# Thats soooo gay



## jetboatdeath (Mar 1, 2007)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/?GT1=9145

It's getting out of hand......
When will we say enough is enough?


----------



## bydand (Mar 1, 2007)

enough is enough.  You are right.  That phrase has been around sense I was in High School, and I graduated 26 years ago.


----------



## terryl965 (Mar 1, 2007)

What can you do this is the land of the lawsuites and time will tell if everyone of us must always keep our mouth shut.


----------



## tellner (Mar 1, 2007)

I'm sure I could say something that would make any one of you purple with rage just like those damned PC uppity queers. And the first thing you would do would be reflexively suspend me from the forum. Then you would rage and stomp. But somehow it would be different because it would be your ox being gored. Honest. That's the way it works. Others' buttons are stupid. What they do when they are pushed is over-reaction. Ours, on the other hand, are sacred.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Mar 1, 2007)

I'm so sick of litigation BS. I'm a chiropractor. In chiropractic, we "crack" low backs. To do so,you gotta get a handle on the skeleton somewhere useful. The sacroiliac joint is near the butt...comrades in profession have been sued for fondling butts, when they were just cracking backs. They've won in court, particularly when the "victim" is shown instructional video and asked, "is this what he did to you?". But the cost goes deeper, to practice, reputation, family stress.

High school is full of kids doing and saying stupid crap; it's high school. To write the kid up for non-PC language is stupid. To sue the school is stupid. For craps sake, knock it off, people.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 1, 2007)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> High school is full of kids doing and saying stupid crap; it's high school. To write the kid up for non-PC language is stupid. To sue the school is stupid. For craps sake, knock it off, people.




I agree totally. 

I also almost handed out negative rep to jetboatdeath for the thread title.  Luckily, I read the story.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Mar 1, 2007)

rutherford said:


> I agree totally.
> 
> I also almost handed out negative rep to jetboatdeath for the thread title. Luckily, I read the story.


 
Ummm how can you Totally agree with that when you just said you almost gave me bad rep for using a non-pc title? Your part of this problem.


----------



## searcher (Mar 1, 2007)

It is not just in HS.   I was just recently reprimanded for use of the term "queer."   Several of my associates have been similarly scolded for making similar statements.   It is OK that it makes me go against my faith, because it offends other people.   If my kids want to say something like the statement above then I will not scold them for it.   It is time for everyone to grow up and stop beign a bunch of sissys.


----------



## deadhand31 (Mar 1, 2007)

Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined? While I disagree with alot of beliefs of the Mormon church, I don't think it's right to make fun of their members. If those students had asked a Muslim student where their turban was, or if they asked a Jewish student if they'd like some bacon, I'm certain the administrators would have been all over them. For some reason, it's ok to make fun of someone for a misconception of their religion as long as it's not minority dominated. Free speech, my ***.


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 1, 2007)

You know, I'm torn. I'm rabidly pro-gay rights but just as rabidly pro-free speach. The first question I would ask is: what's the context? The girl in the article was obviously not using the word "gay" as an anti-homosexual slur. She has the freedom to say that if she wants to. But what if the situation had been diferent and she did mean it as an anti-homosexual slur. As distastful as I would find it, she has the freedom to say it, and she shouldn't be open to being sued because of it. Why, because unless it is accompanied with a verbal barrage that can be legally considered "harasment", it's not illegal. THAT being said, the scope of what "harasment" encompases has become so wide you can hardly fart at work and not be accused of "creating a hostile work environment."
To sum up: the system is a mess. People just need to start using good old common sense. Wait, but what if saying someone doesn't have common sense is harasment... Arrrrrrrrrrgh! (head exploding)



jetboatdeath said:


> Your part of this problem.



We are all free to say pretty much whatever we want on this forum, but remember that we're all friends here, OK?


----------



## rutherford (Mar 1, 2007)

jetboatdeath said:


> Ummm how can you Totally agree with that when you just said you almost gave me bad rep for using a non-pc title? Your part of this problem.



Because obviously, negative rep = a lawsuit.  :bs1:


**** being politically correct.  It's just plain offensive and rude.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

What's wrong with her saying "that's so happy?" 

They are picking on her religious beliefs, stereotyping her for them, and she gets a lawsuit filled against her when she defends herself.

I guess some stereotypes and insults are ok, others aren't?

Seriously, it's about time we started working on that kill all the lawyers plan someone had.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 1, 2007)

That's so gay.


----------



## JBrainard (Mar 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Seriously, it's about time we started working on that kill all the lawyers plan someone had.


 
But that's vocational genocide!


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> But that's vocational genocide!



So when its done, sue me... oh wait, no lawyers, you can't! :lol:


----------



## rutherford (Mar 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> They are picking on her religious beliefs, stereotyping her for them, and she gets a lawsuit filled against her when she defends herself.



No, she filed the lawsuit.  It doesn't even sound like she got a detention, just a trip to the principle's office.


----------



## Kreth (Mar 1, 2007)

deadhand31 said:


> Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined?


