Using the word 'gay' as a slur

[Angilion]

First, and foremost - please do understand genesis of the word. This thread is gay because it's trivial, merry, jolly - it's of jesty tone, no significance and very little importance. Not because we expect it to engage in penetration of male rectum with help of aftermarket lubricant in order to fulfill its sexual urges. That's why we say something is gay, instead of referring to it as "it's sooooooo homophile". Such is the trouble with "borrowed" words and multiple meanings, that it always "offends" those who don't fully grasp the subject.
[..]

How do you support your assertion that the use of 'gay' as a slur stems from a meaning of the word that was obsolete before most of the people using 'gay' as a slur were born and which is irrelevant to the slur anyway?

"That's gay", used as a slur, does not mean "That's trivial, merry, jolly - it's of jesty tone, no significance and very little importance."

 

[Banzai_Joe]

its truly a shame that PC cavaliers exist, misguided do-gooders.
But, these things go in fads and crazes don't they.

I remember at school calling just about everyone i spoke to 'gay' for one reason or another.

I slightly digress, but;
I remember black folk didn't like being called black, they were 'coloured'. Now they hate being called coloured, they must be called black. Know something? I've never met a black man yet. Some very dark brown people sure, in fact all shades of brown really, but not black. How can people get so defensive over such words that 'allegedly' describe their personage/culture? When in actual fact they don't. Only black men i've ever seen are coal miners.
**** = abbreviation for someone from Pakistan.
But its offensive because someone once said it was offensive and other eejits followed suit.
Brit = abbreviation for someone from britain. I could be easily offended, as i'm English, not welsh, scottish or otherwise, not purely because someone has abbreviated the word 'british'.
But i don't get offended at such words.
And i reckon if certain cultures were capable of individual thought and not 'trained' to be offended at such words then maybe there wouldn't be as many prejudiced peoples in the world.
Call someone in a turban a **** and they may be offended because they're not from Pakistan, they could be Indian. Jeez, i aint american but i'm caucasian so without speaking to me i could be mistaken for one. Doesn't upset me.

I get that homosexuality is still a much frowned upon minority and hence the need to stamp out homophobic remarks. But you can't wipe out a legit word that is clearly defined in the dictionery, just because its mis-used and/or someone gets offended at its mis-use.

Presposterous!

Go hug a tree!

 

[Nitefly]

I remember black folk didn't like being called black, they were 'coloured'. Now they hate being called coloured, they must be called black. Know something? I've never met a black man yet. Some very dark brown people sure, in fact all shades of brown really, but not black. How can people get so defensive over such words that 'allegedly' describe their personage/culture? When in actual fact they don't. Only black men i've ever seen are coal miners.

Are you sure that black people didn't like being called black? I was always under the imression that 'coloured' was used by white people thinking they were being more considerate and avoiding the fact that black people are actually black.

 

[Angilion]

In response to yet another person making the same line of argument, I pose this question:

Is anyone calling for the word 'gay' to be banned, wiped out, never used, etc?

I haven't seen anyone doing so in this thread, just lots of people making strawman arguments against doing so.

 

[Angilion]

Are you sure that black people didn't like being called black? I was always under the imression that 'coloured' was used by white people thinking they were being more considerate and avoiding the fact that black people are actually black.

Except that they aren't. It's a ridiculous term, made up to create a simple binary system where none exists.

There are two gaping holes in it:

i) A person is not their skin colour (which varies over their body, anyway). So no-one is black, white, cream, fawn, chestnut, walnut, burnt umber or whatever.

ii) The idea that there are only two possible colours for human skin (black or white) is so obviously wrong that it has to be considered bordering on insane to believe it.

But many people embrace the idea anyway, as it's required for some irrational prejudices they like.

 

[Doran]

Homosexuality is not a 'preferance' as there is no choice, the same as for heterosexuals.

Therefore, not wanting it in public is not analgous to S&M as that long post mentioned, as the latter is a preferance and one society deems inapproproate.

Therefore, homophobia is very much at the level of racism.

 

[Banzai_Joe]

Are you sure that black people didn't like being called black? I was always under the imression that 'coloured' was used by white people thinking they were being more considerate and avoiding the fact that black people are actually black.

Ya know what? Thats quite possible tbh. But black people aren't black. Coloured more aptly describes them i think, or just call them 'brown'. My son when he was about 7 or 8 called kids of colour 'brown' certainly not black, because they weren't He just said what he saw. Aaah....the innocence and very often unspoiled views of a child. How i miss it.

But yes, you could well be right Nitefly. Which ironically brings one of this threads tangented topics full circle i supopse.

Go figure

 

[Samione]

Ya know what? Thats quite possible tbh. But black people aren't black. Coloured more aptly describes them i think, or just call them 'brown'. My son when he was about 7 or 8 called kids of colour 'brown' certainly not black, because they weren't He just said what he saw. Aaah....the innocence and very often unspoiled views of a child. How i miss it.

