Use of the word "gay" to mean something bad

[Akhlut]

On a slightly different angle, why is PCism necessarily bad?

Because it's a disgusting byproduct of a society set out to coddle everyone and make them feel 'nice,' which has had a helping hand in leadingto the current state of affairs in U.S. pre-college education. There's so much focus on making everyone feel successful, that there's no focus on actually teaching anything. I'm utterly sick to death of it, and make a point of striking it down wherever I see it (hence why I've bothered to stick with the thread for so long). You want a world where things aren't made fun of and no one's offended? Fine. That's not the world I want.

Bullshit. The only subject "PCism" would be in would be history, where it's been necessary for the past 150 years. American history is more than just white guys doing things. Such history that actually showed children of color that their races weren't just subjugated by whitey would provide good role models for them. Surely a black child would do better to emulate Fredrick Douglass than 50 Cent. What other subjects would be PC-ified, though? Math? English literature (oh noes! we can't let our children read books by black/women/gay/hispanic authors!)?

And if you're so concerned with how school's taught these days, do you belong to the local school board and help decide school curricula and review it? Or do you just think "oh, hey! it's perfectly okay to call things gay and nigger, but not people! this'll reform teaching!" is the best way to do that?

[Yi Li Su]

I've already said what I can. I'm not out to tell people what to say. All I can do is to ask people who talk to me in person not to use the word because I think it's offensive. I'm just giving my kids as much dignity as I would give anyone else. I prepare them for a world that's mean, but I don't have to let the people around me completely insult the people I love by carelessly using terms like that. OK, I'm done. I could keep trying to make more points but it's not really going to get anywhere. I've made my point and now I'm done.[/quote]

[McC]

I'm tired and it's getting late, so I'm only going to respond to this one for now, but I'll respond more comprehensively tomorrow.

Bullshit. The only subject "PCism" would be in would be history, where it's been necessary for the past 150 years. American history is more than just white guys doing things. Such history that actually showed children of color that their races weren't just subjugated by whitey would provide good role models for them. Surely a black child would do better to emulate Fredrick Douglass than 50 Cent. What other subjects would be PC-ified, though? Math? English literature (oh noes! we can't let our children read books by black/women/gay/hispanic authors!)?

Hey, asshole, wake up. I don't mean PCism in the classroom, I mean PCism in the institute itself. Kids are increasingly given grades based on effort rather than performance. Kids are increasingly allowed to pass through under the guise of "disability" rather than making them actually live up to their potential. And it's all done under the guise of protecting their self-esteem, rather than actually forcing them to develop as individuals. That's the PCism I'm talking about, not PCism in the subject matter itself.

And if you're so concerned with how school's taught these days, do you belong to the local school board and help decide school curricula and review it? Or do you just think "oh, hey! it's perfectly okay to call things gay and nigger, but not people! this'll reform teaching!" is the best way to do that?

A) I'm 21, asshole, and I'm not even legally able to vote in the state I reside for college (MA vs. CT), so no, I'm not on the fucking school board. Nor will I be later, since it's not my chosen career track. But when I have kids, do you seriously think I won't be an actively participating member of the PTA/PTO?

B) The entire back half of your statement is based on a misunderstanding of my prior point, so read above.

[Akhlut]

Hey, asshole, wake up. I don't mean PCism in the classroom, I mean PCism in the institute itself. Kids are increasingly given grades based on effort rather than performance. Kids are increasingly allowed to pass through under the guise of "disability" rather than making them actually live up to their potential. And it's all done under the guise of protecting their self-esteem, rather than actually forcing them to develop as individuals. That's the PCism I'm talking about, not PCism in the subject matter itself.

More understandable, but I don't see how the hell that relates to offensiveness of language except in the most tangential of ways (ie, both being offensive to someone; however, one is offensive for reasons of past discrimination and values associated with words while the other is offensive because of harming self-esteem in a supposedly meritocratous system).

A) I'm 21, asshole, and I'm not even legally able to vote in the state I reside for college (MA vs. CT), so no, I'm not on the fucking school board. Nor will I be later, since it's not my chosen career track. But when I have kids, do you seriously think I won't be an actively participating member of the PTA/PTO?

