Ignorance - Some People's Drug

[Cynthia]

Being cat, ragged, thick, luidir or eejit are all insults where I'm from. ;) Are these being used "correctly"? Slang for a word is just as valid as the dictioanry defined meanings. Languages change constantly, and some of the slang will be "proper" words in 20 years. A person choice of words indicates little about their intelligence, merely their place of upbringing.

There's a difference, we're talking about REAL people, not animals or adjectives, gays are people. It'll be a SAD day when the dictionary defines the second meaning for a group of people as an insult.

If that were the case, then if I got enough people to say "Straight" as an insult, would it one day become proper to say such as an insult?

A cat is an animal, I don't really think it cares if you use it as an insult, and ragged and think aren't people either, we're talking about an actual GROUP of people. When the dictionary starts saying slang terms are proper insults to people, it's a sad day for the world. I have never seen a slang term where it says "Insult" without saying it's slang, because it's an adaptation of the word, but people are calling EVERYTHING gay, and the insult is implying it's homosexual, which for starters doesn't make sense to begin with, secondly how can objects be homosexual?

Example: Our teacher is making us do this gay paper.

A paper is an asexual object, it can not be homosexual.

See THAT's what the issue is, the fact people adapt words to improper meanings and just accept it as if it was the way it's supposed to be used.

[Florete]

That.

Pointless spam. Deleted.

[Rehab]

I agreed with Wist's post. People quote something somebody else said and say "this" so much on forums without any repercussions or anything, I assumed this wouldn't be any different.

Was this that post I supposedly got reported for?

Relevant: It's just dumb slang when used in this way, usually used non seriously by dumb or very not-serious people. Not much to get offended about.

Edited September 24, 2008 by Mac

[Florete]

I agreed with Wist's post. People quote something somebody else said and say "this" so much on forums without any repercussions or anything, I assumed this wouldn't be any different.

I made an announcement for it. If you have to quote something, add something.

[Cynthia]

I agreed with Wist's post. People quote something somebody else said and say "this" so much on forums without any repercussions or anything, I assumed this wouldn't be any different.

Was this that post I supposedly got reported for?

Relevant: It's just dumb slang when used in this way, usually used non seriously by dumb or very not-serious people. Not much to get offended about.

I agree with that part, we're on the same page now.

[Metal Rabbit]

Back to the original topic...

That "friend" of yours was trollin' you Cynthia. IDK how long you've been to forums, but I've been around enough to smell trolls a mile away. It's a skill you develop, if you don't already have the foresight to see it.

Other topic:

Ignorance to homosexuals is gay.

[Cynthia]

Back to the original topic...

That "friend" of yours was trollin' you Cynthia. IDK how long you've been to forums, but I've been around enough to smell trolls a mile away. It's a skill you develop, if you don't already have the foresight to see it.

Other topic:

Ignorance to homosexuals is gay.

I'm well aware how to identify trolls. I just don't accept it as an excuse to be ignorant really.

[Metal Rabbit]

...But that's the point...

-__-

He wasn't necesarily being ignorant, he was definitely trying to piss you off.

[Wist]

See THAT's what the issue is, the fact people adapt words to improper meanings and just accept it as if it was the way it's supposed to be used.

I mostly disagree with this aspect of your post. Words change all the time, it is natural for any living language to evolve over time. Most any English speaker two hundred years ago would be familiar with the words "hot" and "dog," but they would not understand what is meant by the term "hot dog." The now taboo words "bitch" and "bastard" have been adopted into English as conventional insults and are much less frequently used in context of their original definitions; words often pick up additional definitions over time. In Mandarin Chinese, "同志" used to be most equivalent with the English word "comrade" (as a Communist form of address) but it can now be understood to refer to homosexual men.

