stof said:
Exactly Rath!
Most people that use the word gay don't mean to slander gays at all. So why the hell do they use it!? My original and constant point still stands. If you showed up to school/work tomorrow and people around you said that's so nigger, don't be a fag and what a piece of jew, would you join in because "hey, they don't mean it in a bad way"?
I hope not.
Gay has become a term for bad because people used it to denote gay as being bad. And now, in a world where gays are still one of the most repressed, oppressed and misunderstood groups in the world. At a time when they are still fighting for their rights and freedoms (the right to be accepted and legally recognized in some countries, the right not to be executed in others" their name has become the label for anything negative.
I made this thread exactly for those people who use the word gay just because they think it means bad. The ones who are anti-gay require a whole different process. They need to have their views challanged, their minds expanded. But the people that for some reason think it doesn't hurt anyone to just throw the word gay at anything they don't like is a totally different and potentially easier problem to deal with.
They just need it brought to their attention that it's an offensive and hateful practice whether they intend it to be or not.
Gay does not mean to be bad or unacceptable. And half the people who use it in that manner really are using it because they equate gay with being bad. But the other half... There's still hope for that half. |
They use it for the reason Rath explained....because the word has the additional meaning of "bad" which is distinct from any other meaning. Those who take offense to it are the ones connecting the concept to the gay community - in large part due to hypersensitivity on the issue (justification for that hypersensitivity being another subject entirely). And to your examples I would say they aren't really valid comparisons because none of those words have evolved to mean anything but what they do, but yes you sort of have the idea. I wouldn't jump in because those words wouldn't instantly gain that meaning to me - but if they were used in a way where the point communicated was not of racism or antisemitism I wouldn't be offended either.
The entire point here is each person uses a word based on what it means to them and in doing so the party who hears the word can choose to take offense based on what it means to them. If you choose to take offense to your view of a word despite recognizing that the idea being communicated does not support that interpretation then that is your choice and your problem.
You are making an objection to the origin of the definition which is no longer valid in the way it is used and allowing it to color your view of the word as a whole. That's totally fine - its your view of the word. But it's presumptious to assume you (or anyone or any group) can claim any sort of authority on what the word should be or what usages are moral or insulting for use in the language as a whole (note that I do not think this group is trying to act as an authority - at least from what I see they are just exercising their influence on the language). Each person has an influence, but nobody has concrete authority. Some groups, like those of dictionary panels that add words and remove words, have more power than others but even they are at the whim of the larger sea of individuals.
I personally don't see the point in being offended by word usage, only in being offended by the intent of a point being made. If you can't seperate this thats fine, avoid using the words and continune to be offended by it - its just another choice. But understand that you are the one taking offense to it and creating the problem when you know the person communicating it hasn't said (from their perspective) what you're objecting to - the offensive thought and meaning is entirely on your end of the conversation.
Nobody has the right to not be offended and each person can decide when and when not to watch what they say. I personally view the "taking offense" movement to be prepostrous as it is a neverending cycle. For instance: "I'm offended by people who are constantly offended by stuff. Maybe you should watch my feelings and stop being offended by so many things?" It is a form of degenerative logic - and one that I'm particularly opposed to because it spreads by people telling me what I can and can't say - which of course tells me what I should and will say to let them know their place.
People forget that language is a tool for communicating ideas and that a single word can have many meanings depending on the context it is used within. I do not see any reason to focus on a word when you can grasp the idea being communicated instead.