If it's a problem now, why aren't you trying to solve it now? Certainly you can still be active even if you can't be on the school board. You can still show up at meetings and demand to know what the requirements to pass are and if children are being passed without meeting those requirements. Certainly that'd be a better usage of your time than even the illustrous SD.net boards?

[Frank Hipper]

Your compartmentalizations, justifications, and personal value judgements mean precisely jack and shit in cultural and linguistic contexts.

Golly gosh gee, considering that justifications and personal value judgments on a large scale make up cultural standards, I think you're kinda wrong.

What standards have to do with context is completely beyond me, McIlliterate; not to mention that citing cultural "standards" is an appeal to popularity.

Usage of "gay" to describe something as weak or undesirable is inextricably linked to usage of "gay" meaning a homosexual, a weak and undesirable thing in a bigoted culture.

You've got a bunch of people in this thread more or less stating otherwise. Go crawl under a rock and have your pity-party there, where, in your isolation, you won't stand out looking like a complete idiot.

No, you apparently can't wrap your head around this extremely simple and obvious fact of usage, and can only spew vaguely in contradiction to post history and resort to ad hominem in response.

Reading your posts in this, who would have ever expected such a cookie-cutter defense of moronic bigotry.

You're applying bigotry to it where none necessarily exists. Basically, you're construing. It's just as bad as counter-racist black people, who now want to suppress the "white man" because of the crimes of the past. Fuckin' blow me and grow up. Word definitions change over time and if you want a world where people tip-toe through your garden of acceptability, you're going to spend your life disappointed. Deal with it. If you want to be personally offended when someone uses a word to denigrate a thing, be my guest. Don't try to tell me I can't use the word, though. You haven't the right.

You're incapable of refuting an argument, much less showing that you comprehend the words directed at you.
You cite anti-white racism in a completely irrelevant way that amazingly makes zero sense while being irrelevant.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise that you're too stupid to realise that you've had your ass handed to you in this thread.

[Durandal]

When someone says something is gay, I'll usually just inform them that it makes no sense to say that. Like if someone says, "That grading system is gay," I'll say, "Yeah I'll bet it fucks other grading systems of the same gender up the ass."

[McC]

...y'know what, nevermind. I'm going to answer.

I know that, you're free to say whatever you want. Usage of the word "gay" in this manner just doesn't make sense to me, and that's why -I- choose not to use it that way. I wasn't trying to force anyone else to do the same.

Sorry. This wasn't directed at you, it was directed specifically at the person is was quoted to.

Define PCism. Explain why it should be discarded. Try avoiding the use of fallacies. That'd be a good start. It's unlikely, but we always hope.

politically correct adj.
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

Expounding, PCism is the desire to overcompensate for past grievances by excessively limiting, through the application of social stigma, the generally non-harmful actions but more importantly words of others. For example, stigmatizing words and terms and requiring different, more "polite" words to be used instead. Example: mentally handicapped vs. retard. It is an attempt to blunt all the sharp corners in the world to satifisy the needs of small groups. In politics, those groups are called special interest groups, and tend to fuck up things for the majority.

You ask why it should be discarded, and I ask why should it exist? What merit is there in catering to specific, small groups of people with an axe to grind that have no real case, but speak loud enough so that people listen anyway? This is precisely what the Evangelicals of the country are cited as having done in the past election, sticking us with four more years of Bush. It's questionable (though only moderately) whether or not this was the sole contributing factor, but given the anti-fundamentalist stigma of the boards, I should tend to think the influence of special interest groups to be self-evidentially negative.

If it's a problem now, why aren't you trying to solve it now? Certainly you can still be active even if you can't be on the school board. You can still show up at meetings and demand to know what the requirements to pass are and if children are being passed without meeting those requirements.

I'm not an official state resident in any capacity, thereby withholding from me the right to do this.

Certainly that'd be a better usage of your time than even the illustrous SD.net boards?

Fuck. You. Seriously. How many people here are dissastified with the political climate of the U.S. right now? How many people are better using their time to fix it, rather than posting about it here? Appeal to popularity, perhaps, but there you have it. Or do you think to suggest that a 21 year old college student can counter-act the weight of a bunch of parents who want their children's ego stroked more than they want their children to actually develop as people?

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise that you're too stupid to realise that you've had your ass handed to you in this thread.

Please. Most people came into the thread, voiced their opinion (which ranged from "don't care" to "don't see the harm") and then left, leaving a handful of others to bitch and moan.