Apparently the Mormon lobbyists aren't all that great... :lol:


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Apparently the Mormon lobbyists aren't all that great... :lol:


No, in my experience the offical church presidency (those who run it) don't really get involved in petty crap like this. The individual (parents) that sued the school are the only ones who took umbrage at the one sided disciplinary action. 


I agree we really need to follow up Billy Shakesphere's idea of "kill all the lawyers" they're the ones screwing everything up. 

I remember during my days in H.S. it was okay to label someone as "queer", my buddies and I used to say it to each other as playful insults, but sometimes as a angry derogative ... now it's not. Pretty soon the "Q" word is gonna be just as bad as the "N" word ... oh wait... it already is.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 1, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> I remember during my days in H.S. it was okay to label someone as "queer", my buddies and I used to say it to each other as playful insults, but sometimes as a angry derogative ... now it's not. Pretty soon the "Q" word is gonna be just as bad as the "N" word ... oh wait... it already is.



Yeah, and in my grandpa's day in H.S., it was okay to label someone as "ni double g er".  Why does it bother everyone so much that another group of people might get tired of others using what they are as an insult?


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Yeah, and in my grandpa's day in H.S., it was okay to label someone as "ni double g er".  Why does it bother everyone so much that another group of people might get tired of others using what they are as an insult?


Because you got lawyers mucking up the works... ":idea: hmm, I can make some_ big _bucks if someone's feelings are hurt over a single word..."


----------



## Kacey (Mar 1, 2007)

Several years ago, my reading class read "The Secret Garden", which was written in 1911, when gay meant "happy and carefree" - which is how the word is used in the novel.  I gave my students this definition before we started reading... and had to show them a dictionary to prove it, as they thought I was kidding.  Every time we reached the word "gay" in the text, I had to ask "now, do they mean that Mary (the main character) has a girlfriend?" - because if I didn't, they'd start snickering amongst themselves.  On the other hand, by the end of the book, they had a much better understanding of alternative definitions and how words changed over time, and started bringing in words that their parents used differently than they did and asking about them.  

The key, as a teacher, is to use such moments to teach, not preach, and not to blow such situations out of proportion, as seems to have happened here - especially when the students' interpretation is different than your own, a valuable lesson for them to learn.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2007)

Kacey said:


> Several years ago, my reading class read "The Secret Garden", which was written in 1911, when gay meant "happy and carefree" - which is how the word is used in the novel.  I gave my students this definition before we started reading... and had to show them a dictionary to prove it, as they thought I was kidding.  Every time we reached the word "gay" in the text, I had to ask "now, do they mean that Mary (the main character) has a girlfriend?" - because if I didn't, they'd start snickering amongst themselves.  On the other hand, by the end of the book, they had a much better understanding of alternative definitions and how words changed over time, and started bringing in words that their parents used differently than they did and asking about them.
> 
> The key, as a teacher, is to use such moments to teach, not preach, and not to blow such situations out of proportion, as seems to have happened here - especially when the students' interpretation is different than your own, a valuable lesson for them to learn.




:asian: in a big way m'lady. Brilliant!


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 1, 2007)

I love the final paragraph of the article:



> "Reasonable people should say, `Let's put a stop to this kind of search-and-destroy mission by school officials for everything that is politically incorrect,'" he said.



Yes, zero tolerance needs to be booted.  Reason and common sense needs to be brought back.

- Ceicei


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> I love the final paragraph of the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree here... sooo, who's gonna start doing it??


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 1, 2007)

MA-Caver said:


> Absolutely agree here... sooo, who's gonna start doing it??



How can we, as a society, do this?  I suppose each of us should make a stand within our community, and hopefully with time, collectively, be able to eradicate this.  Problem is, there are *a lot of people* out there, that will say all of this (retaining the politically incorrect view) is necessary and should stay, claiming "think of the children".  We need less government to regulate, not more.  If more people can define (rather than government) what is acceptable and what is not, and resolve on a case by case situation, life would be much better.

- Ceicei


----------



## bydand (Mar 1, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> Yes, zero tolerance needs to be booted.  Reason and common sense needs to be brought back.
> 
> - Ceicei



New war cry:  "Zero Tolerance for zero tolerance!"   

Worst part is, I can see people thinking it makes perfect sense and pushing for a new written policy somewhere spelling it out.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 1, 2007)

The problem with this kind of stuff IMO, is that Groups like the Homosexuals accept the terminology applied to them like GAY or QUEER, and then think anyone using it in any other context is slamming them.

GAY does NOT mean homosexual.  At least... it didn't before it was co-opted.

QUEER does NOT mean homosexual.  At least... it didn't before it was co-opted.

This doesn't by the way, only occur with Homosexuals, it occurs with various races, groups, etc...

Can any group just co-opt a term, and then its offensive when someone else uses it?  

​


----------



## bydand (Mar 1, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> The problem with this kind of stuff IMO, is that Groups like the Homosexuals accept the terminology applied to them like GAY or QUEER, and then think anyone using it in any other context is slamming them.
> 
> GAY does NOT mean homosexual.  At least... it didn't before it was co-opted.
> 
> ...



