Use of the word "gay" to mean something bad

[SirNitram]

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.

Gods, you're a shitty liar. 'Exactly what I accused you of doing'? Nope, I accused you of not making a logical argument, of just throwing down fallacies, then began to mock you, insisting you post an argument without fallacies. Since you can't, I just mock. You're just a lying little cunt who can't deal with the fact you only have fallacious logic and strawmen to defend yourself; you yourself whined about me being too quick to point out fallacies than debate. But there can be no logical debate if you're using fallacious logic.

[Darth Wong]

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.

You can't forcibly change the connotation of a word on your own, you lying asshole. Words have social connotations because language is a social construct. You can't simply declare "this word has no connotation when I use it this way, just because I say so", which is unfortunately what your entire argument boils down to.

Also see my response to Rye about "retarded". It applies here as well, if you can generate enough mental horsepower to figure it out.

[McC]

You can't forcibly change the connotation of a word on your own. Words have social connotations because language is a social construct. You can't simply declare "this word has no connotation when I use it this way, just because I say so", which is unfortunately what your entire argument boils down to.

I wasn't saying I was changing them on my own. Where the hell did that line of reasoning come from? I'm saying from their use by people as words beyond their original connotion (which is exactly what's happening when you call a thing gay), they lose the power of their original connotation. I'm not claiming to have changed or declared anything. I'm saying that's what their use in that manner has done.

Also see my response to Rye about "retarded". It applies here as well.

Yeah, you posted this after I had hit reply and started responding, so I missed it the first time through. It's a reasonable point, though the bigotry is the question at hand, not the stereotyping (what stereotype is there to be had by calling something 'gay'?). It's vaguely arguable that being "gay" could be construed to be bad in a similar light, as it would suggest a scenario wherein one does not reproduce, but that's an enormous stretch that I'm not going to pretend to try to support (largely because in our society, it's not really true, since a gay couple can 'reproduce' by adopting).

[Darth Wong]

You can't forcibly change the connotation of a word on your own. Words have social connotations because language is a social construct. You can't simply declare "this word has no connotation when I use it this way, just because I say so", which is unfortunately what your entire argument boils down to.

I wasn't saying I was changing them on my own. Where the hell did that line of reasoning come from? I'm saying from their use by people as words beyond their original connotion (which is exactly what's happening when you call a thing gay), they lose the power of their original connotation. I'm not claiming to have changed or declared anything. I'm saying that's what their use in that manner has done.

You are still not getting it, are you? Many people have posted in this thread and pointed out that it does have that connotation, so you simply retort "no it doesn't". For the second time, you cannot dismiss a connotation by personal fiat. I have even explained (in the case of "retarded") exactly how that connotation works (transference from the object to the people who made it, use it, or like it), to no rebuttal from you.

Also see my response to Rye about "retarded". It applies here as well.

Yeah, you posted this after I had hit reply and started responding, so I missed it the first time through. It's a reasonable point, though the bigotry is the question at hand, not the stereotyping (what stereotype is there to be had by calling something 'gay'?). It's vaguely arguable that being "gay" could be construed to be bad in a similar light, as it would suggest a scenario wherein one does not reproduce, but that's an enormous stretch that I'm not going to pretend to try to support (largely because in our society, it's not really true, since a gay couple can 'reproduce' by adopting).

As I expected, the point about how derogatory terms for people can be applied to inanimate objects flew completely over your head, as you totally failed to notice it or answer it in this reply.

[McC]

You are still not getting it, are you? Many people have posted in this thread and pointed out that it does have that connotation, so you simply retort "no it doesn't". For the second time, you cannot dismiss a connotation by personal fiat. I have even explained (in the case of "retarded") exactly how that connotation works (transference from the object to the people who made it, use it, or like it), to no rebuttal from you.

