This thread is so gay

[Magic Man]

How old are you, Ritalin?

I'm 34, and I'm old enough to remember the transition when "f____y" (can't say it directly because of our profanity rules, but the adjective form of the "f-word" slur against gay people) was used as a synonym for "lame" or "crappy", which then got replaced with "so gay" in popular speech. IMO, the link is clear.

I don't deny that the use of the term as it is comes from a time when homosexuality was seen by most as wrong and bad and stupid. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to continue that association. I believe the example of "*******" was brought up much earlier in the thread. It used to be that being fatherless was a bad thing, and so "*******" came to be an insult. I'd have to think the vast, vast majority of the time people call someone else a ******* now, "illegitimate child" never crosses their minds. The term has two distinct meanings now that are at this point unrelated.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize that would be censored. The word, as I'm sure you guessed is "B******", which is also the name of a kind of sword.

 

[Magic Man]

In my view, using the word "gay" to describe something stupid is simply indicative of inherent homophobic bias. If that bias did not exist one would not be inclined to use the term in such a way. It would cease to have the imagined impact. It is the evolution of a term, for sure, but one that is soaked in heterosexual cultural bias. I find it especially troubling that a person like Mball, who is quite intolerance of intolerance of gays, would stoop to using the term. Apparently, by his own admission, he is not terribly concerned with the plight of gays.

Thank you for that completely baseless and inaccurate view of things. Your incorrect opinion is noted.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Ritolin I know many black people that use the N word in a positive manner these days. Example, they might say that ride is so N. Meaning it represents who they are in their own mind.
Their choice to say it, but I bet you'd never say that right?

It seems many are simply defending phrases based on only their perspective which may not be bad at times but seems to be wrong in this instance.

To each his own though...

But the N-word isn't on the same level as the word gay is. I can use the term gay in a sentence such as "My buddy is gay" and it's near impossible for anyone to take offense by that sentence alone. There's no context for use of the N-word in which case a black person would not be offended. You can't even use the word while singing a song without being offensive in their eyes. It's silly to me, because it's just a word, and in the right context isn't offensive at all. But when you attach a hostile context to it, it becomes a different story.

 

[*Anne*]

Maybe we could all agree it's best not to use that phrase anymore?

I'm confident that no one in this thread wants to hurt or offend anyone else. (I didn't realize this is what pushed Smoke to leave. )

 

[Magic Man]

So... knowing that some people will find it unaccepting, you use it anyway. This is not "accepting" behaviour.

Look, you and Ymir and Mike can continue on with your emotional quest here, but I'm done. The simple fact is there's nothing wrong with using this phrase the same way there's nothing wrong with telling dirty jokes. You and some others are overly sensitive. I understand that. I understand that there are people like that in the world. It's OK.

 

[YmirGF]

Thank you for that completely baseless and inaccurate view of things. Your incorrect opinion is noted.

Your contradictory stance is noted. Your use of a "frivolous term" belies your concern, my friend.

I'd have to go with 9-10ths_Penguin, for the win here. His is the kind of support gays want. Mball, you can keep your "support", we don't need it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't deny that the use of the term as it is comes from a time when homosexuality was seen by most as wrong and bad and stupid. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to continue that association. I believe the example of "*******" was brought up much earlier in the thread. It used to be that being fatherless was a bad thing, and so "*******" came to be an insult. I'd have to think the vast, vast majority of the time people call someone else a ******* now, "illegitimate child" never crosses their minds.

Some people are rather unthinking, yes.

The term has two distinct meanings now that are at this point unrelated.

Well, no - they're not unrelated. The link is still there.

Personally, I don't use that term either unless I'm talking about the kind of file. In contexts where people typically use it as an insult, I'll normally use "pig ****er" (with "****" being another term for coitus). The expression is probably denigrating toward people who are into having sex with farm animals, but I don't care.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

The expression is probably denigrating toward people who are into having sex with farm animals, but I don't care.

