My question, of course, is ... should cripples be offended by the derogatory use of the word 'lame'...?"Gay has become synonymous with 'lame' or 'stupid,' but our community isn't homophobic."
That's so gay!
-
smiscandlon
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52
Hate or slang?
анархия
I think "hate" even though I've been known to use it in that way.
It's the stealing of meaning. In the 60s African-Americans reclaimed the word "black", and gay's did the same thing in the 90s with "queer". The majority have stolen "gay" back to give it a derogatory term.
When I was at school I heard a boy call another a "jew" cos they were stingy with money. Then he said "no offence" to me, knowing I was Jewish. Not sure if he saw the connection. Needless to say, he's a to**er.
It's the stealing of meaning. In the 60s African-Americans reclaimed the word "black", and gay's did the same thing in the 90s with "queer". The majority have stolen "gay" back to give it a derogatory term.
When I was at school I heard a boy call another a "jew" cos they were stingy with money. Then he said "no offence" to me, knowing I was Jewish. Not sure if he saw the connection. Needless to say, he's a to**er.
-
itnAklipse
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 09 Jun 2003, 08:12
- Location: set adrift
- Contact:
Mmm, i think hate is a natural phenomena. And people, in general, should have the right to hate, actually it's an inalianable right, it can't be taken away by law, to hate whomever they want. That happens to be the way nature works.
we've got beer and we've got fuel
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
X's right to freedom of speech trumps Y's right not to be offended IMO.
That doesn't mean I like it.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
ormfdmrush
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: 01 Sep 2006, 01:22
- Location: Moscow, Russia
- Contact:
hey you, homogothophobe bastards!
The 21st century will be known as the century of hyper-sensitivity and human rights, two sides of the same coin. Agree with Markfiend, people say nasty things and should be confronted with it...but putting people away for saying things is wrong and people should grow a thicker skin.
-
boudicca
- Sister Midnight
- Posts: 7427
- Joined: 15 Sep 2004, 16:15
- Location: embrace the margin
- Contact:
I'm inclined to say actually hating gay people is hate, and that using a word is using a word, rightly or wrongly. I have occasionally used the word gay in this context (though typed I always make it ghey, just as an hilarious little aside at Political Correctness Gone Mad 
).
Do I hate gay people? Do I buggery!
Some of my best friends are gays!
FACT.
And I get royally pissed off at those who wouldn't let them live their lives in peace like the rest of us. I've even chastised my mother for certain opinions on it to the point of bringing her round.
However, I do recognise the power of words, meanings and definitions, and the minefield this creates. There is a lot of power in words being reclaimed/abused/having meanings changed. So maybe I should think more carefully about my choice of phrases. But maybe not. I'm not sure
I do think it is of paramount importance that, even if a particular group of society, and those who champion them, are uncomfortable with the words being used in relation to them, they must bear in mind the intent that is behind their use in each case. And not get hung up on certain terms to the detriment of noticing the guy getting beaten up down the street...
).Do I hate gay people? Do I buggery!
Some of my best friends are gays!
FACT.
And I get royally pissed off at those who wouldn't let them live their lives in peace like the rest of us. I've even chastised my mother for certain opinions on it to the point of bringing her round.
However, I do recognise the power of words, meanings and definitions, and the minefield this creates. There is a lot of power in words being reclaimed/abused/having meanings changed. So maybe I should think more carefully about my choice of phrases. But maybe not. I'm not sure
I do think it is of paramount importance that, even if a particular group of society, and those who champion them, are uncomfortable with the words being used in relation to them, they must bear in mind the intent that is behind their use in each case. And not get hung up on certain terms to the detriment of noticing the guy getting beaten up down the street...
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
Calling things gay doesn't particularly irk me - my ex and I have wonderful slanging matches revolving around the word, much to the confusion of those around us.
What does annoy me is when it's sincerely accompanied by accusations of effeminacy and similar words (faggot, queer, etc), when it becomes quite clear that the slur is intentionally homophobic. By all means call some broken piece of electronics / annoying school rule / the weather gay, but when it's applied to people, it tends, in my experience, to be meant with homophobic intent, which is obviously unacceptable
What does annoy me is when it's sincerely accompanied by accusations of effeminacy and similar words (faggot, queer, etc), when it becomes quite clear that the slur is intentionally homophobic. By all means call some broken piece of electronics / annoying school rule / the weather gay, but when it's applied to people, it tends, in my experience, to be meant with homophobic intent, which is obviously unacceptable
Last edited by aims on 05 Mar 2007, 17:31, edited 1 time in total.
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
After some thought about this:
While in general I stand by this:
But I will never avoid using the words picnic or handicap because of some perceived offensiveness about the words' derivation, when that derivation is factually incorrect.
See also nitty gritty.
