General Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orion
  • 2,283 comments
  • 106,538 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because it's a derogatory term for a person based upon their attitude towards others, not upon their race, creed, or sexual orientation.
My point was the word seemed relatively unknown to many American members yet is a well known swear in the UK, comparable to the F and S swears. Highlighting the "this site is not purely viewed by American citizens" statement.
 
I'm aware of the term and would consider it equivalent to "asshole" or "arse", which Jordan has seen fit to not block, as well.
 

Gay
is a word with a meaning identifying a specific group of people. It has evolved a new derogatory sub-meaning based upon fear and hatred of the people in question. Why should that be acceptable?

I completely agree Duke, but would it be wrong for someone on the boards to use gay in the context of being happy (if they were to do so)?
 
No, because if you do that, it is not being used in a derogatory way.
 
What's wrong with it is that people are offended by it. I note your specification of "American English", but perhaps you'd do well to remember that this site is not purely viewed by American citizens.
The distinction was included only because I have no way of knowing whether it's as common elsewhere as it is here. :) I understand your point, but that last comment was unnecessary, as I wouldn't have made the distinction if I wasn't aware of that fact.

I for one am unconvinced that people use the term simply to mean substandard or rubbish...
I live in a very liberal, pro-homosexual community, almost completely isolated from the rural and republican ideals of much of Wisconsin. My town encompasses one of the best Universities in the country and probably the best in the Midwest, and people here are relatively well-educated. My high school had an active and very visible pro-homosexual community, and many students participated in each year's "day of silence," honoring the homosexual community and the grief they go through (if only, in some cases, to get out of having to contribute to class).

I think I can say with some degree of confidence that out of the dozens of people whom I have heard use the word in this town, few, if any of them were homophobic. I'm not saying that no one who uses the word is homophobic, but I would bet you everything I own that there are a great number of non-homophobic people who use the word as a basic, negative adjective. :)

Language does evolve, but not always for the better. Should we all no longer insist on proper spelling or usage just because some people do not care?
A wholehearted "YES," depending on the case. In my opinion, there is no language rule that is so far set in stone that it should never be changed. Think of all of the changes English has already gone through over the centuries (or after it crossed the Atlantic). We would all be talking and writing quite differently if we remained steadfastly faithful to every grammar, spelling, or usage rule.

Corruption to the extent of something like "txt spk" would certainly be detrimental, but do you really think such language has the capability to completely invade all written and spoken communication? I have read about college students my age using it in replying to job interviews and other professional settings (what on earth they're thinking, I have no clue), but there are so many of us that not only understand proper English, but also abhor "txt spk" in inappropriate contexts.

Language is defined by those who use it, and I think that's the way it should be.

Gay is a word with a meaning identifying a specific group of people. It has evolved a new derogatory sub-meaning based upon fear and hatred of the people in question. Why should that be acceptable?
Because already it's being disarmed by its widespread use. Sure, when some wannabe gangster badass calls something "gay" with a scowl on his face, he's probably a homophobe and is using the word in a hateful, albeit indirect manner. However, as I explained to Mars, that does not mean everyone who uses the word in this unusual context is being hateful.

I know you objected to his use of the word, but I doubt you believe BayConRong is a homophobe, or meant to insult homosexual people. His example is exactly what I'm talking about.

Someone who tries a new racing game for the first time and discovers that their favorite car is missing might say, "aw, that's gay." No scowl. No personal vendetta against homosexuals. They're not even angry (maybe mildly annoyed, or disappointed). That's another example.

I don't know any personal examples, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn of a homosexual using the word in this same exact context.

If I went around and called anything that was funny looking a jigaboo, would that be acceptable? It's a new meaning for the word based on a stereotype. Should be fine, in your book.
Acceptable for you to do? No, probably not, but feel free to try it in a public setting. :sly:

Acceptable after already gaining widespread usage in the context you've described (ie not a hateful racial epithet)? Of course. Haven't you heard anyone use the N-word with the "ah" ending (described rather than typed due to word filter)? A very similar circumstance to what you've described here. And we've reached the point where white people can say it without getting funny looks. I don't mean just amongst themselves, either. I mean I casually use it to greet black acquaintances/customers whom I see at work.

Rendering hateful language "taboo" is certainly the respectful thing to do in times when its barbs are still sharp and the original, hateful meaning is still relevant. I just don't think that's the case here -- before it gained the usage we're discussing, it was (and still is) also widely used as a neutral descriptor by non-homophobes -- and the more we use "gay" to say "rubbish," as Mars put it, the more the hateful context is forgotten.



If someone would like to continue this, we may want to start another thread. :)
 
Last edited:
I did not mean to open this can of worms. I was asking how he managed to make a "gay 22." I do not use the term gay, only him. I am sorry.
 
Don't worry, Stig, we're just discussing it. So far everyone who has jumped in is more than mature enough to remain civil. You didn't do anything wrong. 👍
 
I did not mean to open this can of worms. I was asking how he managed to make a "gay 22." I do not use the term gay, only him. I am sorry.

We're aware of that. And nobody is really angry here - no apologies necessary. It's just that many of us are fighting a battle to try to keep this word from being used with negative meanings based on its connection to homosexuality.
 
Anyone knows what wheels are these?

6b041vf7in1.jpg


and

1f5b1bb3an2.jpg




I've found a close match to the first one, but it's not the same wheel.
This one, the XXR006:
a6ff1sbl107ed50bb6.jpg
 
Well maybe see if you can find a rim in the same style, but not necessarily the same color, since they could have been painted/powdercoated (black rims).
 
