Use of the word "gay" to mean something bad

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-17 09:37pm

The Guid wrote:
Homosexuality is quite rare for all the fuss it has created.
Can I suggest that Homosexuality does not deserve to be the subject of that sentence?

And on your point of only teenagers not understanding the distinction - perhaps you have a point. The fact is though that if this part of our language is there and just keeps going then stupid people, or people easily affected by such things will hear both meanings of the word "gay" & make the connection however subconciously.

Fine, homosexuality is quite rare for all the fuss certain people have made about it.
Also, I shouldn't have to change my language so that stupid people won't become bigoted. I think your assertion that they will make a subconscious connection is rather unsupported: many gay people or non-prejudiced people use the word gay in said manner. One could argue that none of them are stupid, but think about how many people really became bigoted because of simple word use, and not because of repetitive advertising by moronic family values groups.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2005-10-17 09:52pm

wolveraptor wrote:One could argue that none of them are stupid, but think about how many people really became bigoted because of simple word use, and not because of repetitive advertising by moronic family values groups.

Except that repetitive advertising is actually just ... repeated word use.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-10-17 11:57pm

wolveraptor wrote: Fine, homosexuality is quite rare for all the fuss certain people have made about it.
Also, I shouldn't have to change my language so that stupid people won't become bigoted. I think your assertion that they will make a subconscious connection is rather unsupported: many gay people or non-prejudiced people use the word gay in said manner. One could argue that none of them are stupid, but think about how many people really became bigoted because of simple word use, and not because of repetitive advertising by moronic family values groups.

Family values groups make overtly bigoted people. Repeated word use makes for people who dislike gay people simply because they're gay, despite claiming no moral troubles with their lifestyle. Honestly, because the family values bit is at least public, and well-known, I'd say it's less dangerous, simply because it can be fought publicly as well. The more subtle form of labling all things unenjoyable and bad the same lable as you'd give to homosexuals isn't something that you can publicly debate easily, and if it's attempted, it will be faced with people like you saying "lighten up, I don't hate gays, I just use the term gay to refer to things undesirable," and this is often coupled also with calling undesirable people fags, or queers, and any manner of names relating to homosexuality, while still claiming that you're not bigoted at all in your thoughts. Of course, whether you agree or not, many homosexuals are offended when a layperson such as yourself refers to something bad as gay.

Your entire argument basically boils down to you saying that you won't change one minor thing about how you speak because you don't care that it's bigoted in nature.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-18 05:15am

Repeated word use makes for people who dislike gay people simply because they're gay, despite claiming no moral troubles with their lifestyle

Now wait a minute: do such people engage in anti-gay activism just like fundies? If not, there isn't a real problem, because they don't block gay rights whatsoever.

I still maintain that I can be totally unprejudiced in thoughts while using racial or social slurs; your argument is that other people would be influenced even if I'm not. What does this do to harm gays anyways? Create a bad social atmosphere? You showed yourself that such people can still be friends with gays.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-18 11:59am

Oh for fuck's sake, you are so goddamned full of shit. Do you realize why Orwell described his futuristic totalitarian society taking control of language? Do you understand what he understood decades ago, but which has apparently not penetrated your thick goddamned idiot skull? Do you understand why it's so goddamned important for specialists to pore over every speech made by President Bush before he goes on-air? Language affects the way people think, you fucking moron. Look at the connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein; 70% of the goddamned population thinks he planned it even though no one ever made this allegation; Bush's speechmakers simply crafted the use of language in his speeches to make the association in peoples' minds, and it worked like a fucking charm.

So don't tell me that language has no influence on the way people think, you blithering idiot. You are burying your head in the sand, with the same "I do it, so it can't be bad" dumbfuck moron logic that McC tried to use.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long. Only a mindless sub-human shit-for-brains could possibly deny that the use of language affects the way people think.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-18 01:20pm

Fine, homosexuality is quite rare for all the fuss certain people have made about it.

What do you mean "rare"?

One in a million is rare. A beneficial mutation is rare. Winning the lotto is rare. There are an estimated 250,000 homosexuals in my city alone. That is a far cry from being "rare". It is less common than heterosexuality, but it's not THAT unusual.

I think your assertion that they will make a subconscious connection is rather unsupported: many gay people or non-prejudiced people use the word gay in said manner. One could argue that none of them are stupid, but think about how many people really became bigoted because of simple word use, and not because of repetitive advertising by moronic family values groups.

Ok, I'm getting tired of people justifying this by these two assertions:
1) It's not really MEANING the same as the homosexual "gay"
and
2) THEY use it so it must be ok.