As a straight white male I vote as a group we adopt the term "Mileage" to refer to ourselves and then whenever somebody other than a straight white male makes the statement "your milage may vary" or any other type of usage, we sue them for damages to our fragile egos.  :lfao:


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 1, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> How can we, as a society, do this?  I suppose each of us should make a stand within our community, and hopefully with time, collectively, be able to eradicate this.  Problem is, there are *a lot of people* out there, that will say all of this (retaining the politically incorrect view) is necessary and should stay, claiming "think of the children".  We need less government to regulate, not more.  If more people can define (rather than government) what is acceptable and what is not, and resolve on a case by case situation, life would be much better.
> 
> - Ceicei


Well yeah true... in an ideal world... but since it's not (nods to the ones whining about word definitions and suing everyone that even THINKS of the word in a bad context...) it probably will (and should) begin where it always has mattered.... in the home. At least the next generation will be a little more tolerant and the ones after that and so on... 

I work in a place where there is a nice racial diversity. Compared to 20 + years ago there's no racial tension at all that I can see/sense ... maybe we ARE growing up. A couple of my managers are "G" (don't want to offend anyone here) but it's not ever mentioned or whatever... is it because it's not PC or not even appropriate... or how about... it doesn't even fricken *MATTER!* We all get along and do our jobs and go on with our lives during our respective days off. 

Our societies... across the world have still got a long way to go.


----------



## tellner (Mar 1, 2007)

Looking a little deeper, I find English and French references to "gay" back at least to the seventeenth century used interchangably for prostitutes and male and female homosexuals. It's not the original meaning of the word, but it certainly has a long pre-Stonewall history.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 1, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> GAY does NOT mean homosexual.  At least... it didn't before it was co-opted.
> 
> QUEER does NOT mean homosexual.  At least... it didn't before it was co-opted.​




Both those terms were used as insults prior to being co-opted for use in the "in" group.  Homophobes changed the meaning of "gay" and "queer", not the gays and queers.



Cryozombie said:


> Can any group just co-opt a term, and then its offensive when someone else uses it?



If the term was previously used as an insult against that group, why the hell not?  You're not going to be one of those obnoxious (presumably) white people who whines how they don't get to call people "******s" anymore, are you?​


----------



## Ping898 (Mar 1, 2007)

I just remember that Brendan Fraiser movie Blast from the Past wherehe is underground in a fallout shelter for like 30 years then comes out to the real world and one of the other characters tells Brendan he is gay and Brendan replies that he is glad the other character is happy...

I am also reminded of the NFL policy of not allowing GAY to be put on the custom NFL jerseys even though there actually was a player with the last name GAY.  Eventually after a lot of complaints (apparently GAY was a good player) they changed the policy...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 1, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> That's so gay.


 
Sorry but a bizarre double post thing just occurred, please pretend this post does not exist and just move on to the next one

Move along..there is nothing to see here


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 1, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> That's so gay.


 
I would sue you for that but then I would have to spend the rest of my life watching cats very very closely... so I won't


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 1, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Both those terms were used as insults prior to being co-opted for use in the "in" group.  Homophobes changed the meaning of "gay" and "queer", not the gays and queers.



This may be the case, but If I say to somone who is happy, "My you are quite Gay today" or to the English girl who trains with us "lemme have a pull of your fag" should I be punshied for "hating homosexuals?"  There is a line, between using a word, and using "Hate Speech" and the WORD doesn't dertermine it, unless that word was specifically developed to be hateful.  




Empty Hands said:


> If the term was previously used as an insult against that group, why the hell not?  You're not going to be one of those obnoxious (presumably) white people who whines how they don't get to call people "ni gg ers" anymore, are you?
> [/left]



Are you presuming I am obnoxious, or white?


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 1, 2007)

Xue Sheng said:


> I would sue you for that but then I would have to spend the rest of my life watching cats very very closely... so I won't


 
Buttons....END HIM.


----------



## Carol (Mar 1, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Buttons....END HIM.



Hey now, he said he would NOT sue.   Keep Buttons standing guard


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 1, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Hey now, he said he would NOT sue. Keep Buttons standing guard


 
Oh fine.

Buttons, stand down and keep to THREATCON Charlie, maintain patrol of sector 18 Bravo.


----------



## Carol (Mar 1, 2007)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Oh fine.
> 
> Buttons, stand down and keep to THREATCON Charlie, maintain patrol of sector 18 Bravo.



Is that the sector with the most amount of trees?  :rofl:


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Mar 1, 2007)

Carol Kaur said:


> Is that the sector with the most amount of trees? :rofl:


 

That's classified


----------



## Tames D (Mar 1, 2007)

deadhand31 said:


> Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined? While I disagree with alot of beliefs of the Mormon church, I don't think it's right to make fun of their members. If those students had asked a Muslim student where their turban was, or if they asked a Jewish student if they'd like some bacon, I'm certain the administrators would have been all over them. For some reason, it's ok to make fun of someone for a misconception of their religion as long as it's not minority dominated. Free speech, my ***.


