Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

US Ad Council: Hey Kids, Saying "Gay" is Gay

245678

Posts

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?
    I'm not sure how facetious you're being, but "retarded" is generally another form of lazy speech, for the reasons you've outlined. Add in the fact that there are so many readily available replacements: idiotic, dumb, stupid, empty-minded, foolish, foolhardy, infantile, brain-dead, silly, unintelligent, etc. so on and so forth, there's no great excuse to use it as a general pejorative, considering that it also inscribes negative social attitudes towards the mentally and physically handicapped.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • Premier kakosPremier kakos Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Can I still use "gay" in the original senses of the word? "Christmas is so gay." "Man, I'm pretty fucking gay." "This music has a really gay beat."

    SuperKawaiiWillSig.jpg
  • zestydeezestydee Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I didn't really mean to imply that these ads would have an adverse effect overall, my point was more that young teens are douches, and expecting them to act otherwise is fairly difficult. Fortunately they grow out of it (for the most part) and when that happens their speech would most likely normalize. Do any of you swear as much as you did as when you were hanging out with your friends at 12 (internet doesn't count!)

    Basically I just don't expect the ads to be very effective in the short-term

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Both "retarded" and "lame" at least still hold some connection to their accurate definitions, that of being lesser or weakend. "Gay" has no connection with "bad" except for in our societal prejudice against homosexuality.

    Using "retarded" or "lame" as a pejorative implies that people who are developmentally disabled or physically handicapped are lesser people. If you believe that using "gay" as an insult is insulting to gay people, then you must also hold that using "retarded" as an insult is insulting to retarded people.
    I do, as outlined above, although the extent to which I consider them lazy or hurtful speech isn't quite the same as with "gay," because of the reasons outlined. Those words have some logical root for their figurative application. "Gay" really has none beyond social prejudice against homosexuality.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?
    I'm not sure how facetious you're being

    About half facetious, half sincere.

    I try to be sensitive about when I use the word "retarded" because some people do find that offensive for the reasons I outlined.

    However, I'm also pointing out that people aren't really thinking about developmental disability when they casually use "retarded" as a pejorative, nor are they thinking about physical disability when they casually use "lame" as a pejorative... likewise I don't think that your typical teenager is thinking about homosexuality when they casually use "gay" as a pejorative. I think the roots of the pejorative use may have originally been in homophobia (much in the same way the roots of the word "gypped" were probably racist) but using it is not in and of itself evidence that the speaker is homophobic, nor do I think that it's proliferation really supports or spreads homophobia. Consequently, I think it's a stupid issue to get one's feathers ruffled over.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • WashWash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    (since I think the average IQ of a person who frequently refers to things being 'gay' is probably just north of 'retarded')

    Don't call them retarded, that's offensive to mentally handicapped people.

    It's offensive because the term 'retarded' is offensive?

    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?

    Maybe he wouldn't feel either way about it?

    You can't make the assumption that all gay people feel the same way about the way the word gay is used these days. As well, while this is purely objective evidence, I can't name one person I know who's referring to homosexuals when using the word gay in a derogatory fashion. If anything, the word has spawned a third definition, one that isn't connected to its original. At first, gay meant happy/gleeful, then it added another definition - homosexual. Well, now it's got a third definition, one that's as unrelated to its original definition as homosexual is.

    If we're going into the effects of words thrown casually about and their potential harm, look at the words bitch, bastard, and the n word. If you're like me, you know guys who call their friends bitch almost playfully, without any real offense behind the word. But bitch is a derogatory word, and is demeaning to women. Bastard is a derogatory term for illegitimate children - any time you call someone that, even playfully, it could be said that you're offending illegitimate children. And today people call their friends the n word all the time as a positive thing, and I don't think going into the history of the word or how derogatory it is will be necessary here.

    There are a lot of words people use today without knowing their origins or implications. You can't fairly target one without targeting them all, which is foolish considering most of the time there's a big difference between how a word's supposed to be used and how it is used.

    08owef8ecd0o.jpg

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?
    I'm not sure how facetious you're being

    About half facetious, half sincere.