What's the best way to remove bromine stains from your fingers? :dopey:
If it doesn't come off with soap and water, just wait for the skin to flake off. In high school, I was the victim of silver nitrate. The black spots did not disappear for two weeks.
 
We're aware of that. And nobody is really angry here - no apologies necessary. It's just that many of us are fighting a battle to try to keep this word from being used with negative meanings based on its connection to homosexuality.

I think it's actually more connected to the word "queer" which unlike your bad example of 'jigaboo' has some legitimate, non-offensive meanings.

Queer was often used to offend homosexuals, until they started calling themselves that. Same situation with the word '*****.' But ***** comes from '******' which was always offensive. (Bah! Stupid language filter! But, I bet you can surmise what I posted.) However, 'queer' is not an offensive term, when used in certain context. Neither is 'gay.'

Since we cannot use queer anymore, without being incorrectly called a homophone, 'gay' sprang forward from indifference to the politically correctness of banning 'queer' from our language. I'm in most agreement with this indifference.

'Fat' is offensive to overweight people, but I don't see GTP banning this word. 'Phat,' too. It would be silly to do so, just like it would be for 'queer' or 'gay.' I think individuals who have a problem with these words are just being silly. People with a problem with it cannot look at it objectively. That's not my fault.

With all this 'silliness,' it's just as easy to use a different word and just avoid it all. Unless, you like all the silliness and haven't been warned not to use that word anymore...
 
Because it's a derogatory term for a person based upon their attitude towards others, not upon their race, creed, or sexual orientation.

As a masturbator I am quite frankly offended at the derogatory use of this statement - I am just trying to prevent myself from getting prostate cancer and this is how I am treated!

Oh and I have a question...there are certain stains on my keyboard which I can't remove, would anyone have any solutions?

(joking lololo!)
 
I've got one of those uber-antique Northgate OmniKeys (with the very cool switched Ctrl/Alt/Caps buttons! :D) that desperately needs a cleaning, too. The keys have a layer of dirt, though the parts I hit with the fingers get "cleaned"...
 
I think it's actually more connected to the word "queer" which unlike your bad example of 'jigaboo' has some legitimate, non-offensive meanings.

Queer was often used to offend homosexuals, until they started calling themselves that. Same situation with the word '*****.' But ***** comes from '******' which was always offensive. (Bah! Stupid language filter! But, I bet you can surmise what I posted.) However, 'queer' is not an offensive term, when used in certain context. Neither is 'gay.'

Since we cannot use queer anymore, without being incorrectly called a homophone, 'gay' sprang forward from indifference to the politically correctness of banning 'queer' from our language. I'm in most agreement with this indifference.

'Fat' is offensive to overweight people, but I don't see GTP banning this word. 'Phat,' too. It would be silly to do so, just like it would be for 'queer' or 'gay.' I think individuals who have a problem with these words are just being silly. People with a problem with it cannot look at it objectively. That's not my fault.

With all this 'silliness,' it's just as easy to use a different word and just avoid it all. Unless, you like all the silliness and haven't been warned not to use that word anymore...

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this analysis. "Queer" was already falling out of common use in its original meaning of "odd" before it developed a new meaning of "homosexual". I really can't see that reaction to this change is what prompted other people to start using "gay" - coincidentally another synonym for "homosexual" - with a derogatory meaning. You'll have a hard time proving to me that the derogatory use of "gay" as it has developed in the last 10 years or so is the result of anything other than disdain for homosexuals.

I'm not in favor of excessive political correctness at all, but this instance is really quite clear. Your analogy with "fat" doesn't stand up, either. "Fat" means something large and round. It may have developed a negative connotation, but that connotation is NOT transferred onto other objects. You'd never say a video game was "fat" because it doesn't have your favorite car in it - but millions of people say a videogame is "gay" when clearly it is not.

Do you see the point I'm making here?
 
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with this analysis. "Queer" was already falling out of common use in its original meaning of "odd" before it developed a new meaning of "homosexual". I really can't see that reaction to this change is what prompted other people to start using "gay" - coincidentally another synonym for "homosexual" - with a derogatory meaning. You'll have a hard time proving to me that the derogatory use of "gay" as it has developed in the last 10 years or so is the result of anything other than disdain for homosexuals.

I'm not in favor of excessive political correctness at all, but this instance is really quite clear. Your analogy with "fat" doesn't stand up, either. "Fat" means something large and round. It may have developed a negative connotation, but that connotation is NOT transferred onto other objects. You'd never say a video game was "fat" because it doesn't have your favorite car in it - but millions of people say a videogame is "gay" when clearly it is not.

Do you see the point I'm making here?

I see your point, but don't agree with it completely. I've used 'gay' in the way you described, but I don't have any disdain for homosexuals, since my younger brother-in-law is a seven-foot drag queen who's been attacked for being gay. Besides, what another man puts inside his butt is none of my business, nor do I want to know.

Have I continued to use 'gay' in that way, (yes I like how that rhymes), in the past and present? No, I haven't. Am I going to continue? Maybe; I don't know, but probably not. Will I intend to attack or show contempt for homosexuals if I do? No way. However, they might take it as such, so I'll probably find a different word to use. :)
 
Doesn't exist...they all make their gardeners mow the lawn! :lol:

:lol: I shoud have seen that coming. Is their anyway to make them go faster with out buying anything or takeing to long to do? I only ask because I have to drive 5 miles on one tomorrow.
 
Ah, a real life Bobby Bouche! :lol: Just look for a girl that's the devil and is carrying around a big wrench. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back