---

That all said...

I think we should stop calling people "bitch." This is clearly attacking female dogs, which is totally inappropriate. We shouldn't discrminate against these poor creatures just because we've taken to using the term to mean something else altogether. Or do you mean to suggest that our furry canine friends are inferior to us? That's an enormous show of bigotry on your part.

I bet a bunch of you will get angry that I compared "bitch" to "gay," because of some silly notion of comparing gay humans to female dogs. Nevertheless, the point stands. You can very easily construe any of our "derrogatory" words today to insult somebody. Where the fuck do you think they come from? The ultimate point, which I am utterly astounded that no one has caught on to yet, is that the origin of the word doesn't fucking matter, and it's the intent behind the word that matters. I honestly don't give a fuck if my name is used as an insult, for instance, as illustrated by Guid -- except for the fact that he's only doing that because he intends to get me irritated by doing so. Therein lies the difference. "That movie was gay," when said, almost never sets out to insult a homosexual. "That fellow was rather niggardly with the tip," when said, surely doesn't set out to insult a black man. "That girl is such a bitch," when said, surely doesn't set out to insult female dogs.

Saying otherwise is to pull the wool over your eyes, plug your ears, and just scream about being victimized (or others being victimized).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Tell me if I got McC's argument right. There's nothing wrong with using the word "gay" in a derogatory manner since the intent of the word usage did not imply "homosexuality" and if someone else took offense to it, it's their problem. By McC's line of logic, then it would be perfectly acceptable to use "nigger" as long as "African American" is never the intent of the usage of the word and if any blacks got offended, it's their problem for perceiving that way.

[McC]

Tell me if I got McC's argument right. There's nothing wrong with using the word "gay" in a derogatory manner since the intent of the word usage did not imply "homosexuality" and if someone else took offense to it, it's their problem. By McC's line of logic, then it would be perfectly acceptable to use "nigger" as long as "African American" is never the intent of the usage of the word and if any blacks got offended, it's their problem for perceiving that way.

Yes. You're correct. In fact, I get rather irritated with the double-standard applied to the word. That's why I keep mentioning it.

[Akhlut]

Certainly that'd be a better usage of your time than even the illustrous SD.net boards?

Fuck. You. Seriously. How many people here are dissastified with the political climate of the U.S. right now? How many people are better using their time to fix it, rather than posting about it here? Appeal to popularity, perhaps, but there you have it. Or do you think to suggest that a 21 year old college student can counter-act the weight of a bunch of parents who want their children's ego stroked more than they want their children to actually develop as people?

Aww, strike a nerve, did I? If you think you're so ineffectual, then why the hell do you debate anything?

[McC]

Aww, strike a nerve, did I? If you think you're so ineffectual, then why the hell do you debate anything?

I actually often ask what the point of debating is, other than intellectual exercise. Going into a debate, no one is going to change his mind. No one gives a shit what's said, how well it's backed up, etc. They're just going to stick to what they said the whole time. More often than not, debates end up seeming like grand-standing, or excuses to attack someone, with no real productive outcome.

So, I guess I'm grand-standing, and looking for an excuse to attack someone.

Or, y'know, hoping to change a few minds. *shrug*

Incidentally, I have spent a large amount of time trying, on a smaller level, to get parents to parent better (which I'm sure will offend the parents of the board, seeing as how I don't have kids yet), 'cause I see the effects their 'parenting' has on their kids. I'm doing something. It ain't much, but it's something.

[SirNitram]

Define PCism. Explain why it should be discarded. Try avoiding the use of fallacies. That'd be a good start. It's unlikely, but we always hope.

politically correct adj.
1. Of, relating to, or supporting broad social, political, and educational change, especially to redress historical injustices in matters such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation.
2. Being or perceived as being overconcerned with such change, often to the exclusion of other matters.

Expounding, PCism is the desire to overcompensate for past grievances by excessively limiting, through the application of social stigma, the generally non-harmful actions but more importantly words of others.

Wow. You have acheived a level of insight first gained some two mileenia ago, when a philosopher worked out 'everything in moderation', because anything can be harmful in excess. Aren't you sodding clever. Here, have a troll-treat.

