me eliminating all the negative feelings I have at hearing said words, but it does give me some comfort in knowing not everyone is using them in the same neagtive way I've heard them being used. I'd still prefer them to use other alternatives, but each to their own now.

Cosmic Maybe · 28-03-2013 3:55pm

I can understand both sides of the argument here and it's obvious that the tone used and the context of the situation are really important. Personally though I don't think the use of words like gay, fag etc to describe something bad or crap is right. Look at it this way, say if from tomorrow on everyone outside of Ireland used the word Irish in the same way people currently use gay, i.e. "that's so Irish" or "don't be Irish", most Irish people would be offended. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't be applied to the use of gay etc. no matter how innocent the intent behind its use is.

old hippy · 28-03-2013 6:08pm

Ash885 wrote: »

I'm young and find the words offensive. You're really not helping your argument by spewing all this stuff out. Being a little hypocritical by tarring us all with the same brush. And fyi, just because I have not been on this earth longer than you, does not make my experiences with those words any less valid than yours. I respect if people want to use the words (I really wish they wouldn't :pac:) but at the end of the day I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

The thread has helped me realise that yeah, intent really is important to the words. It doesn't stop me eliminating all the negative feelings I have at hearing said words, but it does give me some comfort in knowing not everyone is using them in the same neagtive way I've heard them being used. I'd still prefer them to use other alternatives, but each to their own now.

I apologise, I'm not trying to tar everyone with the same brush. Of course your experiences are every bit as valid as older people. I guess I get frustrated simply because of when people dismiss genuine concerns because they aren't bothered by it; if you follow. And they can be of any age

I'm just being grumpy because of my advanced years

manic mailman · 28-03-2013 8:26pm

My €0.02....there's always two side to every story as they say.

Whenever I heard someone using "that's gay" or some equivalent in school, it used to grate on me (I went to an all-boys secondary school so this was fairly prevalent in my 5 years there). Back then, it would be very hard for me to really identify what context the person in question was using it....from my experience it was most often intended to demean...

Having said that, I've no issue with my mates using these expressions as I personally know them to not be homophobic. I'd call them out on it if they're using it in a public place though where others might take it the wrong way.

1ZRed · 28-03-2013 8:40pm

As said before it's all about context and tone of it. You could have have a laugh with me as use them, you'd get slagged back with the same ones fairly quick. I'm not so ridged and PC that you couldn't mess with me at all, but at the same time if the context or the meaning behind it turns to being malicious, you'll be guaranteed that I'd cut you down fairly quick.

Between mates though, and for a laugh, I see no issue. Funny thing about it though is that I used to be one to say things like "that's so gay" a lot more, as did a fair few of my mates, but they've really died down even using it in general use. It's only to get the odd rise out of me that they use it now which is fair enough and it gets spun around back at them.

In fact it's only for slagging purposes on either side that we say it, I've pretty much outgrown calling things gay casually. I don't see it as anything bad all of a sudden, I just rarely use it that way anymore.

hotmail.com · 28-03-2013 8:47pm

I don't think it depends on any context - it has a pejorative meaning that stems from homophobia against gay people and I wish people wouldn't say it.

bitburger · 29-03-2013 1:12am

old hippy wrote: »

You're young and carefree. That's great, truly. I'd love to be that age again but as one gets older and maybe a bit cynical, you start to question things. Like, why should I put up with this? The name calling, the casual insults all become repetitive and tiring.

im putting up with nothing though, i am the one who goes around calling my mates bumders

shleedance · 29-03-2013 3:20am

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

I can understand both sides of the argument here and it's obvious that the tone used and the context of the situation are really important. Personally though I don't think the use of words like gay, fag etc to describe something bad or crap is right. Look at it this way, say if from tomorrow on everyone outside of Ireland used the word Irish in the same way people currently use gay, i.e. "that's so Irish" or "don't be Irish", most Irish people would be offended. I don't see why the same logic shouldn't be applied to the use of gay etc. no matter how innocent the intent behind its use is.

If someone used "that's so Irish", I would not be offended. In fact, some people already do, particularly Irish people!

You cannot assume that if something offends you, it'll offend everyone. Everyone has different perspectives on what is "offensive".

shleedance · 29-03-2013 3:29am

hotmail.com wrote: »

I don't think it depends on any context - it has a pejorative meaning that stems from homophobia against gay people and I wish people wouldn't say it.

Not even if used in accordance to their other definitions? If I say "I'm having a gay old time" for example, I'm not even referencing homosexual or bi people. At all.

Intent and context does matter, especially if words have multiple meanings. That's how our language works. The more people realise this, the less people will have to walk on eggshells to not accidentally offend.