Nor can you impress this connotation upon others by personal fiat. You're as guilty as you accuse me of being, except in the opposite direction. You say the word has a connotation, I say it doesn't. For both of us, this is a true statement, and it will vary from person to person (as has been illustrated many times in this thread by the people who do share my opinion on the words innocuity). And before you call appeal to popularity on me, be aware that it can be called on you just as fast with this line of reasoning. As an aside, citing appeals to popularity as fallacies in a thread about popular usage is an utterly ridiculous practice.

As I expected, the point about how derogatory terms for people can be applied to inanimate objects flew completely over your head, as you totally failed to notice it or answer it in this reply.

Then you have a phantom post, because I referenced it and basically said you were correct that retarded is exempt from the same scrutiny as gay, since it's an actual biological disability. The fact that I did more than just say, "Yes, Lord Wong," probably threw you, though. Or are you just having fun saying I miss things now, without bothering to actually try to discuss this?

Let me try to approach it again. You seem to be saying that calling a thing by the name of a group of people (i.e. calling a table retarded) is in fact a suggesting that those that made it consist of those people? So to call the table retarded, one is actually indirectly (or perhaps not so indirectly) calling the manufacturers of the table retarded? And therefore, you extend that logic to suggest that by calling a movie/test/whatever gay, that one is calling the creator(s) of the movie/test/whatever gay? And in so doing, suggesting that those individuals being gay is a negative thing? That's way, way too much extrapolation for expressing dissatisfaction with an object.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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?

When someone uses the term "fundie" it almost always is used to directly scorn fundamentalists since, as you even agree, they are deserving of copious amounts of scorn. No one here is hiding behind a false pretense that the word "fundie" means something else, which is entirely opposite from your position on the word "gay". The fact that you are attacking people who use the word "fundie" for describing a group of people who are deserving of scorn only creates the implication in your position that homosexuals are people who are deserving of scorn. In which if that's the case, the only person here deserving of scorn at the moment is you, you heterosexist dipshit.

[McC]

When someone uses the term "fundie" it almost always is used to directly scorn fundamentalists since, as you even agree, they are deserving of copious amounts of scorn. No one here is hiding behind a false pretense that the word "fundie" means something else, which is entirely opposite from your position on the word "gay". The fact that you are attacking people who use the word "fundie" for describing a group of people who are deserving of scorn only creates the implication in your position that homosexuals are people who are deserving of scorn. In which if that's the case, the only person here deserving of scorn at the moment is you, you heterosexist dipshit.

...right. I withdraw that argument. Good point.

My point is, and has always been, that the term scorns only the object in question, and not the group.

And no, I don't think homosexuals are deserving of scorn, or did you miss the part where I cited an example of a homosexual friend of mine?

[The Guid]

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.

So are gay people deserving of scorn? And by using the term, do you admit that I am pouring scorn upon fundamentalists? If you're going to argue, don't shoot yourself in the foot.

[The Guid]

Ghetto Edit: Sorry, missed Page 5. If any Moderator/Admin feels like doing some deleting they are welcome to do so and indeed I would be grateful.

[The Guid]

Nor can you impress this connotation upon others by personal fiat.

Woah woah woah. What? You are suggesting that is just our opinion that "gay" means homosexual? You are suggesting that it is "personal fiat" that there is a link between the two meanins of the word "gay" mean despite, surely, something that is extremly blatant?

[McC]

Nor can you impress this connotation upon others by personal fiat.

Woah woah woah. What? You are suggesting that is just our opinion that "gay" means homosexual? You are suggesting that it is "personal fiat" that there is a link between the two meanins of the word "gay" mean despite, surely, something that is extremly blatant?

I'm saying it's personal fiat that when someone says "gay," the individual is indirectly insulting homosexuals, not that the word origin isn't common. In fact, I've said as much -- the word, when used against a person as an insult, is a derogatory slur. *cue broken record* However, when used against an object, it loses meaning as a slur and becomes just an expletive.

Why are we still having this discussion? I am seriously amazed that this topic lasted beyond page one.

[wolveraptor]

A question: what harm is done to a black friend if I say that that bike is so nigger?

[Zero]

A question: what harm is done to a black friend if I say that that bike is so nigger?