While in general I stand by this:
In some special cases one should be careful of one's speech / writing.I wrote:X's right to freedom of speech trumps Y's right not to be offended IMO.
But I will never avoid using the words picnic or handicap because of some perceived offensiveness about the words' derivation, when that derivation is factually incorrect.
See also nitty gritty.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
I'd be inclined to disagree with your general rule, mark, since it appears to be too broad. Rather, I'd say that when someone presents a point (e.g. religion, politics, general debate) then they should have to defend that point without any special protection. However, states of being (e.g. race, gender, sexuality, mental capacity) should not reasonably have to defend their position. This I consider to be an absolute rule. The only problem, of course, is in defining the line between the two.
At a deeper level, I'd question the right to free speech regarding something which one doesn't have the right to an opinion on. But even the idea that one might not have the right to an opinion on something is opening up a serious can of worms...
At a deeper level, I'd question the right to free speech regarding something which one doesn't have the right to an opinion on. But even the idea that one might not have the right to an opinion on something is opening up a serious can of worms...
-
EvilBastard
- Overbomber
- Posts: 3932
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 17:48
- Location: Where the Ruined Tower shouts
As a brit in the colonies it irks me no end that double-standards exist for the purposes of preventing litigation and trying to make some people feel that they're not being picked on.
For example, I used to work with a guy who would refer to me as Mr. Belvedere, an English character on a sitcom over here. Fair enough, I said - just so long as you don't mind me calling you Buckwheat (black character on a sitcom). Apparently Buckwheat is deeply offensive, and he went to complain to Human Resources that I was racist. Go figure. It's ok to call me limey, or Mr. Belvedere, or Geoffrey (from Fresh Prince), but if I respond in kind then I'm the bastard?
I'm of the mind that we need to take back the language from bigots, the arseholes, and the special interest groups. If we say it's ok for a gay person to refer to themselves as a faggot, or a black person to refer to themselves as a nigga/[whoops, i did a racism], but it's not ok for the rest of us to use the terms, then the words are imbued with a power that they don't deserve.
New York City has just passed a resolution that would ban the word "[whoops, i did a racism]" from common usage (not that it's enforceable or anything) - fine, but I don't see too many young black kids taking that idea on board. Instead we get a holiday for Martin Luther King Day (shame no-one can remember what his dream was), and we have Black History Month (on the understanding that 400 years of black history in the US can be condensed into 1 month of lessons, and the odd PBS special).
If we're going to be serious about getting rid of bigotry, then let's make a concerted effort, rather than this piecemeal approach that wins votes for Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson, and gets Peter Tatchell's face on the front page, but achieves precisely fcuk-all in real terms.
For example, I used to work with a guy who would refer to me as Mr. Belvedere, an English character on a sitcom over here. Fair enough, I said - just so long as you don't mind me calling you Buckwheat (black character on a sitcom). Apparently Buckwheat is deeply offensive, and he went to complain to Human Resources that I was racist. Go figure. It's ok to call me limey, or Mr. Belvedere, or Geoffrey (from Fresh Prince), but if I respond in kind then I'm the bastard?
I'm of the mind that we need to take back the language from bigots, the arseholes, and the special interest groups. If we say it's ok for a gay person to refer to themselves as a faggot, or a black person to refer to themselves as a nigga/[whoops, i did a racism], but it's not ok for the rest of us to use the terms, then the words are imbued with a power that they don't deserve.
New York City has just passed a resolution that would ban the word "[whoops, i did a racism]" from common usage (not that it's enforceable or anything) - fine, but I don't see too many young black kids taking that idea on board. Instead we get a holiday for Martin Luther King Day (shame no-one can remember what his dream was), and we have Black History Month (on the understanding that 400 years of black history in the US can be condensed into 1 month of lessons, and the odd PBS special).
If we're going to be serious about getting rid of bigotry, then let's make a concerted effort, rather than this piecemeal approach that wins votes for Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson, and gets Peter Tatchell's face on the front page, but achieves precisely fcuk-all in real terms.
"I won't go down in history, but I probably will go down on your sister."
Hank Moody
Hank Moody
-
smiscandlon
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52
I think you mean political correctness gone socially misaligned.boudicca wrote:Political Correctness Gone Mad
I think part of the issue here is that there is an inescapable (if not natural) evolution or shift in the meanings of words over time. Gay, queer, dyke, lame, cool, gothic ... all these words have quite different meanings now compared to a hundred years ago.
I accept what boudicca says about the intent behind words being the key, but certainly our last workplace 'diversity' training implied the opposite - if for example someone finds a comment racially offensive, then it is racially offensive, regardless of the intent of the person making the comment. I'm not sure what the legal position is. Or should be.