I've also noticed an interesting argument on another forum about this. Instead of trying to stop people using such words, perhaps try to desensitise them so they can't be used in an offensive manner anymore? Get people to embrace those words and feel proud about it, so the sting does not work anymore and over time they're rendered useless.

Annasopra · 29-03-2013 9:17am

shleedance wrote: »

Not even if used in accordance to their other definitions? If I say "I'm having a gay old time" for example, I'm not even referencing homosexual or bi people. At all.

Intent and context does matter, especially if words have multiple meanings. That's how our language works. The more people realise this, the less people will have to walk on eggshells to not accidentally offend.

I've also noticed an interesting argument on another forum about this. Instead of trying to stop people using such words, perhaps try to desensitise them so they can't be used in an offensive manner anymore? Get people to embrace those words and feel proud about it, so the sting does not work anymore and over time they're rendered useless.

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

IvySlayer · 29-03-2013 9:20am

No they don't bother me. It bothers me when people say Justin Bieber is gay. He's straight, everything he does is because he's straight.

Cosmic Maybe · 29-03-2013 9:38am

shleedance wrote: »

If someone used "that's so Irish", I would not be offended. In fact, some people already do, particularly Irish people!

I think you're kind of missing my point, I wasn't talking about the self deprecating, knowing, wink wink use of the word "Irish", I was simply saying that if people, particularly non Irish people, used the word to describe things that were bad, sh!t, crap etc, the majority would be offended.

I completely understand that a lot of people have no problem using "gay" as a slang word but my issue is that it is nearly always used to describe something negative. That's fine if you're old enough to understand the difference between "gay" and "gay" but what happens when a 5 year old hears the word being used in such a way. They're too young to understand that words can have different meanings, so as far as they're concerned gay = bad. What happens then in a few years when they realise that they might be gay yet as far as they know gay is negative?

hotmail.com · 29-03-2013 2:15pm

shleedance wrote: »

Not even if used in accordance to their other definitions? If I say "I'm having a gay old time" for example, I'm not even referencing homosexual or bi people. At all.

Intent and context does matter, especially if words have multiple meanings. That's how our language works. The more people realise this, the less people will have to walk on eggshells to not accidentally offend.

I've also noticed an interesting argument on another forum about this. Instead of trying to stop people using such words, perhaps try to desensitise them so they can't be used in an offensive manner anymore? Get people to embrace those words and feel proud about it, so the sting does not work anymore and over time they're rendered useless.

I disagree. The 'N' word has successfully been removed from daily conversation. Even young people know not to say it.

I don't see why the same thing can't happen for homophobic slurs.

And "that's so gay" is a homophobic slur.

jaffacakesyum · 29-03-2013 2:30pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I disagree. The 'N' word has successfully been removed from daily conversation. Even young people know not to say it.

I don't see why the same thing can't happen for homophobic slurs.

And "that's so gay" is a homophobic slur.

No it's not. Are you calling me and everyone else who is LGBT homophobic because we use a slang that we and nobody else in our social circles find offensive?

Words change. Why aren't people complaining that gay is used as a term for homosexual people in the first place at all? Seeing as it's original meaning has nothing to do with that. Why aren't people complaining about the words 'bitch' and 'bastard'. I suppose bastard is extremely offensive as it is used to describe someone who's a bit of an ass but it's original meaning is a child born out of wedlock. I don't see all the children of unmarried parents being up in arms about the use of that word.

On a side note I find the 'n' word ridiculous seeing as black people can use it but nobody else can. Maybe that's the way 'fag' and 'gay' is moving, only those who are LGBT can use it :rolleyes:

manic mailman · 29-03-2013 2:39pm

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

...On a side note I find the 'n' word ridiculous seeing as black people can use it but nobody else can. Maybe that's the way 'fag' and 'gay' is moving, only those who are LGBT can use it :rolleyes: ...

The above quote reminds me of this parody http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-XohD4DKl0

wonderfulname · 29-03-2013 3:25pm

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Words change. Why aren't people complaining that gay is used as a term for homosexual people in the first place at all? Seeing as it's original meaning has nothing to do with that. Why aren't people complaining about the words 'bitch' and 'bastard'. I suppose bastard is extremely offensive as it is used to describe someone who's a bit of an ass but it's original meaning is a child born out of wedlock. I don't see all the children of unmarried parents being up in arms about the use of that word.