Are you implying that he stole the bike, that the bike is of poor quality, or what? If by calling the bike 'nigger' you're simply saying that the bike is bad, that's a good deal off from calling the bike 'gay' as gay is generally accepted as a term for homosexuals, whereas use of the word nigger will probably reflect more poorly on you then anything, as you'll come off as a racist bigoted jackass.

The thing about usage of the word 'gay' is that its socially acceptable to call something gay and to mean that that something is bad. Since typically, people associate several meanings of a word with each other (ex. faith to mean both irrational belief, and loyal), calling something gay and meaning bad will cause homosexuality to be associated with bad, whether you're a bigoted jackass or not. This isn't to say that you'll stay away from making homosexual friends, but it does mean that that specific trait will typically be looked at with scorn.

[The Guid]

And the fact is - even with the above example of the word faithful - the terms can be reasonably linked. They are a united and definite term whereas "gay" has nothing to do with bad except through bigotry and this word.

[Darth Wong]

You are still not getting it, are you? Many people have posted in this thread and pointed out that it does have that connotation, so you simply retort "no it doesn't". For the second time, you cannot dismiss a connotation by personal fiat. I have even explained (in the case of "retarded") exactly how that connotation works (transference from the object to the people who made it, use it, or like it), to no rebuttal from you.

Nor can you impress this connotation upon others by personal fiat.

I don't need to, asshole, since it's the same fucking word being used for two things. Denying the connection between the two concepts, as you are doing, is either head-in-sand denial, outright stupidity, or just plain asshole lying.

You're as guilty as you accuse me of being, except in the opposite direction. You say the word has a connotation, I say it doesn't. For both of us, this is a true statement, and it will vary from person to person (as has been illustrated many times in this thread by the people who do share my opinion on the words innocuity).

Then you lose, moron. A connotation does not have to apply for 100% of the population for it to exist. Merely by conceding that many people view it this way, you concede that the connotation exists, fucktard. What part of this are you too goddamned stupid to understand?

And before you call appeal to popularity on me, be aware that it can be called on you just as fast with this line of reasoning. As an aside, citing appeals to popularity as fallacies in a thread about popular usage is an utterly ridiculous practice.

In a debate about social connotations of language? Yet again you demonstrate that you're an imbecile who knows the names of logic fallacies but not their meaning.

[McC]

Y'know what Mike, it's not worth it. I concede, you win.

I don't intend to change your opinion, because you're too intransigent to allow anyone to affect it, regardless of arguments. Hopefully, a few people have read what I've had to say and have understood it and will walk away knowing it. But I'm done running in circles with you over something as meaningless as this. You want to see this as me 'running away' because I 'can't debate you,' then fine. Claim what small personal victory you want out of that. But I'm done with this thread. It's gone beyond pointless, and definitely gone beyond my level of tolerance for the defense of PCism.

[Zero]

No offense, Mc, but your arguments were typically poorly put together and comprised primarily of bullshit in this thread. It should be fucking obvious that having one word mean both homosexual and bad is bigoted, or at the least will lead to bigotry of sorts.

[Darth Wong]

Y'know what Mike, it's not worth it. I concede, you win.

I don't intend to change your opinion, because you're too intransigent to allow anyone to affect it, regardless of arguments.

I've answered your arguments, fucktard. This is just your worthless lying chickenshit excuse for not being able to respond. Your whole argument boils down to "there is no negative connotation because I say so", even though the connotation is obvious from the fact that the same word is being used for two things, and you admitted that many people in society see this connotation whose existence you deny. So you preposterously tried to claim that pointing out that commonality of this connotation is an "Appeal to Popularity" fallacy even though it is nothing of the sort, since social connotations have to do with popular perception by definition, you idiot. And now you resort to this pitiful "well, I won even though I can't explain why" bullshit, followed by "it's all your fault for not understanding".

Hopefully, a few people have read what I've had to say and have understood it and will walk away knowing it. But I'm done running in circles with you over something as meaningless as this. You want to see this as me 'running away' because I 'can't debate you,' then fine. Claim what small personal victory you want out of that. But I'm done with this thread. It's gone beyond pointless, and definitely gone beyond my level of tolerance for the defense of PCism.