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 1, 2007)

On a somewhat related topic, the people that really annoy me are the ones that get offended by swearing or bad language, but then go on about suggesting "replacement" words.  Common example, "Fudge you", anybody not know what they mean?  Yet they claim moral supperiority because they said fudge, which isn't offensive, rather then that other nasty word.

Words are words, it's what is meant by them that counts.  This girl obviously did not mean to use a homosexual slur, so it wasn't.


----------



## BrandiJo (Mar 2, 2007)

I would have to say the student saying thats so gay was in the wrong, so where the students teasing her, and so where the admin for not fairly implamenting policies, should she sue pry not.... but thats on way to make your voice heard


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 2, 2007)

deadhand31 said:


> Here's a question: Why is it that the students who were bad-mouthing her religion weren't disciplined?




I am not so sure they were not. This article is about the lawsuit the girl's parents brought to take the note out of her records. It does not deal with the matter of what was done to the kids who taunted her. The closest thing I could find was this in the article,



> Rice's parents, Elden and Katherine Rice, also claim the public high school employed a double-standard because, they say, administrators never sought to shield Rebekah from teasing based on Mormon stereotypes.



It seems a bit strange that the parents are saying that the school failed to protect their daughter from taunting, but do not complain about different values when giving out punishment. That would be a big point of showing a bias against one group over another if it were the case.

So I really don't know if the kids that started all this by making fun of her religion were also censured, but their parents accepted their punishment and did not contact a lawyer like this girl's did.


----------



## Marginal (Mar 2, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> It seems a bit strange that the parents are saying that the school failed to protect their daughter from taunting, but do not complain about different values when giving out punishment. That would be a big point of showing a bias against one group over another if it were the case.
> 
> So I really don't know if the kids that started all this by making fun of her religion were also censured, but their parents accepted their punishment and did not contact a lawyer like this girl's did.


Since no Mormons were beaten the year before, probably not.


----------



## Shaderon (Mar 2, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Words are words, it's what is meant by them that counts. This girl obviously did not mean to use a homosexual slur, so it wasn't.


 
I totally agree Andrew, that's so right.  You can tell by the way someone says something if they mean offence, and if no offence is meant, why take it?  THAT'S offensive to me.


----------



## crushing (Mar 2, 2007)

More information in this article that the MSNBC article didn't have.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1581


----------



## rutherford (Mar 2, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Apparently the Mormon lobbyists aren't all that great... :lol:



Reading the second story, it sounds to me like the Mormons are lobbyists.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 2, 2007)

quote=Andy Moynihan;738284]Buttons....END HIM. [/quote]

 



Carol Kaur said:


> Hey now, he said he would NOT sue. Keep Buttons standing guard



WHEW!!! Thanks Carol



Andy Moynihan said:


> Oh fine.
> 
> Buttons, stand down and keep to THREATCON Charlie, maintain patrol of sector 18 Bravo.



Must watch more enter the Dragon as a training supplement&#8230;.&#8230;DAME!!! that is only if he is sending snakes&#8230;not cats&#8230;&#8230; 



Carol Kaur said:


> Is that the sector with the most amount of trees?



Well if it is I&#8217;m not there&#8230;. Hopefully he gets thrown off by my evasive tactics



Andy Moynihan said:


> That's classified


DAMN&#8230; I&#8217;m so doomed.:uhohh:


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 2, 2007)

Frankly, with all the lawsuits, protests, complaints, boycotts, and other reactions, I think the homosexual population is quickly losing its claim to the word "gay".


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

Alright, then. If words are just words, how about if I refer to Blacks with That WORD, the Unspeakable, Unutterable "N-word" here on MT? I promise I won't use it in a derogatory way. It's just the way I'll refer to them in regular conversation. I'll use similar terms for Chinese, Italians, Mexicans, Jews and anyone else. Oh yes, same with the Christians. But since they've, to paraphrase the previous correspondent, given up the right to be called "Christian" I won't even be polite.

That would last about a minute and a half. Then my *** would be bounced from here. And every single one of the people cheering for the girl would cheer for that decision.

The only reason people are so disparaging about the queers' sensitivity is because it's safe and Ideologically Correct by right-wingnut standards to hate them.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> This may be the case, but If I say to somone who is happy, "My you are quite Gay today" or to the English girl who trains with us "lemme have a pull of your fag" should I be punshied for "hating homosexuals?"



No.  Don't be surprised if you get some weird looks though.



Cryozombie said:


> Are you presuming I am obnoxious, or white?



Complaining that you can't use words perceived as slurs is obnoxious, yes.  Since this is a complaint I generally see from white men that really ache to be able to use the word "******" or "fag" in polite company, I am also presuming you are white.

BTW mods, aren't we all adults here?  Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored?  Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.