First of all, it DOES bother me to hear it because I am homosexual and if you think walking by a bunch of teenagers saying "Oh that is so GAY", or "Don't be so GAY" doesn't fizz me than you don't see how much of a slur it is intended to be. By pooh-poohing the usage of this word by claiming "Oh they really aren't so bad, they don't mean it that way" you are ignoring the very clear delineation between the pejorative context of that word arising from the homosexual usage. This has ONLY been used in this "newer" context within the last 10 years or so in my experience and they sure as fuck weren't referencing the "happy and light" meaning.

It's a goddamn insult! Period. It's an insult to every homosexual by association and the ones that use it themselves are JUST as bad if not worse. And yes the same thing can be applied to black people calling themselves or others nigger. In SOME ways it defuses the word, but it is really self defeating because the ultimate end to this path would have to be allowing EVERYONE to use it with no charge of bigotry being labeled against them. It's not a long-term solution.

Bottom line is that people should be called on using it because it's fucking RUDE. It is very insulting by association and unless people want to be unrepentant assholes that don't care how they offend others than they will have to have a conscience and care enough to not use it in that context.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-18 01:22pm

And btw Wolve, that post wasn't truly directed at you specifically, it was a more general statement. I'm not trying to pick you out of the crowd here.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-18 01:22pm

I love the way Wolveraptor thinks that Pavlovian association, which is perhaps the most reliable, thoroughly studied, and scientifically researched concept in psychology, is "rather unsupported". It's one of the only concepts in psychology upon which actual controlled experiments have been done.

Spoonist · Post by **Spoonist** » 2005-10-18 03:23pm

wolveraptor wrote:I still maintain that I can be totally unprejudiced in thoughts while using racial or social slurs; your argument is that other people would be influenced even if I'm not. What does this do to harm gays anyways? Create a bad social atmosphere? You showed yourself that such people can still be friends with gays.

It's quite simple.
Test what happens if you substitute the word "gay" for other words in the same context, ie meaning "bad/wrong"
"That is soooo negro."
"That is soooo female."
"That is soooo chink."
"That is soooo <instert derogatory word here>."

If you after that still think that it is meaningless what the substituted word means in other context then use your own name instead.
Now if everyone would use your own name in the meaning stupid/bad/wrong, would you still not care?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-18 06:25pm

I will concede the point that the use of the word gay as a synonym for homosexuality and bad can lead to homophobia. I seem to have underestimated its impact on society; I thought it was only ever used in a light-hearted manner, so that it would not create any lasting impressions.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-10-18 06:43pm

SirNitram wrote: So in short, you will top it off with a huge strawman of PC == Giving People Extra as opposed to what's being discussed, which is simply Not Insulting An Entire Group.

Congratulations, kiddo. You're out newest bigoted, peice of shit troll who can't debate his way out of a paper bag. If you reply again, don't use fallacies.

So, uh, did you, out of interest, insult an entire group with the use of "cocksucking" in a derogatory manner in this thread? Notice that I am not using this in a tu quoque manner, as this does not invalidate your points; I'm just wondering if you think you are as bigoted as McC?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-18 07:02pm

I will concede the point that the use of the word gay as a synonym for homosexuality and bad can lead to homophobia. I seem to have underestimated its impact on society; I thought it was only ever used in a light-hearted manner, so that it would not create any lasting impressions.

And that's what I love about most people on this site. The ability to learn and change their opinion when new information alters a viewpoint.

That's where true maturity shines through. I love when people like you restore my faith in humanity, even in some small way.

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-10-18 07:03pm

Rye wrote:
SirNitram wrote: So in short, you will top it off with a huge strawman of PC == Giving People Extra as opposed to what's being discussed, which is simply Not Insulting An Entire Group.

Congratulations, kiddo. You're out newest bigoted, peice of shit troll who can't debate his way out of a paper bag. If you reply again, don't use fallacies.
So, uh, did you, out of interest, insult an entire group with the use of "cocksucking" in a derogatory manner in this thread? Notice that I am not using this in a tu quoque manner, as this does not invalidate your points; I'm just wondering if you think you are as bigoted as McC?

Every single member of the planet can be a cocksucker surely?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-10-18 07:06pm

Rye wrote:So, uh, did you, out of interest, insult an entire group with the use of "cocksucking" in a derogatory manner in this thread? Notice that I am not using this in a tu quoque manner, as this does not invalidate your points; I'm just wondering if you think you are as bigoted as McC?