For example, stigmatizing words and terms and requiring different, more "polite" words to be used instead. Example: mentally handicapped vs. retard. It is an attempt to blunt all the sharp corners in the world to satifisy the needs of small groups. In politics, those groups are called special interest groups, and tend to fuck up things for the majority.

So you've shown that they can be bad in politics. That would be relevent if the discussion was politics. It is not. So this is a red herring. I asked you to go without fallacies, and, completely unsurprisingly, you're unable.

You ask why it should be discarded, and I ask why should it exist?

Burden of proof fallacy.

What merit is there in catering to specific, small groups of people with an axe to grind that have no real case, but speak loud enough so that people listen anyway? This is precisely what the Evangelicals of the country are cited as having done in the past election, sticking us with four more years of Bush. It's questionable (though only moderately) whether or not this was the sole contributing factor, but given the anti-fundamentalist stigma of the boards, I should tend to think the influence of special interest groups to be self-evidentially negative.

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.

[McC]

Wow. You have acheived a level of insight first gained some two mileenia ago, when a philosopher worked out 'everything in moderation', because anything can be harmful in excess. Aren't you sodding clever. Here, have a troll-treat.

You wanted a definition, asshole. I gave you one. I didn't say it was a new concept.

So you've shown that they can be bad in politics. That would be relevent if the discussion was politics. It is not. So this is a red herring. I asked you to go without fallacies, and, completely unsurprisingly, you're unable.

It's called an "example." Do I need to look up the definition of this word for you too, or are you content with just spitting off the first 'fallacy' the comes to mind without applying further intellectual effort?

Burden of proof fallacy.

Sure, if I was asking you as an actual debate tactic. I wasn't. Fucksake, you're so intent on labeling fallacies that you don't even bother to read what's said before hitting reply.

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.

I'm not even sure what the first half of this sentence means, but the second half has been largely dismantled. Some gay people are insulted, some don't care, and some even use the term themselves. So, unless by "entire group" you mean "fraction of homosexuals and heterosexuals that have decided to take offense to the term," then you're wrong.

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.

When I start attacking homosexuals, or black people, or whomever else, and actualy exhibit something resembling bigotry, you let me know.

And when I start posting with the sole intent of pissing people off, rather than arguing a point, then you be sure to let me know that I've started to troll.

Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.

[SirNitram]

Wow. You have acheived a level of insight first gained some two mileenia ago, when a philosopher worked out 'everything in moderation', because anything can be harmful in excess. Aren't you sodding clever. Here, have a troll-treat.

You wanted a definition, asshole. I gave you one. I didn't say it was a new concept.

It was in your explanation of why it's bad, dumbass. Of course, this is an advanced concept, and therefore beyond you.

So you've shown that they can be bad in politics. That would be relevent if the discussion was politics. It is not. So this is a red herring. I asked you to go without fallacies, and, completely unsurprisingly, you're unable.

It's called an "example." Do I need to look up the definition of this word for you too, or are you content with just spitting off the first 'fallacy' the comes to mind without applying further intellectual effort?

Ahhhh, yes, the last resort of a defeated troll. Start whining when your opponent actually calls you on your fallacious reasoning. Because, of course, simply doing as suggested and not using such in the first place would have been too difficult for your little brain.

Burden of proof fallacy.

Sure, if I was asking you as an actual debate tactic. I wasn't. Fucksake, you're so intent on labeling fallacies that you don't even bother to read what's said before hitting reply.

Nope, I just like calling fallacious rhetorical bullshit what it is. You can try and fail to call up more bullshit, but ultimately, we're getting down to the bones of it: You couldn't make a reply without fallacious reasoning, and you're upset you got called on it.

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.

I'm not even sure what the first half of this sentence means, but the second half has been largely dismantled. Some gay people are insulted, some don't care, and some even use the term themselves. So, unless by "entire group" you mean "fraction of homosexuals and heterosexuals that have decided to take offense to the term," then you're wrong.

No, you're once again lying. This is entirely expected, but still so. The term is derogatory to the whole group. Whether they take offense is based on the thickness of their skin. This does not make it non-derogatory.. Oh, wait, this is using polysyllabics, you must be unable to understand.

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.

When I start attacking homosexuals, or black people, or whomever else, and actualy exhibit something resembling bigotry, you let me know.