    I try to be sensitive about when I use the word "retarded" because some people do find that offensive for the reasons I outlined.

    However, I'm also pointing out that people aren't really thinking about developmental disability when they casually use "retarded" as a pejorative, nor are they thinking about physical disability when they casually use "lame" as a pejorative... likewise I don't think that your typical teenager is thinking about homosexuality when they casually use "gay" as a pejorative. I think the roots of the pejorative use may have originally been in homophobia (much in the same way the roots of the word "gypped" were probably racist) but using it is not in and of itself evidence that the speaker is homophobic, nor do I think that it's proliferation really supports or spreads homophobia. Consequently, I think it's a stupid issue to get one's feathers ruffled over.

    i agree, actually.

  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Both "retarded" and "lame" at least still hold some connection to their accurate definitions, that of being lesser or weakend. "Gay" has no connection with "bad" except for in our societal prejudice against homosexuality.

    Using "retarded" or "lame" as a pejorative implies that people who are developmentally disabled or physically handicapped are lesser people. If you believe that using "gay" as an insult is insulting to gay people, then you must also hold that using "retarded" as an insult is insulting to retarded people.

    But 'lame' and 'retarded' have more rpactical functions than 'gay', right? Lame is used to define handicapped individuals, but it has a well-defined meaning of, "weak." 'Retarded' less so, but it still can refer specifically to a stupid action, rather than a population. "Gay" doesn't really have a non-insulting descriptive value. "Faggot" I don't even use. 'Gay' I do, occasionally, but 'faggot' is tantamount to N***** for me, really. It's far too abrasive, rough a term.

    But, of course, I live in Florida, so if that "throw a frog into a pot of boiling water" analogy applies, I was tossed into scalding water, so I find myself quite averse to its use.

    Nothing turns you off the use of a word like hearing its warm embrace by the plentiful ignorant and belligerent around you.

  • TheTurkishSultanTheTurkishSultan __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?
    I'm not sure how facetious you're being, but "retarded" is generally another form of lazy speech, for the reasons you've outlined. Add in the fact that there are so many readily available replacements: idiotic, dumb, stupid, empty-minded, foolish, foolhardy, infantile, brain-dead, silly, unintelligent, etc. so on and so forth, there's no great excuse to use it as a general pejorative, considering that it also inscribes negative social attitudes towards the mentally and physically handicapped.

    Idotic, dumb, stupid, empty-minded, foolish and unintelligent is insulting to Village Fools. Please start a campain to stop these words.

    Foolhardy is insulting to heroes. Please start a campain to stop these words.

    Infantile is insulting to babies. Please start a campain to stop these words.

    Brain-dead is insulting to Zombies. Please start a campain to stop these words.

    I did have a question though. When did "Gay" get to describe Homosexuals instead of being Happy?

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Both "retarded" and "lame" at least still hold some connection to their accurate definitions, that of being lesser or weakend. "Gay" has no connection with "bad" except for in our societal prejudice against homosexuality.

    Using "retarded" or "lame" as a pejorative implies that people who are developmentally disabled or physically handicapped are lesser people. If you believe that using "gay" as an insult is insulting to gay people, then you must also hold that using "retarded" as an insult is insulting to retarded people.

    But 'lame' and 'retarded' have more rpactical functions than 'gay', right? Lame is used to define handicapped individuals, but it has a well-defined meaning of, "weak." 'Retarded' less so, but it still can refer specifically to a stupid action, rather than a population. "Gay" doesn't really have a non-insulting descriptive value. "Faggot" I don't even use. 'Gay' I do, occasionally, but 'faggot' is tantamount to N***** for me, really. It's far too abrasive, rough a term.

    But, of course, I live in Florida, so if that "throw a frog into a pot of boiling water" analogy applies, I was tossed into scalding water, so I find myself quite averse to its use.

    i think that's a circumstance that is particular to you, then.

    i'm not a heterosexual, and i don't equate "faggot" with that troublesome N-word. i've had faggot used directly at me in an insulting and intentionally derogative way to refer to my sexuality, but only by people who i hold in contempt anyway, so it's not particularly upsetting.

    then again, i don't get riled up by slurs and pejoratives in general, not usually. "kyke" can sometimes get my hackles up, but only if it's used with the intent of hate. my friends could call me that without me getting upset about it. i'd just respond with an ethnic slur directed at whatever ethnicity they are.

    so i guess i'm just accustomed to that sort of thing?