Well, I will say one thing: I'm not perfect. I use 'retard' alot, even though, if we extend 'retard' to 'all mentally and learning disabled', I qualify.

That being said, I'm not against those who suck cock. Given my preferred method of waking up in the morning, that'd be quite absurd.

However, I will say I generally pick my insults here based on what I think will be most effective against my target. If it offends you or anyone else, I'll remove it from my reparte.

And in that, I feel yes, I am better than him: When someone complains to him, he complains they're 'Too PC', whereas I will genuinely try not to offend people on such matters.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-18 07:13pm

So, uh, did you, out of interest, insult an entire group with the use of "cocksucking" in a derogatory manner in this thread? Notice that I am not using this in a tu quoque manner, as this does not invalidate your points; I'm just wondering if you think you are as bigoted as McC?

Hmmm...You bring up an interesting point Rye. Technically when you use the term "cocksucker" in this way, you ARE insinuating that there is something insulting about people who do this. Obviously the reason the "gay" word is worse is because you are literally targeting people in a generalized stereotype towards a group identity, whereas cocksucking is an action, and anyone CAN do it.

And I myself have used the word many times in this way. It is amazing how habitual such things can become.

Mind you, I tend to use the word in a tongue in cheek way, but I guess it really doesn't make sense to use it as an insult if I'm going to be consistent in my general ethics.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-10-18 07:34pm

I suspect, that cocksucker, when applied to men is supposed to have some homophobic element to it, but it only really works as an insult if the other person is homophobic or extremely grossed out by it for some other reason.

That said, people calling one another cocksuckers doesn't affect me, since i'm apathetic to it, and I sincerely doubt it affects anyone else, due to the evolution of the phrase. I just feel the same way about gay because "gay" was said so much it lost all meaning as a homophobic slur where I came from, and the idea that sexuality can even apply to things like cars is silly enough to be "tongue in cheek" anyway. That's certainly how I use it, like I'll say "sorry I'm late, but the train had to have anal sex with me," or I'll laugh at "you're a homo" photos, because it's obviously not something to ACTUALLY be ashamed of, it's just rude for the sake of being rude, and therefore has amusement value for that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-10-18 09:02pm

Intellectually, you can say "oh, that doesn't mean anything." But you must override social conditioning in order to come to that conclusion, and unfortunately, not everyone is capable of that. The connection between "gay" and "detestable" is made through subconscious conditioning a la Pavlov, and constant repetition, whether light-hearted or not, will reinforce this conditioning.

Things like this work on a subconscious level rather than a conscious one, which is what makes them insidious. It is difficult or impossible to determine just how much effect they have, but the mechanism of conditioned association through repetition is a well-tested one.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-18 11:53pm

Concerning "cocksucker": I don't think you should read too much into such insults anyways: fucker is used as an insult, and yet there is nothing wrong with being one who fucks. Hell, it is also considered bad to be a virgin.

I always thought that sucking cock implied some sort of submisiveness: like Catholics sucking the Pope's dick or something. A shorter way of saying, "You're my/somebody's bitch."

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-19 02:14am

I always thought that sucking cock implied some sort of submisiveness: like Catholics sucking the Pope's dick or something. A shorter way of saying, "You're my/somebody's bitch."

And for the record....this is not necessarily a bad thing either. It can be very exciting and stimulating to be this kind "role" in sexual play. What has amazed me is the type of people I discovered were very aggressive and forceful in most aspects of their life, but what turned them on regarding sex was that degree of submission they wanted to demonstrate.

There is almost a subliminal assumption that the "aggressor" is the more dominant=control factor, but barring rape and non-consensual shit, the reality is that the "bottom", or in the straight world the "wife", calls the shots on sex because they say it's happening or it's not. So the REAL control is in the person who decides to submit.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-10-19 02:28am

Rye wrote:I suspect, that cocksucker, when applied to men is supposed to have some homophobic element to it, but it only really works as an insult if the other person is homophobic or extremely grossed out by it for some other reason.

That's why it's often so effective. I have nothing against gays doing whatever the hell they want to each other sexually, but the idea of me being a participant in such activities does gross me out. I think it's the same with most other heterosexual men as well. One doesn't need to be a homophobe in order to be vulnerable to that particular insult. If two consenting adult men want to suck each other's cocks, they can go right ahead. I don't need to even know about it. But I don't like being presented with the mental image of myself as a participant in such.

Rye wrote:That said, people calling one another cocksuckers doesn't affect me, since i'm apathetic to it, and I sincerely doubt it affects anyone else, due to the evolution of the phrase.