People do, you just must not have come across them, bitch especially seems to get a lot of feminists riled up as a word used to dismiss strong willed women.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

On a side note I find the 'n' word ridiculous seeing as black people can use it but nobody else can. Maybe that's the way 'fag' and 'gay' is moving, only those who are LGBT can use it :rolleyes:

This comes back to context, the oppressed reclaiming the language of the oppressor and all that, I hope that's not the direction usage of 'fag' takes, a pet hate of mine is people throwing the word around because they're gay and see it as some form of right, to me it says a lot about a person, namely that they're not someone I want to get to know.

Ambersky · 29-03-2013 4:35pm

I know we are talking about the word Gay and Fag and derogatory words for being LGBT but I was thinking these words have usually been devised to deride something that is considered not Normal. How about turning the table around and having a look at whats considered normal.
Normal isnt always a good thing, it can be a good thing and it can be comforting, but it can also be pretty boring.
I know this is an ad which kind of spoils the end but I liked the play on an appreciation of Not Normal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXak5RG5MvY

shleedance · 29-03-2013 7:31pm

hotmail.com wrote: »

I disagree. The 'N' word has successfully been removed from daily conversation. Even young people know not to say it.

I don't see why the same thing can't happen for homophobic slurs.

And "that's so gay" is a homophobic slur.

There's the whole double standards with the use of the N word, but that's a topic in itself...

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

I think you're kind of missing my point, I wasn't talking about the self deprecating, knowing, wink wink use of the word "Irish", I was simply saying that if people, particularly non Irish people, used the word to describe things that were bad, sh!t, crap etc, the majority would be offended.

Neither was I. If it's okay for us to say it, why is it not okay for others? This again is double standards. If we can make Irish jokes, then I don't mind non-Irish people making them too.

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

You misread. I was talking about LGBT people promoting them as more positive words. "Gay" itself was originally promoted as a positive word.

However, I did not necessarily say I agreed with this. Just an interesting point I found on another forum. Such "positive" words can still be used against you, ie. euphemism treadmill and such.

hotmail.com · 30-03-2013 3:14am

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

No it's not. Are you calling me and everyone else who is LGBT homophobic because we use a slang that we and nobody else in our social circles find offensive?

Words change. Why aren't people complaining that gay is used as a term for homosexual people in the first place at all? Seeing as it's original meaning has nothing to do with that. Why aren't people complaining about the words 'bitch' and 'bastard'. I suppose bastard is extremely offensive as it is used to describe someone who's a bit of an ass but it's original meaning is a child born out of wedlock. I don't see all the children of unmarried parents being up in arms about the use of that word.

On a side note I find the 'n' word ridiculous seeing as black people can use it but nobody else can. Maybe that's the way 'fag' and 'gay' is moving, only those who are LGBT can use it :rolleyes:

Great you find the 'n' word ridiculous.

Cosmic Maybe · 01-04-2013 9:35pm

@shleedance and @jaffacakesyum I could go off into a big rant as to why I think you're both wrong, but why bother when song lyrics will do?

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis feat Mary Lanbert "Same Love"

"Man, that's gay" gets dropped on the daily
We become so numb to what we're saying
A culture founded from oppression
Yet we don't have acceptance for 'em
Call each other faggo.ts behind the keys of a message board
A word rooted in hate, yet our genre still ignores it
Gay is synonymous with the lesser

That is all.

shleedance · 02-04-2013 3:27am

Cosmic Maybe wrote: »

@shleedance and @jaffacakesyum I could go off into a big rant as to why I think you're both wrong, but why bother when song lyrics will do?

That is all.

How am I wrong to point out the double standard in one group allowed to use certain words but deem it offensive if anyone else does? How am I wrong when in a semiotics point of view, that these words are utterly meaningless on their own right, but are only arbitrarily given meaning through our cultural learnings of what is good/bad, offensive/inoffensive etc?

For the latter, these words factually do not mean anything at all on their own. So to me, if these words mean nothing when you see through the arbitrary meanings, what is the point of being so disturbed if someone uses them regardless of the context or intention? Surely the actual intention and context of it's use matters more than the word itself?

If someone wants to insult you for being LGBT, any word really can be used or even fabricated once it fits their intentions and context. This only works when (a) the arbitrary meanings that we've been taught (ie. "gay" = homosexual) is in relation to the person's sexual orientation and (b) the person will find offence to it. If (a) and (b) don't do anything, then is the word factually offensive at all, or just subjectively?

To further point out context and intention, take a look at mundane words such as "slow". On it's own it's considered generally inoffensive, but if I say something like "he's pretty bloody slow", "he's crap at chess, after all he's slow" to straight up insults such as "mentally slow bastard", through the use of context and intention it is now seen as an offensive word.

david75 · 02-04-2013 3:33am

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.

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

Comments