But yes, you could well be right Nitefly. Which ironically brings one of this threads tangented topics full circle i supopse.

Go figure

Which topic would that be then?

Note to everyone who posts; if you aren't go to read the damn thread before you post, atleast read the arseing OP for christs sake.

 

[Tombo]

Stop taking the Lords name in vain, I am a Christian and it offends me.

 

[Angilion]

Just in case anyone wants an evolutionary argument in favour of homosexuality, I'll post one. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. There's no way to tell, so it's a moot point.

For most of the existence of humanity, humans lived as hunter-gatherers. Persistence hunting was probably used a lot, as humans are uniquely suited to it. A very fit human can outrun any other animal on earth and a skilled human can track it while doing so. It takes a lot of time and distance, but it works.

The most likely setup in most areas was a semi-permanent base camp, or perhaps several such sites that the tribe moved between with the seasons. This is a useful arrangement if the surrounding area within several miles is fertile enough for gathering to sustainably provide enough food and materials for the tribe.

So you'd have a base camp and roaming hunters, who would be away for extended periods of time on hunting trips.

Usually, the hunting was done by men (because it was dangerous) and the gathering mostly by women and older children (because the men were mostly hunting).

It would be useful to have some men at the base camp all the time, to serve as role models and as guards in case of attack by other tribes or dangerous animals.

It would also be useful if the men out hunting weren't concerned about their women shagging those men. If they were, they might cut short hunting trips and/or be distracted during them, either of which would reduce the effectiveness of the hunting trips and thus reduce the food for the tribe.

So it would be useful if the men back at base were homosexual. That would help the tribe survive and thrive and would therefore fit in with natural selection.

Homosexuality in men would also explain homosexuality in women - men and women are basically the same "design".

 

[Nitefly]

So it would be useful if the men back at base were homosexual. That would help the tribe survive and thrive and would therefore fit in with natural selection.

Homosexuality in men would also explain homosexuality in women - men and women are basically the same "design".

It looks nice on paper, but there is no such thing as group selection ("selection for the benefit of the group") therefore your theory is incorrect. Selection occurs at the gene level.

 

[Angilion]

Homosexuality is not a 'preferance' as there is no choice, the same as for heterosexuals.

Therefore, not wanting it in public is not analgous to S&M as that long post mentioned, as the latter is a preferance and one society deems inapproproate.

Therefore, homophobia is very much at the level of racism.

S&M is not a preference by that definition either, so your argument fails.

People are BDSMers or not in the same way that people are homosexual or not.

A person could choose to do BDSM stuff or not. A person could also choose to have homosex or not. What neither choose is whether or not they have the desire to it.

 

[Angilion]

Stop taking the Lords name in vain, I am a Christian and it offends me.

Off on a tangent, how do you define whether the use of the name is valid or not?

I'm just curious about that.

 

[Angilion]

It looks nice on paper, but there is no such thing as group selection ("selection for the benefit of the group") therefore your theory is incorrect. Selection occurs at the gene level.

What if certain selections make a group fitter to survive? Wouldn't that result in those selections continuing to be more common, on the basis that the people don't die out?

 

[Samione]

Stop taking the Lords name in vain, I am a Christian and it offends me.

Back again are we? Tombo saves the day!

 

[Nitefly]

What if certain selections make a group fitter to survive? Wouldn't that result in those selections continuing to be more common, on the basis that the people don't die out?

It would only work if there was a high relatedness between groups members so that their genes are passed on regardless of their survival - which is found in the hymenoptera and some mammals (naked mole rat). Its called eusociality.

But that is not group selection as it appears - it is selection at the gene level, as is all selection.

The relatedness of humans is not high enough and the conditions not specific to what is required for your definition of pseudo-group selection, eusociality, to occur.

So in a word, no.

EDIT - Your question was weirdly worded and I'm not sure if I answered it sufficiently.

 

[Chong Warrior]

People like you commonly confuse manners and politeness with political correctness. How about you put yourself in the shoes of a minority before you start a tirade.

Tirade? What..?

Isn't it interesting how those so against PC are themselves often brash and agressive - it seems less a well thought out position and more an excuse for their own potty mouth.

Aggressive?? Potty Mouth??

Where exactly in my post am I guilty of any of those??

I think you're a very good example of the PC crew... totally over reacting maybe??

Its called being responsible and grown up!

Like Victor Meldrew is responsible and grown up?

You can go too far the other way you know

 

[Tombo]

Back again are we? Tombo saves the day!

I've made a friend

 

[RDM]

It looks nice on paper, but there is no such thing as group selection ("selection for the benefit of the group") therefore your theory is incorrect. Selection occurs at the gene level.

There is however plenty of evidence of group benefiting behaviour at the detriment to the individual.

 

[RDM]

Back again are we? Tombo saves the day!

To be fair, he does have a point. Several times in this thread you have been using Christ/God as an insult which come people do indeed find incredibly offensive. Which is a touch hypocritical if you are complaining about another word you find offensive.