You've already done it, by spewing derogatory bullshit, and then trying to justify it. But you keep moving those goalposts, tiger! I'm sure you must think yourself real clever.

And when I start posting with the sole intent of pissing people off, rather than arguing a point, then you be sure to let me know that I've started to troll.

You have trolled by breaking the most basic rule here, and that is by debating fallaciously. When called on it, you are now just whining that someone is 'just pointing out fallacies'. Well of course. If an argument is nothing but, it is inherently invalid.

Until then, kindly shut the fuck up.

No. I enjoy mocking peices of shit like you, pointing out that none of your so-called points hold up to a moments scrutiny. And I especially enjoy watching you flail away about how evil I am for daring to point out you've got only fallacies.

[Frank Hipper]

Not only does McIlliterate totally ignore the primary definition of "Politically Correct" he himself posted in favor of hastily generalising those who feel contempt of derogatory usage of gay with the secondary definition, he still says nothing which amounts to anything more than "I'm right, you're wrong, and it's all because I say so."

What a fucking idiot.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Tell me if I got McC's argument right. There's nothing wrong with using the word "gay" in a derogatory manner since the intent of the word usage did not imply "homosexuality" and if someone else took offense to it, it's their problem. By McC's line of logic, then it would be perfectly acceptable to use "nigger" as long as "African American" is never the intent of the usage of the word and if any blacks got offended, it's their problem for perceiving that way.

Yes. You're correct. In fact, I get rather irritated with the double-standard applied to the word. That's why I keep mentioning it.

That's great. You've demonstrated your utter disregard for the sensitivities of others or how others feel towards such word usage thinking that everyone should conform to your standards of language. In other words, you've shown that you're a grade A asshole. Congratulations.

[His Divine Shadow]

A question, is calling people "pussies" considered acceptable wording? It implies females are weak, emotional and frail, and it can also be said to portray effeminate males in a negative light.

[The Guid]

A question, is calling people "pussies" considered acceptable wording? It implies females are weak, emotional and frail, and it can also be said to portray effeminate males in a negative light.

I always thought it was a connection to cats, like "scaredy cats."

[Darth Wong]

A question, is calling people "pussies" considered acceptable wording? It implies females are weak, emotional and frail, and it can also be said to portray effeminate males in a negative light.

Generally speaking, women are weaker and more emotional than men. That is a scientific reality. Look at male vs female powerlifting world records for example. So I'd say that the use of "pussy" to describe a weak male does carry a connotation that females are weaker than males, but that connotation is actually a reasonable one.

As for McC, he has just admitted that he thinks any black people who don't like being called "nigger" are just being oversensitive. Remarkably, this is pretty much identical to the attitude of Southern slave-owners prior to the Civil War.

[McC]

It was in your explanation of why it's bad, dumbass. Of course, this is an advanced concept, and therefore beyond you.

Oh, well be so kind as to educate my poor, idiot self. I'll be sure to bring a pen and paper while I sit at your feet.

Ahhhh, yes, the last resort of a defeated troll. Start whining when your opponent actually calls you on your fallacious reasoning. Because, of course, simply doing as suggested and not using such in the first place would have been too difficult for your little brain.

No, you are in fact wrong. The pandering of decision-making bodies to small, loud groups is very much at the core of the discussion, because that's precisely what's being suggested by restricting use of the word "gay." I provided a real-world example of when it happens in a context that just about everyone will recognize. I realize you prefer to sit there and call me a troll and make enormous stretches to lay fallacies on me, but make sure they actually stick first.

Nope, I just like calling fallacious rhetorical bullshit what it is. You can try and fail to call up more bullshit, but ultimately, we're getting down to the bones of it: You couldn't make a reply without fallacious reasoning, and you're upset you got called on it.

Wrong. Re-read it. It's not a statement unto itself, it's a lead-in to a topic. It's the way I write/speak, getting around to a point by asking rhetorical questions whose answers are self-evident. If you're too dense to understand that, too fucking bad.

Furthermore, I think it's rather blurry which end of the discussion the burden of proof is on. I tend to think that altering the status quo requires the burden of proof.

The term is derogatory to the whole group. Whether they take offense is based on the thickness of their skin. This does not make it non-derogatory.

Says you. I say it's not. We're getting to matters of opinion which no fact will sway. I say "derogatory terms" are the origin of future generic swears, which 'gay' has become. You say derogatory terms...what? Hurt people's feelings? Boo hoo.