----------



## oddball (Mar 2, 2007)

Eh, my professor actually talked about something like this recently that made sense - how words are taken and then applied to a group of people, and as such, those terms eventually become NPC to use. The problem itself isn't really the word itself, but how when it becomes applied to a group of people it becomes derogatory because it was applied to that group of people. So, for example (hope it works), a term like Laplander (the people that live way north in Scandinavia) has become offensive. It was used to describe the Sami people, but became derogatory when it also gained the connotation of poverty or stupidity.
So, umm, fixing a word won't actually change the problem. The people have to change to not be biased against the target of the word.
(I wonder if calling people by "racial colors" will become completely NPC, since that would go with the trend?)


----------



## crushing (Mar 2, 2007)

tellner said:


> The only reason people are so disparaging about the queers' sensitivity is because it's safe and Ideologically Correct by *right-wingnut* standards to hate them.


 
Will those targetted by this comment find it disparaging, maybe even hateful?  To where will the slope slide?  Any 'right-wingnuts' care to respond?


Anyway, isn't Kirk Maltby a a right-wingnut.


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

_[Note to the mods: I'm trying very hard to make a point about the pernicious nature of bigotry. There really isn't a clearer way of saying what needs to be said. If you ding this post for racism I suggest you take a second look or examine your reading comprehension skills.]_

Fixing a word may not completely fix the problem. But it can certainly help. When Whites stopped calling Mexicans "spics" or Blacks "darkies" it forced people to use terms which did not come with heavy emotional weighting. The words came with certain associations that placed the people it referred to in their "proper" place - somewhere lower than whale dung. No doubt. No argument is possible. Changing the words that were used did not completely change the feelings, but it helped stop their constant reinforcement.

The "burakumin" are still crapped on by Japanese society, but their lot has improved. Part of it is because people stopped calling them "eta" which means "disgusting filth". It became a bit harder to reflexively dismiss them as sub-human.

I'll give you an example that happened to my wife a few weeks ago. She was riding the MAX. There was a young (Black) man sitting a few seats behind her talking loudly on his cell phone. Every second word out of his mouth was "*****" this and "*****" that. An older man with the sort of very West African features that you usually only see in Africa or heavily segregated parts of the Deep South was sitting across the aisle from her getting angrier and angrier. She was afraid she was going to have to intervene to keep him from knocking the kid around. 

Finally another young Black man turned to the caller and said "If you don't stop saying *****, someone's going to come over there and ***** your ***." There was a pause. Then applause and cheering from everyone in train car. The first young man hung up, looked very embarassed, and apologized, saying that it was a bad habit he knew he had to break.

There is magic in words, sometimes Black Magick. It's because we are fundamentally irrational magically thinking creatures. We have an industry worth billions upon billions every year called "marketing" which is based on the assumption that we are jsut that and can be manipulated through symbols, emotions and prejudice.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 2, 2007)

crushing said:


> Will those targetted by this comment find it disparaging, maybe even hateful? To where will the slope slide? Any 'right-wingnuts' care to respond?


 
That had occurred to me too.  Couldn't even deplore the use of derogatory terms without throwing out a derogatory term.  And then there's this:



			
				Empty Hands said:
			
		

> Complaining that you can't use words perceived as slurs is obnoxious, yes. Since this is a complaint I generally see from white men that really ache to be able to use the word "n!gger" or "fag" in polite company, I am also presuming you are white.
> 
> BTW mods, aren't we all adults here? Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored? Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.


 
Isn't the second paragraph a complaint that you can't use words perceived as slurs?  Seems like the only white folk on this board that are aching to use slurs are the ones who accuse white people of racism.  And BTW, "racist white people" is a racist stereotype.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Isn't the second paragraph a complaint that you can't use words perceived as slurs?



In the context of discussing those words *as* slurs in a debate setting, yes.  Quite a bit different than using a word indicating someone's identity (gay for example, or retarded) to express how bad something is.  "That's so gay!"  How about I use "That's so CoryKS!" when I think something sucks?  I don't mean it against YOU of course, it is merely a word expressing my disapproval. :angel:



CoryKS said:


> Seems like the only white folk on this board that are aching to use slurs are the ones who accuse white people of racism.



I have accused Cryo of being obnoxious, not racist.  I don't know enough to say if he is racist or not.  Complaining about how those nasty homosexuals have co-opted perfectly good words isn't a good sign however.



CoryKS said:


> And BTW, "racist white people" is a racist stereotype.



Sure it is, if the speaker is claiming that all white people, or even most, are racist.  Has anyone claimed that here?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I have accused Cryo of being obnoxious, not racist.  I don't know enough to say if he is racist or not.  Complaining about how those nasty homosexuals have co-opted perfectly good words isn't a good sign however.



I know, my racist and homophobic tendancies really irritate my black and gay freinds.  :rofl::rofl::rofl:  In retrospect, I don't understand why they spend so much time with me.

By the way, Just to clarify, friend... *I* never said Homosexuals were "nasty".   THAT came out of YOUR post.  *I* never used the N-Word. I don't use that word in fact, it has no legitimate use in conversation.  Funny how you guys who actually keep saying it wanna tag _*me*_ with its use.