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    1. What about "that's so queer" to derisively note something that's abnormal? Since one of the definitions of queer is abnormal, and another is homosexual.

    2. What about "that's so gay" to derisively note something that is really gay, eg, a parade of Liberace impersonators?

    3. At what point does the word take on a 3rd meaning separate from "happy" or "homosexual" and simply exist as a homophone to those other meanings? Should handicapped people be offended by "that's so lame"?

    1. I'm ok with 'queer' being used to describe something odd... because that's the literal definition of the word. The fact that it was ever used to describe homosexuals/lesbians is what was insulting.

    2. Dude... if I saw a bunch if Liberace impersonators parade by me, I would probably say; "OH MY GOD... that is so gay!" Nothing wrong with that, it's just pointing out a fact.

    3. Frankly, if we're to apply this standard to everything then yes; 'lame' should be insulting to the handicapped and crippled. But it's not AS bad as 'gay' being used as a derogative, because 'lame' is literally defined in a number of different ways... one of which is: weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy. Since there is no definition of the word 'gay' that fits a derogitive connotation, then it becomes a much bigger infraction and insult.

    I'm asking how long it takes for the word to take on a non-sexual-orientation connotation and just become a non-bigoted synonym for stupid, the way for a good chunk of people today the word "lame" doesn't reveal any prejudice against the handicapped, nor the word "dumb" interpreted as a slur against mutes.

    It's not like words are static - "gay" was around for centuries before it meant homosexual. It's not like it's unreasonable to see the word take on yet another meaning. Terms like "shit" and "dope" have taken on complimentary meanings within the last 30 years, while the word "special" is now used as an insult. Or as Run DMC put it:

    Not bad meaning bad but bad meaning good.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I'm also against the idea of giving words magical superpowers.

    I'm against declaring certain words, including a certain troublesome word, as innately profane and always unacceptable to use under any circumstance lest you summon Voldemort or whatever.

    Fuck that. Seriously. Language is not static. It evolves, changes. There's no magical superwords which always have the power to do a certain thing unless you yourself give them that power.

    Intent is what is important. If a person uses the word that I cannot use that begins with N to refer to a black person in an intentionally rude and offensive fashion, that person is being cruel and hateful. They are also being cruel and hateful if they use the term spear-chucker, even though spears nor the chucking of them are offensive words or acts in and of themselves.

    It's the intent that is important, the word doesn't have magic powers.

    Telling people "don't say gay" is treating the symptom, not the problem. Instead, try telling people to not be homophobes.

    Anti-smoking ads are, in fact, effective. You know why they are effective? Because they don't just say "smoking is bad". They focus on the proven and well-researched extreme negative health consequences of smoking.

    Telling people to not use "gay" because it hurts the feelings of gay people is asinine. It doesn't treat the basic problem of they don't care about the feelings of gay people.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    Telling people to not use "gay" because it hurts the feelings of gay people is asinine. It doesn't treat the basic problem of they don't care about the feelings of gay people.

    Well, it is directly telling people "hey, think of how the gay kids feel when you do that." An ad that is too preachy or too forceful about homophobia might get ignored or ridiculed or cause a backlash effect. These ads have the same overall effect, but in a slightly more subtle manner, and I would suspect that they'd actually be more effective at combating homophobia than ads directly targeting it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    1. What about "that's so queer" to derisively note something that's abnormal? Since one of the definitions of queer is abnormal, and another is homosexual.

    2. What about "that's so gay" to derisively note something that is really gay, eg, a parade of Liberace impersonators?

    3. At what point does the word take on a 3rd meaning separate from "happy" or "homosexual" and simply exist as a homophone to those other meanings? Should handicapped people be offended by "that's so lame"?
    It takes on the third meaning when people start using it that way. I think you and I both know that currently that is not the most common usage of those terms.