You've already done it, by spewing derogatory bullshit, and then trying to justify it. But you keep moving those goalposts, tiger! I'm sure you must think yourself real clever.

Funny, I was kinda thinking the same thing about you. Provide an explanation for A. Here's an explanation for A. No, you need to explain A and B. Ok, here's that. Nope, A, B, and C.

I've explained the position, why it's bad in relation to PCism, and why it doesn't make any fucking sense in the context of negative monikers in general, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and cry, "GAYBIGOT!" I'm not the one coming off like a delusional idiot.

You have trolled by breaking the most basic rule here, and that is by debating fallaciously. When called on it, you are now just whining that someone is 'just pointing out fallacies'. Well of course. If an argument is nothing but, it is inherently invalid.

No, you're mis-applying the fallacies, as pointed out above.

That's great. You've demonstrated your utter disregard for the sensitivities of others or how others feel towards such word usage thinking that everyone should conform to your standards of language. In other words, you've shown that you're a grade A asshole. Congratulations.

And? Let's talk about the term "fundie." Nobody seems to have any problem with that one. It insults a large group based on a single defining trait, and actually references the group. Oh, but they're of course deserving of scorn, because of what they believe and do, right? I happen to agree with that, actually (that fundies are deserving of copious amounts of scorn), but it's still a derogatory term for a group of people that no one hereabouts has any compunctions about using.

You want to talk about grade A assholism now?

As for McC, he has just admitted that he thinks any black people who don't like being called "nigger" are just being oversensitive. Remarkably, this is pretty much identical to the attitude of Southern slave-owners prior to the Civil War.

Wrong. I said nothing about calling people niggers, and don't even pretend to strawman my argument into that. This entire argument has been about using these terms as adjectives for things, which is completely out of their offensive context as harmful terms against people. Go ahead and strawman, but be aware that you're doing it.

[Darth Wong]

Wrong. I said nothing about calling people niggers, and don't even pretend to strawman my argument into that.

It speaks to the underlying logic of your argument, moron. Your argument is that it's just words, people shouldn't be too "sensitive" about them, and any social or historical connotations in a word are totally irrelevant. Using that logic, there is nothing wrong with calling a black guy "nigger" as long as you are using "nigger" in your new "it's OK inside my own head" way.

[SirNitram]

It was in your explanation of why it's bad, dumbass. Of course, this is an advanced concept, and therefore beyond you.

Oh, well be so kind as to educate my poor, idiot self. I'll be sure to bring a pen and paper while I sit at your feet.

The sad thing is, if you actually did that, you'd be on the right track. Unfortunately, you're too stupid to realize that what you need is to shut up and listen. Like all trolls.

Ahhhh, yes, the last resort of a defeated troll. Start whining when your opponent actually calls you on your fallacious reasoning. Because, of course, simply doing as suggested and not using such in the first place would have been too difficult for your little brain.

No, you are in fact wrong. The pandering of decision-making bodies to small, loud groups is very much at the core of the discussion, because that's precisely what's being suggested by restricting use of the word "gay." I provided a real-world example of when it happens in a context that just about everyone will recognize. I realize you prefer to sit there and call me a troll and make enormous stretches to lay fallacies on me, but make sure they actually stick first.

They're sticking. Standing there and denying it doesn't really shift any of them. Your entire claim that 'Not using a group's name in a derogatory way' == 'Pandering to small, loud groups' is a strawman fallacy, and will not cease to be so just because you're a whiny little cunt, unable to produce a logical argument to save your pathetic little life.

Nope, I just like calling fallacious rhetorical bullshit what it is. You can try and fail to call up more bullshit, but ultimately, we're getting down to the bones of it: You couldn't make a reply without fallacious reasoning, and you're upset you got called on it.

Wrong. Re-read it. It's not a statement unto itself, it's a lead-in to a topic. It's the way I write/speak, getting around to a point by asking rhetorical questions whose answers are self-evident. If you're too dense to understand that, too fucking bad.

If you're too dense to realize that the means of thinking around it(Which you so clearly demonstrated) are fallacious, there's no saving you. Are you going to stop obsessing and debate logically? Aw, who am I kidding. You couldn't do that if you had two years prep time.