But, yeah... *I* am the one displaying Racist behavior.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> BTW mods, aren't we all adults here?  Why should an altered version of the "n-word" that won't trigger a filter also be censored?  Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.



I'd also like to point out that my entire argument was one that given the proper use of a term it shouldnt be considered hate speech... an argument that you called me obnoxious for, and hinted at the fact that I was racist because of it... and yet... right there... you made the exact same argument because the mods "corrected" your post...

Tsk Tsk.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I know, my racist and homophobic tendancies really irritate my black and gay freinds.



Wow, was that irony unintentional?  Here's a hint: Governor Wallace would say to anyone who would listen that he didn't hate black people, and even had a very fine black friend...while he was standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent desegregation.



Cryozombie said:


> By the way, Just to clarify, friend... *I* never said Homosexuals were "nasty".   THAT came out of YOUR post.  *I* never used the N-Word. I don't use that word in fact, it has no legitimate use in conversation.  Funny how you guys who actually keep saying it wanna tag _*me*_ with its use.



No, you didn't call them "nasty", I did for sarcastic effect.  You didn't use the n-word either, but calling someone "gay" or "fag" is functionally equivalent to calling someone "n-word".  And no, you didn't call anyone "gay" or "fag"...but you are complaining that homosexuals have "co-opted" those perfectly good words.  It isn't blatant, but it doesn't add up to a pretty picture either.

If you have so many gay friends that you love so much, why does it bother you so much that "gay" and "fag" are insulting to them?  Wouldn't their hurt feelings matter more to you than idiosyncratic concern over the changing semantic meaning of words?


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

Yes CoryKS, that was entirely intentional. I wanted to get you and a couple similar people to see this from the perspective of the target rather than the offender for a change.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> If you have so many gay friends that you love so much, why does it bother you so much that "gay" and "fag" are insulting to them?  Wouldn't their hurt feelings matter more to you than idiosyncratic concern over the changing semantic meaning of words?



Actually, AFAIK Only one of them is insulted by any of those terms and it is the word "******" (not fag) when applied to a gay man.  I highly doubt if I asked for a ****** of wood for the fire, he would be upset... but I'll check with him when he comes online tonite to be clear.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> you made the exact same argument because the mods "corrected" your post...



No, that was NOT my argument.  I was not arguing that I was using "n-word" in the "proper", non-slur sense.  It is clearly a slur, and we are discussing it as such...in that case, why should the mods redact a "cleaned up" version that won't ping filtering software?  How can we have a clear conversation if all anyone can read of the term I want to discuss is ******?

This is entirely different than claiming that the n-word really was an old word for a man from that land of Nigg and those oversensitive PC black folks have "changed" the word and kept us from using it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> I highly doubt if I asked for a ****** of wood for the fire, he would be upset... but I'll check with him when he comes online tonite to be clear.



See, this is the part I just don't get.  Given the negative history of the word, given the fact it is used as a pejorative right before brutal beatings and murders, given the possibility for offense or misunderstanding...why the hell wouldn't you just ask for a bundle of sticks?  Why is it important that an epithet had a previous history as another non-offensive word and you would like to be able to use it again?  Find another term that isn't a modern day slur, understood by everyone as such.  Almost no one in America at least knows that "bundle of sticks" has any other meaning than "gay man I am about to hurt".


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Discussing the use of the word in relation to slurs against gay people is entirely legitimate IMO, and it is clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.



Says the exact same thing as my comment that asking an english girl for a pull of her fag is entirely legitimate and its clear that it isn't meant to be insulting.

You may not want to admit it, but we ARE saying the same thing... using a term *in context* *with no mis-intent or desire to insult any particular group  *should not be an offense.


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> why the hell wouldn't you just ask for a bundle of sticks?



Well, ya know, I would.  I'm not trying to argue that I want to use those words, or any words like that... my point is that, despite ONE meaning of those words, if they are *not *used in that way or with that intent, should someone be punished for using them, because a group of people decided that one meaning of them is somthing they find offensive, or that they chose to use in an offensive manner?  There's a lot of terminology like that out there... all in varying degrees.  To me, It's a question of where we draw the line, to protect someones feelings.  Should we not be allowed to say "Witch" or "Blonde" because its an insult to women?  Should we not be allowed to ask for a "Cracker" with our soup because its negative slang for a white man? Even the much bantered around term here in the study "slippery slope" would need to go away... because... well... 

All I am saying is that words often have more than one meaning, and its NOT the word... its the USE of that word.

Perhaps, to spare everyones feelings, we should just all go back to gutteral grunts, growls and banging sticks on the floor.


----------



## MJS (Mar 2, 2007)

Mod Note

Attention All Users:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.  Also, please take note of the profanity policy.  Rather than circumvent the word by using symbols such as * and &, just type the word and the filter will catch it.

Mike Slosek
MT Supermod


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> All I am saying is that words often have more than one meaning, and its NOT the word... its the USE of that word.