анархия
-
nick the stripper
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1732
- Joined: 16 Dec 2004, 01:02
- Location: Somewhere between Athens and Jerusalem.
- Contact:
I'm sorry, but you can't stop people from saying something or stating a point of view or calling someone something because you don't like it. Freedom of speech is a basic right. If you ban something because it offends someone, then you might as well ban anything that can offend anyone, which, if were the case, would practically force us to not say anything. Plus, this will just cause the bigots to feel as if their victims and will increase hostility.
In short: if you're for banning freedom of speech, you're a fascist [whoops, i did a racism].
In short: if you're for banning freedom of speech, you're a fascist [whoops, i did a racism].
-
EvilBastard
- Overbomber
- Posts: 3932
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 17:48
- Location: Where the Ruined Tower shouts
Not to mention being a heebie faggot SCOPE-r.nick the stripper wrote:In short: if you're for banning freedom of speech, you're a fascist [whoops, i did a racism].
"I won't go down in history, but I probably will go down on your sister."
Hank Moody
Hank Moody
-
nick the stripper
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1732
- Joined: 16 Dec 2004, 01:02
- Location: Somewhere between Athens and Jerusalem.
- Contact:
And a p*ss-midget.EvilBastard wrote:Not to mention being a heebie faggot SCOPE-r.nick the stripper wrote:In short: if you're for banning freedom of speech, you're a fascist [whoops, i did a racism].
-
EvilBastard
- Overbomber
- Posts: 3932
- Joined: 01 Feb 2006, 17:48
- Location: Where the Ruined Tower shouts
And a nerf-herder.nick the stripper wrote:And a p*ss-midget.EvilBastard wrote:Not to mention being a heebie faggot SCOPE-r.nick the stripper wrote:In short: if you're for banning freedom of speech, you're a fascist [whoops, i did a racism].
"I won't go down in history, but I probably will go down on your sister."
Hank Moody
Hank Moody
Don'y you mean hibby?EvilBastard wrote:
Not to mention being a heebie faggot.
Being brave is coming home at 2am half drunk, smelling of perfume, climbing into bed, slapping the wife on the arse and saying,"right fatty, you're next!!"
-
James Blast
- Banned
- Posts: 24699
- Joined: 11 Jun 2003, 18:58
- Location: back from some place else
Shuttit ya Jocko Homo!
"And when you start to think about death, you start to think about what's after it. And then you start hoping there is a God. For me, it's a frightening thought to go nowhere".
~ Peter Steele
~ Peter Steele
-
smiscandlon
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52
Huh? I thought that's what "freedom" meant?Dark wrote:Just because you have freedom of speech, you don't have automatic license to use it.
анархия
-
James Blast
- Banned
- Posts: 24699
- Joined: 11 Jun 2003, 18:58
- Location: back from some place else
a musical history lesson:Dark wrote:Just because you have freedom of speech, you don't have automatic license to use it.
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say its all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Were pinheads now
We are not whole
Were pinheads all
Jocko homo
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
Monkey men all
In business suit
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
Are we not men?
We are devo!
Are we not men?
D-e-v-o
God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
Were all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
We must repeat
O.k. lets go!
"And when you start to think about death, you start to think about what's after it. And then you start hoping there is a God. For me, it's a frightening thought to go nowhere".
~ Peter Steele
~ Peter Steele
-
sultan2075
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
- Location: Washington, D. C.
- Contact:
There's a distinction between liberty and license--one implies responsiblity, and one does not. In this case, however, good manners and common sense will be a lot more beneficial than speech codes or hate-crime laws.smiscandlon wrote:Huh? I thought that's what "freedom" meant?Dark wrote:Just because you have freedom of speech, you don't have automatic license to use it.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
-
smiscandlon
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2595
- Joined: 05 Feb 2004, 23:52
A good point well made. However, it appears we live in a society of speech codes and hate-crime laws. Good manners and common sense apparently take a back seat.sultan2075 wrote:There's a distinction between liberty and license--one implies responsiblity, and one does not. In this case, however, good manners and common sense will be a lot more beneficial than speech codes or hate-crime laws.
анархия
-
Dark
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 6605
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 21:26
- Location: People's Republic of Glasgow
- Contact:
Freedom means you have the ability to. Maybe I should make it clearer:smiscandlon wrote:Huh? I thought that's what "freedom" meant?Dark wrote:Just because you have freedom of speech, you don't have automatic license to use it.
Just because you can, it doesn't mean you have to.
-
sultan2075
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
- Location: Washington, D. C.
- Contact:
How very odd. I didn't realize Devo endorsed the Catholic view of evolution.James Blast wrote: God made man
But he used the monkey to do it
Apes in the plan
Were all here to prove it
I can walk like an ape
Talk like an ape
I can do what a monkey can do
God made man
But a monkey supplied the glue
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.