So you find it ok to use a term that undoubtedly offends people who have sex with pigs (gross) because you don't care that it's offensive to them, but it's not ok to use the phrase "that's so gay" because you do care about them? So it's not a matter of all offensive terms or phrases, just the ones you put value on?

I'm not trying to be confrontive with you here, it's just that seems a tad hypocritical to me.

 

[YmirGF]

Personally, I don't use that term either unless I'm talking about the kind of file. In contexts where people typically use it as an insult, I'll normally use "pig ****er" (with "****" being another term for coitus). The expression is probably denigrating toward people who are into having sex with farm animals, but I don't care.

Me? I just call 'em hypocritical closet-cases.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So you find it ok to use a term that undoubtedly offends people who have sex with pigs (gross) because you don't care that it's offensive to them, but it's not ok to use the phrase "that's so gay" because you do care about them? So it's not a matter of all offensive terms or phrases, just the ones you put value on?

I'm not trying to be confrontive with you here, it's just that seems a tad hypocritical to me.

It's not hypocritical, because the difference in my attitude in the two cases is based on something real and relevant.

Really, it's a matter of recognizing that insulting terms do carry implications for the people and groups they referred to. I'm not going to use the label for a group I look positively on as a euphemism for something bad.

I think that homosexuality is a positive thing, so I'm not okay with using "gay" as an epithet. I think that having sex with pigs is a negative thing (and watched a lot of South Park in university ), so I am okay with using "pig ****er" as an epithet.

If there's any hipocrisy here, it's in the argument that the idea that homosexuality is positive is compatible with the idea of using "gay" as a negative expression.

Edit: my position has never been that we shouldn't use any offensive expressions at all. My position has been that if you use an expression that has offensive connotations for someone or something, then you are expressing something negative toward that someone or something.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Look, you and Ymir and Mike can continue on with your emotional quest here, but I'm done.

Ok, but you never really got off the starting line, so it is good to see you are done tripping over your hurdles...

 

[RitalinO.D.]

It's not hypocritical, because the difference in my attitude in the two cases is based on something real and relevant.

Really, it's a matter of recognizing that insulting terms do carry implications for the people and groups they referred to. I'm not going to use the label for a group I look positively on as a euphemism for something bad.

I think that homosexuality is a positive thing, so I'm not okay with using "gay" as an epithet. I think that having sex with pigs is a negative thing (and watched a lot of South Park in university ), so I am okay with using "pig ****er" as an epithet.

If there's any hipocrisy here, it's in the argument that the idea that homosexuality is positive is compatible with the idea of using "gay" as a negative expression.

Right, but what you are saying is In your eyes it's ok to offend pig fu***** because you don't care about them, but you think any use of the phrase "that's so gay" is bad because you think positively of homosexuals. It's not a matter of what is socially acceptable offense wise, only based on your own perceptions. I was under the assumption up till the last few posts that you were defending the position that it's not ok to be offensive to anyone, not just homosexuals, it just so happened that homosexuals were the target of this particular debate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but what you are saying is In your eyes it's ok to offend pig fu***** because you don't care about them, but you think any use of the phrase "that's so gay" is bad because you think positively of homosexuals. It's not a matter of what is socially acceptable offense wise, only based on your own perceptions.

Well, there is more to it than that. It's not reasonable to compare natural attraction or a legal, positive relationship between consenting parties to illegal sexual interference with an animal.

I was under the assumption up till the last few posts that you were defending the position that it's not ok to be offensive to anyone, not just homosexuals, it just so happened that homosexuals were the target of this particular debate.

While I don't think that homosexuals should be harassed at all, I've been taking it as a given that everyone in this debate is accepting of homosexuality, so I've been approaching things from that context. My main argument has been that using "gay" as an insult speaks against a person's claim that they're supportive of homosexuality, and that it helps to create a negative environment for gay people.

Of course I realize that this argument won't have the desired effect on someone who considers it a good thing to create a negative environment for gay people.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

"The two men announcers went on for hours about how tight the fighters body was. Next someone comments, that was so gay."