Actually, I could say the same about the term in English. It's more like just calling someone an asshole. But when you translate "cocksucker" to Finnish literally, it becomes far more graphic and specifc and invokes so many more mental images and associations that are just wrong that anyone using it, especially in a heated situation, had better be prepared for physical violence.

Edi

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-19 02:34am

One doesn't need to be a homophobe in order to be vulnerable to that particular insult.

Why is this something that you beg the question of it being an insult? What is "insulting" about sucking cock?

Actually, I could say the same about the term in English. It's more like just calling someone an asshole. But when you translate "cocksucker" to Finnish literally, it becomes far more graphic and specifc and invokes so many more mental images and associations that are just wrong that anyone using it, especially in a heated situation, had better be prepared for physical violence.

How can you translate cocksucker any more literally in Finnish? That's pretty blatant. When you say it invokes so many more mental images and associations that are just "wrong", is this equally applicable to females doing so to males or is this a personal disgust issue?

Post by **Edi** » 2005-10-19 02:54am

Justforfun000 wrote:
One doesn't need to be a homophobe in order to be vulnerable to that particular insult.
Why is this something that you beg the question of it being an insult? What is "insulting" about sucking cock?

That term is generally used as an insult. There is nothing insulting about sucking cock per se as long as it's between consenting adults. What was so hard to understand about why most heterosexual men perceive the word as an insult? It invokes the mental image of them being party to something they would find disgusting to do, even if they do not care if otehrs are doing it.

Justforfun000 wrote:
Actually, I could say the same about the term in English. It's more like just calling someone an asshole. But when you translate "cocksucker" to Finnish literally, it becomes far more graphic and specifc and invokes so many more mental images and associations that are just wrong that anyone using it, especially in a heated situation, had better be prepared for physical violence.
How can you translate cocksucker any more literally in Finnish? That's pretty blatant. When you say it invokes so many more mental images and associations that are just "wrong", is this equally applicable to females doing so to males or is this a personal disgust issue?

I suppose it is partially a personal disgust issue, as in I would not do it.

But in Finnish the term itself tends to be offensive, whether used for male-female or male-male cocksucking. That's because English only has one verb for the activity of sucking, while Finnish has more and the translation uses a verb that is most commonly used to describe a baby sucking on a pacifier or bottle of milk and that does a very good job of immediately conjuring up images like that. NOT images you want in your head during sex, are they?

It's much like the words "negro" and "nigger" used in English, they invoke images of slavery and the segregation era, whereas their literal Finnish translations, "neekeri" and "nekru" do not. Of the Finnish versions, the latter is derogatory though not nearly to the same degree as "nigger" and the former is neutral. Though that is changing due to an influx of black immigrants and refugees who most commonly only know English in addition to their native languages. So even the neutral word has become taboo because of its similarity to the English ones, which carry so many more negative connotations.

Edi

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-10-19 03:04am

What was so hard to understand about why most heterosexual men perceive the word as an insult? It invokes the mental image of them being party to something they would find disgusting to do, even if they do not care if otehrs are doing it.

ahh gotcha. Used in that context specifically, yes. I can see that.

But in Finnish the term itself tends to be offensive, whether used for male-female or male-male cocksucking. That's because English only has one verb for the activity of sucking, while Finnish has more and the translation uses a verb that is most commonly used to describe a baby sucking on a pacifier or bottle of milk and that does a very good job of immediately conjuring up images like that. NOT images you want in your head during sex, are they?

I think I understand. They almost make it worse by suggesting it's more like "suckling" on a cock in a way that adds a greater stigma of unrelated inappropriate references.

The rest of your example is actually an excellent example of why PC is still not to be dismissed too lightly. I agree with some that it has gone WAY too far sometimes, but ultimately the heart of it is conscientiousness. It's very important to be concerned about words and the power they have over people. We all have to be careful in what we say and how we say it because it DOES have consequences that are just as severe as more blatant, communicable interactions.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-10-19 09:53pm

On a side note, a friend came to the realization that he couldn't use homophobic slurs to dismiss me anytime he was angry when he told me to "go suck a cock" and when I replied "I already did".

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-10-19 11:00pm

Hell, almost every insult makes no sense if you look at it. "Asshole"? Why has that become synonymous with sociopathic behavior or lack of thought for other's well-being? The asshole itself is not even considered gross all the time, like during anal sex, and even if it is, using the word asshole does not illicit the same response that it would if it were simply something gross.

Only motherfucker and animalfucker really make sense as swears, or at least create an logical response.