Whether or not this alteration of definitions is disagreeable or insulting is not overtly relevant because it is mainstream society who decides how to use words (this is especially true for English because it lacks a central governing body, an example of which being L'Académie française which tries to dictate proper French). "Their" is a plural pronoun but it has been favored by the masses when the gender of a subject is unclear; "his," "hers," "his or hers," and proposed gender neutral singular pronouns like "hir" have not caught on as much as "their." Just to make sure I'm being clear, I'm referring to sentences such as, "The driver gave their key to the hotel attendant," in which "their" is the word most would use when speaking despite "his" or "her" being more grammatically correct. Academics have been unable to change this pattern of speech since English speakers have, in general, become more conscientious of gender neutrality and some avoid favoring "his" or "her." This is an amusing case because, until the 1800's, "their" was the proper pronoun to use in a sentence such as the one I stated above. Academics tried to standardized "his" because, where there were no formal rules to English, they sought to mandate related rules in Latin; this is why the use of "his" (and recently "her") is supposed to be favored over "their."

People will come up with ways of communicating anything they hope to communicate, and that can include insults and other forms of derogatory language. Because "gay" is used to refer to homosexuals, and equal rights and respects for homosexuals is a matter of concern for some people (I currently live in the United States, I do not know how much of a concern this matter is in other countries), then the use of "gay" as a derogatory adjective may become taboo (the way the Japanese word "家内" has become become a politically incorrect equivalent of "wife" because its characters, which denote 'home' and 'inside,' suggest that one's wife should stay at home). Perhaps "gay" will instead become less frequently used to reference homosexuals (and "homosexual" or "unstraight" could become the most adopted norm); who knows? At the moment, "gay" is widespread enough that most people below a threshold age are expected to understand its connotations as slang. You and I can choose not to use the word in such a manner, but the word may very well shift to becoming more an insult than anything else (a reference to homosexuals being included in that anything else).

Living languages are not static; they change and adapt as society needs or expects them to. With as widespread a language as English, suggestions of what are and aren't valid changes cannot be enforced by anyone except for the general public. In twenty years, "gay" may very well not be used to refer to those who are homosexual.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Wist

[Leonri]

Interesting fact, in 16th century England it was illegal to call someone else a "Scot" (England was at war with Scotland at the time). This was seen as being an extremely serious insult, and like gay, denotes a group of people, as well as the insult.

There's a difference, we're talking about REAL people, not animals or adjectives, gays are people. It'll be a SAD day when the dictionary defines the second meaning for a group of people as an insult.

If that were the case, then if I got enough people to say "Straight" as an insult, would it one day become proper to say such as an insult?

Yes it would, as gay is know. It's secondary meaning has little to do with it's first one know. Words change all the time, can't stop that. Gay has changed several times in the recent past. All swear words are from taboo subjects: religion, bodily functions and sexuality.

The word bastard originally referred to a child born out of wedlock. Surely, when using it you don't worry if it will offend people like these?

[Cynthia]

Honestly, I still see no reason to call things "gay," as a negative way of speaking about them. You can just say "bad," or "terrible," or "dreadful," or "annoying." There's so many different words you could use, there's really no need to use "gay," in that sense.

[Wist]

That would be the case if that use of the word "gay" as a pejorative adjective hadn't been adopted into mainstream slang. Regardless of whether altering or expanding upon the definition of a word makes literal sense, if the word is used by the general public in a new way, then the word's connotations have been amended. In a sense, any commonly understood use of a word is correct by virtue of being used by the general public. This is the case irrespective of small disagreements; if a word can be commonly understood to convey a specific idea then it has been adopted into the language in question by means of an unconscious lingual vote. No one would be forced to use "gay" in the way implied in this discussion (there are alternatives, as you suggested). However, those who do choose to use the word in such a way will expect you, an English speaking individual, to understand what they seek to express.

If use of the word "gay" as used in such a manner becomes enough of a taboo, then its usage will be reduced; that assumes it doesn't become a swear word. Swear words seems to have a special status in that they are very much politically incorrect but perfectly acceptable in a variety of casual environments (including some forums). If the aforementioned suggestions do not come to fruition, then "gay" will probably drop out of favor sometime in the future (as slang frequently does) anyways. Certainly, if a significant number of people oppose the word's usage then this process will be accelerated.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Wist