Furthermore, I think it's rather blurry which end of the discussion the burden of proof is on. I tend to think that altering the status quo requires the burden of proof.

'It's so blurry, really, that's why I wasn't talking about it'. Yep, fallacy central, that be your posts.

The term is derogatory to the whole group. Whether they take offense is based on the thickness of their skin. This does not make it non-derogatory.

Says you. I say it's not. We're getting to matters of opinion which no fact will sway. I say "derogatory terms" are the origin of future generic swears, which 'gay' has become. You say derogatory terms...what? Hurt people's feelings? Boo hoo.

Yep, no logical argument at all. Just 'I'M RIGHT. I MUST BE. YOU MUST BE WRONG.' Fuck off, troll.

You've already done it, by spewing derogatory bullshit, and then trying to justify it. But you keep moving those goalposts, tiger! I'm sure you must think yourself real clever.

Funny, I was kinda thinking the same thing about you. Provide an explanation for A. Here's an explanation for A. No, you need to explain A and B. Ok, here's that. Nope, A, B, and C.

Liar. I asked you to explain PCism and why it's bad in the first post. But you can't stop spewing fallacies and lies, so you keep bullshitting, squirt.

I've explained the position, why it's bad in relation to PCism, and why it doesn't make any fucking sense in the context of negative monikers in general, and you just stick your fingers in your ears and cry, "GAYBIGOT!" I'm not the one coming off like a delusional idiot.

Sure, fucktard. I'm not the one who literally can't construct a post without fallacies. Now you're just spewing 'U R RONG!!!!!'.

You have trolled by breaking the most basic rule here, and that is by debating fallaciously. When called on it, you are now just whining that someone is 'just pointing out fallacies'. Well of course. If an argument is nothing but, it is inherently invalid.

No, you're mis-applying the fallacies, as pointed out above

Nope. You have no argument, as has been shown. But please, continue to post so I can mock you, kiddo. Those with the mental equivalent of a ten year old are quite fun to mock.

[Rye]

Is it wrong to call a table "retarded" since it's a derogatory term used against people, even though no table has any discernable intelligence?

[Darth Wong]

Is it wrong to call a table "retarded" since it's a derogatory term used against people, even though no table has any discernable intelligence?

The word "retarded" is different because like it or not, it is a bad thing to be mentally retarded. So it is just a question of sensitivity rather than bigoted stereotyping. It is not "bigoted" to say that mentally retarded people are stupid; it's a fact.

PS. When you say that a particular design of automobile or furniture is "retarded", it's generally implied that you're talking about the people who designed it, not the inanimate object itself.

[McC]

It speaks to the underlying logic of your argument, moron. Your argument is that it's just words, people shouldn't be too "sensitive" about them, and any social or historical connotations in a word are totally irrelevant. Using that logic, there is nothing wrong with calling a black guy "nigger" as long as you are using "nigger" in your new "it's OK inside my own head" way.

No, my argument is the application of a word outside of its original context (in this case, calling something that's not a person by a group label) changes the connotation of the word and diverts it from being hostile towards a particular group, so long as the underlying intention of the speaker is not to insult the original group (I refer back to Guid, who is specifically trying to provoke me by using my name in such a manner). You're taking what I'm saying and expanding it beyond the scope of what I'm saying so as to make it more easy to attack -- textbook strawman.

What I am not saying is that the origin of the term was not hostile. It almost certainly was. WASPy society loves to label and ostracize through the use of labels, as has been re-hashed time and again in this thread. However, when popular culture takes the label and uses it outside the realm of its original intent, it loses hostile power. Black culture has gone a step beyond even this and started using "nigga" or "nigger" or whatever the 'correct' spelling is as a familiar term. The double-standard is what bugs me in this level, because there's no logical reason for a white guy to call a close black friend the same (in truth, I actually do know a few black guys who don't mind their white friends calling them this, but it's obviously not pervasive).

As for you, Nitram, I'm not going to even bother quoting because the entirety of your post is you standing there and saying I'm wrong, then laying down fallacies incorrectly without any real substance behind them -- unsurprisingly, exactly what you're accusing me of doing. "Fallacy! Fallacy!" when they're misapplied is you standing there like a two-year-old and stomping your foot that the local bully stole your lunch money. When you get close to actually making a new point, let me know.