Oh right, I forgot: you can dismiss anything by just calling it "PC". Thank you, Rush Limbaugh.

[wolveraptor]

*snip*

In other words, harm comes to me, not to the guy who was subjected to the horrific indignity of having a term that encompasses him be used as a pejorative.
Also, since when does using the word gay to dexcribe something bad "lead to bigotry of sorts"? It is simply somewhat insensitive to gay people. Imo, the harm that could possibly come to a homosexual when he hears the word gay being used as negative adjective is simply not enough to warrant any real protest.

[Zero]

*snip*

In other words, harm comes to me, not to the guy who was subjected to the horrific indignity of having a term that encompasses him be used as a pejorative.
Also, since when does using the word gay to dexcribe something bad "lead to bigotry of sorts"? It is simply somewhat insensitive to gay people. Imo, the harm that could possibly come to a homosexual when he hears the word gay being used as negative adjective is simply not enough to warrant any real protest.

You missed my point. My point was that usage of the word gay to mean both/either homosexuality or bad will lead to an association of ideas between the two different meanings. In this way, that specific trait of the person is more likely to be seen as a negative characteristic instead of a neutral one, so society will continue to look down on homosexuals, even if there's no open bigotry intended.

[wolveraptor]

I think that my support for the legalization of homosexual marriages speaks louder than my use of the word gay as a pejorative. Note also that only dumbass teenagers are stupid enough to not be able to distinguish from casual vernacular and what one actually feels.

[Zero]

It doesn't have to be something we're aware of for it to affect how we think and act. Do you take note of if any of your freinds are homosexual? Do you ever consider this trait in opposition to other good traits, such as being interesting or just generally cool? I know my friend has done this. "Patrick's actually gay, but he's still a cool guy to hang out with." The structure of the words here suggests that being gay is a bad trait, in opposition to being cool. I know my friend is also a proponent of homosexual marriage. He's no bigoted piece of shit, but he still takes homosexuality as being in opposition to the good traits of someone, which I suspect is quite common among the general population, and which I know is common among the people I know.

Whether you consciously think that homosexuality is a negative trait or not, the association between the two ideas of 'bad' and 'homosexual' may still affect how you treat and consider people.

My point is simply that usage of the word 'gay' to mean bad does have negative effects, even if we aren't aware of them.

[wolveraptor]

Of course I'd take note if I knew anyone homosexual. Homosexuality is quite rare for all the fuss it has created. Homosexuality can also be a negative trait for guy friends because it creates a bit of tension between them. What if he actually has a crush on me? This really only applies to young relationships, because adults can interact with those of the the sexually desirable gender without automatically lusting after them.

On the whole, though, I do not think in any way that being homosexual is harmful or bad, despite the fact that I use gay as a word for bad, and even then only in a light-hearted sense.

[The Guid]

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.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

My point is, and has always been, that the term scorns only the object in question, and not the group.

And my counter-point is that language you happen to use to scorn such objects only displays your insensitivity to others. Simply by categorizing the offense of others as "their problem" you've basically boiled your argument to "accept my use of language or beat it" without giving any thought whatsoever to the ramifications of such careless use of the word. You give no consideration whatsoever to the person who is offended by you insulting something through a word he's associated personally with or to the person who's homophobic sentiments are reinforced through carefree heterosexist remarks. Hence, your assholerism.

And no, I don't think homosexuals are deserving of scorn, or did you miss the part where I cited an example of a homosexual friend of mine?

And did you miss the part where I said your argument implied such? You made a direct comparison between the use of the word "fundie" and the word "gay" by saying the two are similar because they themselves are objects of scorn. What other conceivable implication is there? Do you think that simply by having gay friends, you are somehow immune to heterosexism or homophobia? As a gay person who has "friends" who have made intentionally derogatory remarks of gay men in my presence, that line of thought simply won't work and you can kiss it goodbye.