In principle, I agree.  Words are just vibrations after all, with no intrinsic meaning.  However, it is an unescapable fact that some words have acquired so much negative freight that they are basically unusable by certain people (n-word by non-black folks fer instance) without a high potential of offense taken by someone around you.  Given that potential, such words should be avoided apart from highly controlled circumstances - like an academic discussion of slurs.  I have never argued that someone should be "punished", but I don't think they should use those words either.  Given the particularly negative history of words like the "n-word" or "bundle of sticks", I also find it highly suspicious when people complain about the "changed meanings" - they should realize that such words do cause hurt, have a very negative history, and deal with it.  Part of the problem is that the people arguing for word rehabilitation tend to be the usual suspects in the racism/homophobia department.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> Rather than circumvent the word by using symbols such as * and &, just type the word and the filter will catch it.



In a discussion of profanity and slurs, how is someone supposed to be able to figure out what we are talking about when all they can read is a bunch of ********'s?


----------



## MJS (Mar 2, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> In a discussion of profanity and slurs, how is someone supposed to be able to figure out what we are talking about when all they can read is a bunch of ********'s?


 
Its the policy of the forum to just type the word.  In some cases, the word in question will be self explainatory and in others, we'll have to use our imagination as to what the person typing it actually meant.


----------



## Ceicei (Mar 2, 2007)

MJS said:


> Its the policy of the forum to just type the word.  In some cases, the word in question will be self explainatory and in others, we'll have to use our imagination as to what the person typing it actually meant.



Yep!  Imagination is good!  :uhyeah:


----------



## tellner (Mar 2, 2007)

In fact, I got dinged for making a posting that was almost nothing but asterisks. I never actually typed in a bad word. But someone's imagination was working overtime, and she filled in the blanks with what she thought it must have said.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Mar 2, 2007)

Ceicei said:


> Yep!  Imagination is good!  :uhyeah:




Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out the ice-cube thing...


----------



## Kreth (Mar 3, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> You didn't use the n-word either, but calling someone "gay" or "fag" is functionally equivalent to calling someone "n-word".


Wait, are you really saying that it's offensive to call a gay person a gay person? :idunno:


----------



## Don Roley (Mar 3, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Wait, are you really saying that it's offensive to call a gay person a gay person? :idunno:



Actually, I think in this case the offense is using a word that is well known for reffering to homosexuals as a pejoritive.

It is kind of like someone seeing something stupid and saying, "that is so Christian." Or maybe if someone decided to attach a title to egotistical, inept martial artists and said, "That is so Bujinkan." I do not think people would believe an excuse that there was no offense to Christians or the Bujinkan intended.

I really do not know where the line should be drawn on it and am on the fence. On one hand, I have real trouble believing that the girl had no idea that the term was related to homosexuals in the context she used it. That does not jive with my experiences with the word as a child. On the other hand, the  actual word is not offensive to any of my gay friends used by itself.


----------



## crushing (Mar 3, 2007)

Kreth said:


> Wait, are you really saying that it's offensive to call a gay person a gay person? :idunno:


 
The comparisons that are attempted to be made between the 'gay' and the 'n-word' don't make sense to me either.  My sister is gay.  My brother-in-law (my other sister's husband) is black.  While I have no problem using the word gay, I would never use the n-word.  I suppose that means I've got some sort of bias or emotional shortcoming or something (or maybe even a right-wingnut?).  :idunno:

From the dissapointingly anti-gay marriage BLUE STATE of Michigan,

-crushing


----------



## Carol (Mar 3, 2007)

I'm left wondering what it was that got the Mormon girl in trouble.  

Was it simply saying "That's so gay"

Or, was it saying "That's so gay" in response to the idea of having multiple, same-sex parents (10 moms).

What if the students teasing her said something like "Go back to Utah" and she responded by saying "That's so gay."  Would she still be in trouble?


----------



## Kacey (Mar 3, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> In a discussion of profanity and slurs, how is someone supposed to be able to figure out what we are talking about when all they can read is a bunch of ********'s?


There are non-profane, non-offensive words that can be used to make clear the words one uses to avoid those which are caught by the filter; context can also be used to clarify what one means.

As a middle school teacher, I have had such conversations with my students who blurted out such unacceptable terms - and had no difficulty making myself clear to my 7th grade students without resorting to the use of profanity or racial slurs. I suggest the use of a dictionary and a thesaurus.


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 3, 2007)

Post removed by author


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 4, 2007)

I agree very strongly with a post *Tellner* made a little while ago about the power of words.  I had thought to make a similar post myself but didn't get around to it quickly enough (sorry mate, tried to 'rep buff' you for saying what I would've but the board software implicitly accused me of favouritism ).

The quagmire that is PC nonsense started with the best of intentions and is actually grounded in the very real sociological theory that what you call something has a profound effect on how that thing is regarded.

So, I essentially agree that if a term has garnered perjorative baggage then it is best to avoid that term, even if, as *Cryo* has said, there is a perfectly normal useage for that term that is thus lost.  