    I'd wager that the use of "that's so gay" is becoming increasingly tied to a generic "that's stupid" meaning rather than a specifically homophic one. "Lame" as an insult has widely shed its handicap-insulting context within the last 50 years.

    It wouldn't be the first time the misuse of a word ended up superceding the proper use, such as "awful" (used to mean awe-inspiring) and "terrific" (used to mean terrifying).

  • an_altan_alt Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I <3 Pony

    Pony wrote:
    I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
    Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
  • Headspace CoolsHeadspace Cools Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    (since I think the average IQ of a person who frequently refers to things being 'gay' is probably just north of 'retarded')

    Don't call them retarded, that's offensive to mentally handicapped people.

    It's offensive because the term 'retarded' is offensive?

    When you say somebody is "retarded" all that means is that their development is slowed. So using it as a derogatory term is offensive to people who have developmental disabilities. If you had diabetes and I started referring to things I didn't like as "that's so diabetic!" how do you think you would feel?

    I'd probably feel pretty retarded and I'd think you were gay for ever bringing up my diabetes. I'd also probably call you a mexican jew lizard.

    Spoiler:
  • yalborapyalborap Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    zestydee wrote: »
    When I was 11-12 (or whatever 6th grade was) my school initiated a very large anti-smoking campaign in my school; you couldn't walk three feet without a no-smoking poster popping up. We also had to go to a no smoking concert thing starring some acapella boy band. It was fairly atrocious. Several of my more rebellious classmates chose to start smoking afterwards in some misguided form of protest (I'm well aware how similar to a south park episode this is).

    Now should I be worried this could happen with anti-"using the word gay because you have the vocabulary of a sign language-using gorilla" ads? I'm not saying kids will start beating up gay people because a teacher told them not to, but I can certainly picture a myriad of smarmy 12 year-olds saying "dude, that poster is gay" in some failed attempt at irony.

    The much more amusing possibility is people of the same gender making out as a protest against special calling out of the insult use of gay as opposed to other words.

  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Looking past the forest and focusing on a tree, I don't know how effective these ads will be in particular; "Knock it off" is the kind of things moms say that just annoy their kids. Hell, it made me kind of resentful just from reading it in the article, and I don't even use gay derogatorily.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • BearcatBearcat Registered User
    edited October 2008
    It's so gay that anyone would take words so seriously as to become offended by them.

    Are we all retarded or just lame?

    Especially by these MySpace teeny-boppers.

  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    BubbaT wrote: »
    I'd wager that the use of "that's so gay" is becoming increasingly tied to a generic "that's stupid" meaning rather than a specifically homophic one. "Lame" as an insult has widely shed its handicap-insulting context within the last 50 years.

    It wouldn't be the first time the misuse of a word ended up superceding the proper use, such as "awful" (used to mean awe-inspiring) and "terrific" (used to mean terrifying).
    (1) do you think homosexuals face social discrimination in the United States? Do you think that's a good thing, a bad thing, or are you indifferent?

    (2) do you think such efforts as using gender neutral pronouns (his or hers, s/he in letters from the school for example, or mail carrier v. mailman) are good and useful efforts, or do you think they're essentially pointless?

    The difference between "gay" as a general pejorative and other examples of words that change meaning is: the only "negative" association the word "gay" has ever had with it lies in society's prejudice against homosexuality. Therefore, it came to be used as a general pejorative, because of the subconcious or subtextual association between the word "gay" and a disgusting thing, an unwanted thing, a negative thing. Therefore, when using it as a generalized term for "bad," it further inscribes the widely held attitude that homosexuality is a bad thing.

    All other examples I've seen in this thread involve physical or mental handicaps, which simply aren't the same as a person's sexuality. Also, I don't think anyone really wants our society to go back to how we used to treat physically and mentally handicapped people in the past, so while the words may have changed meaning through usage, I don't think it's a particularly enlightened or progressive thing to say, "Well it worked before..."