Is there anyone in the civilized world that can read the above quoted and:

1. conclude it doesn't have anything at all to do with the gay lifestyle at all
2. conclude the person who said "that is so gay", intended a positive inference.

Next, assuming the announcers heard the comment that they are so gay, would anyone assume:

1. the announcers would receive it as a positive comment
2. the announcers would not associate it with the gay life style.

Obvious most would answer sensibly on any of these. But the bigger question, nay the most important question here, is why has it become casual slang to say such a thing?

The why, is the question most can not answer here, and if you did answer it factually, there is likely only a small number of reasons why the comment exists, and why it is casual slang now.

I don't fault those that use it casually, but once they are aware that it is a negative phrase and does hurt people as evidence by two long standing members of the forum, the repeated usage of the term, can only mean one thing. They simply don't care that it hurts people. Am I missing something here?

 

[Duck]

Were still talking about context here. Not once have I ever used the phrase "That's so gay" to infer that the subject that the phrase was directed at, is somehow related to people attracted to the same sex.

As i stated before, if you are overly sensitive to the word, you're going to be offended no matter the context. Even when you know that the term can be used in a non-derogatory context to mean something completely different. My question is, why do you, or anyone else feel the need to instill that context on someone else?

Perhaps I have a biased view here, considering I have a different outlook at how what people say affects me. I don't get offended by words. As I stated before, I've been called cracker, and honkey by people that were most definitely using it in a hostile manner. It makes me laugh.

Personally, I am offended by the use of "that's so gay" regarding things that the speaker considers to be "lame" or "stupid" or "crappy". Perhaps that is because I self identify as "Gay", therefore when I hear someone use a phrase obviously meant to describe a situation/object/weather phenomenon as undesirable in some way ("lame", stupid or crappy) I make that link that you and Mball seem to miss. I think that using a word which is used by a large group of people as a well known means of self identification to describe things as bad, not fun, or otherwise undesirable is at the best a tad insensitive.

 

[Magic Man]

Your contradictory stance is noted. Your use of a "frivolous term" belies your concern, my friend.

I'd have to go with 9-10ths_Penguin, for the win here. His is the kind of support gays want. Mball, you can keep your "support", we don't need it.

Of course you have to go with him for the win. You and some others are more being controlled by your emotions rather than reason. It's OK. We all have issues we're passionate about. There are probably times when I'm too passionate about an issue to see it clearly. I'm just trying to point out this is one of those times for you guys.

And I'll keep giving my support; I'll just remember it's not for you. It's for the people who aren't so wrapped up in their emotions to think straight and still accept the support of someone who understands how to use language in different ways.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Personally, I am offended by the use of "that's so gay" regarding things that the speaker considers to be "lame" or "stupid" or "crappy". Perhaps that is because I self identify as "Gay", therefore when I hear someone use a phrase obviously meant to describe a situation/object/weather phenomenon as undesirable in some way ("lame", stupid or crappy) I make that link that you and Mball seem to miss. I think that using a word which is used by a large group of people as a well known means of self identification to describe things as bad, not fun, or otherwise undesirable is at the best a tad insensitive.

I'm not "Missing" anything. I fully understand that you are offended by it. What I'm saying is I find it silly that you are. It's only a word.

I even admitted in this thread that I look at things differently than most, because I am not offended by words. Just the way it is I suppose.

 

[YmirGF]

Of course you have to go with him for the win. You and some others are more being controlled by your emotions rather than reason. It's OK. We all have issues we're passionate about. There are probably times when I'm too passionate about an issue to see it clearly. I'm just trying to point out this is one of those times for you guys.

And I'll keep giving my support; I'll just remember it's not for you. It's for the people who aren't so wrapped up in their emotions to think straight and still accept the support of someone who understands how to use language in different ways.

Oddly, I hadn't realized I was getting emotional about the term. Funny that, eh.

 

[Vendetta]

This is pretty gay

Moderator cut: image removed

 

[MissAlice]

This is pretty gay

Moderator cut: image removed

Oh that's just......wrong.

Poor C-3PO is not going to look good once the circuit's hit. :areyoucra