I do, nonetheless, concur and identify with *Cryo*'s frustration that innocent words of our language are being co-opted and lost ('gay' is particularly irritating as it used to have many shades of meaning dependant on context and now has only one).

However, language is a cycle and words mutate their meanings all the time.  One that comes to mind is 'naughty'.  It's useage in Shakespeare is lost on many modern audiences because they think it means something akin to 'slightly mischevious' whereas in that time it meant something much more like 'evil', 'sadistic' or 'malicious'.

There is a case tho' that this 'word policing' is a one way street.  So if, like me, you're a middle aged, white, male, people can call you whatever they want with no PC backlash.  That is intrinsically unjust and is what I think gets a lot of people's backs up.  Until polite address is universal then 'Political Correctness' is going to generate friction.

Nontheless, much as it aggrivates me and gets used as an unjustified excuse for far too many things, the basic concept of removing the use of derogatory terms is sound.  

The problem, as I said above, is that it's not really equitable for some social groups to be 'safe' from abusive terminology and others not to be.  So the 'N' word is taboo if you're not black but 'Cracker', 'Redneck' or 'Snowflake' can be used in an abusive way by any race.  Similarly, redheaded or balding people are fair game for all sorts of nasty talk but try inflict the same degree of invective on some other physical characteristic that falls under the PC umbrella and all hell breaks loose.

A skewed playing field is inherently unstable, so, if a word picks up unsavory baggage, then I'm sorry to say that in the end I feel that the best course is to leave well alone.  The meaning will change or it's useage fade soon enough unless you (big, governmental, 'you' meant here) choose to make the word an issue.

Last word? Perjorative langauge should be universally unfettered or globally unacceptable (for the record I fall into the latter camp).


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 4, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> You didn't use the n-word either, but calling someone "gay" or "fag" is functionally equivalent to calling someone "n-word".


No, it isn't.  Referring to a gay person as gay is perfectly acceptable, according to the many gay people that I know.  They call themselves gay, they are gay, they're comfortable with their sexual preferences, and consider the term to be acceptable, accurate, and appropriate.  Many gay men will use the term "fag" as well in reference to themselves or other gay men.  

I have to agree with Cryozombie here, the problem is with the intent, not the word itself.  If a youngster calls another youngster "gay" in an attempt to slander them, as in "You're so gay", and mean that there's something wrong with you, the harm is in the implication that 'gay' equates to 'bad', or 'wrong' or 'unpalatable'.  But if you're speaking with an acquaintance and they refer to their same sex partner and you respond, "Oh, I didn't know you were gay," there's simply nothing wrong with making such a statement.  It may be an uncomfortable moment, but I see no insult in those words.


----------



## tellner (Mar 4, 2007)

The problem is that the "alternate" meaning is _meant to_ reinforce the perception that that which is (or who is) gay is bad, stupid, ugly, ineffective and similar. See my notes on "eta" meaning "disgusting filth" to describe a Japanese caste.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 5, 2007)

Well, the sooner we stop talking about it, the sooner we can get this thought-crimin' little tramp to the Reeducation Center.  :shrug:


----------



## Marginal (Mar 5, 2007)

She'll have to get in line. 

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/


----------



## Carol (Mar 5, 2007)

Marginal said:


> She'll have to get in line.
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/02/coulter-edwards/



Such a cheery gal, she is.  So full of hope and optimism.


----------



## tellner (Mar 5, 2007)

So full of Christian Love and charity towards all. :shrug:

So brimming over with her own bilious by-product...


----------



## crushing (Mar 5, 2007)

tellner said:


> So full of Christian Love and charity towards all. :shrug:


 
Where does Christian come into play with her comments?



tellner said:


> So brimming over with her own bilious by-product...


 
No kidding.  It's a wonder that Coulter and Carville weren't the ones to hook up.


----------



## CoryKS (Mar 5, 2007)

crushing said:


> No kidding. It's a wonder that Coulter and Carville weren't the ones to hook up.


 
Ew, sir.  _Ew_.


----------



## tellner (Mar 5, 2007)

She's claimed in the past that she's a believing, church-going Christian. Of course, it turned out that she never actually attended the (upscale) congregation she supposedly was part of.


----------



## crushing (Mar 5, 2007)

tellner said:


> She's claimed in the past that she's a believing, church-going Christian. Of course, it turned out that she never actually attended the (upscale) congregation she supposedly was part of.


 
Oh thanks.  It just looked like a shot at Christians.  Some of my best friends are Christians.  They are all loving and charitable.

Anyway, I guess I haven't considered her important enough to pay her any attention, especially the scale of the congregation she may or may not attend.


----------



## tellner (Mar 5, 2007)

crushing said:


> Oh thanks. It just looked like a shot at Christians. Some of my best friends are Christians. They are all loving and charitable.


 
Very true. I'm not a Christian but have plenty of Christian friends who are wonderful people. Ann Coulter just don't make the cut.


----------