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The difference between "gay" as a general pejorative and other examples of words that change meaning is: the only "negative" association the word "gay" has ever had with it lies in society's prejudice against homosexuality. Therefore, it came to be used as a general pejorative, because of the subconcious or subtextual association between the word "gay" and a disgusting thing, an unwanted thing, a negative thing. Therefore, when using it as a generalized term for "bad," it further inscribes the widely held attitude that homosexuality is a bad thing.

    Thank you.

    I support this campaign, because hearing this kind of shit pisses me off.

    I don't care if you don't mean it when you say, somewhere in your brain the connection between 'gay' and 'stupid' exists, or you wouldn't say it. If you don't believe that, watch your gay friends, and see how often they say it that way when they aren't making a joke. They won't. And whoever started this whole trend, you can't tell me that it wasn't intended as an insult.

    Yeah words change over time, but I have trouble believing that the whole world is changing the definition of gay to stupid. It's only straight people that are doing that.

    steam_sig.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Hey, did you guys check out the new Poof?

    Actually, my mom and her friend once were talking about me as I approached them, and they said each time they talked about me I would appear out of nowhere and that my nickname should be Poof. And I'm like "uuuuuhhhhhh, that means something else."

    steam_sig.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I don't care if you don't mean it when you say, somewhere in your brain the connection between 'gay' and 'stupid' exists, or you wouldn't say it.

    Or they've just developed a habit from hearing other people do it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I think general explicatives are stupid period. Use the extra brain power to come up with something topical.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Both "retarded" and "lame" at least still hold some connection to their accurate definitions, that of being lesser or weakend. "Gay" has no connection with "bad" except for in our societal prejudice against homosexuality.
    Using "retarded" or "lame" as a pejorative implies that people who are developmentally disabled or physically handicapped are lesser people. If you believe that using "gay" as an insult is insulting to gay people, then you must also hold that using "retarded" as an insult is insulting to retarded people.
    I'm with you on everything except "lame".

    What's next? Will the only acceptable way to describe something as the opposite of cool be "uncool"? Because then you're just trivialising the plight of the poor proles of Oceania :P



    But in all seriousness, I haven't used "gay" in years . . . though I am guilty of "retarded" occasionally (though less and less). I might try and split hairs with you and point out that "retarded" is merely a French/Latin word for "slow", and that no decent person would actually use the word to refer to those who are actually mentally disabled - but that would hardly be productive. It's all circular anyways - we don't call the mentally disabled "retarded" because it's a mean word with huge negative connotations. It makes no sense to say "since we don't use X to refer to group Y in a negative manner, we can reclaim it and use it as a general pejorative". That argument is pretty . . . um . . . lame.

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I encourage* the use of the word gay as a mild, supposedly shocking pejorative.

    Because like almost all shock words, eventually the novelty wears off and they aren't shocking anymore. So once the shock wears off the word 'gay', the negative connotations won't mean anything. Which is what these peeps on the OP are going for.

    I say let the meaning and evolution of the word run its course, trying to stifle that process just fucks everything up and makes it more 'shocking' or un-PC to use for a longer period of time. Seems counter-productive to the cause.

    * and by 'encourage', I mean I don't make a point of caring one way or the other.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    MuddBudd wrote: »
    I don't care if you don't mean it when you say, somewhere in your brain the connection between 'gay' and 'stupid' exists, or you wouldn't say it.

    Or they've just developed a habit from hearing other people do it.
    And that habit, in turn, inscribes anti-homosexual sentiment in society.

    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • The Green Eyed MonsterThe Green Eyed Monster i blame hip hop Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    I encourage* the use of the word gay as a mild, supposedly shocking pejorative.

    Because like almost all shock words, eventually the novelty wears off and they aren't shocking anymore. So once the shock wears off the word 'gay', the negative connotations won't mean anything. Which is what these peeps on the OP are going for.

    I say let the meaning and evolution of the word run its course, trying to stifle that process just fucks everything up and makes it more 'shocking' or un-PC to use for a longer period of time. Seems counter-productive to the cause.

    * and by 'encourage', I mean I don't make a point of caring one way or the other.
    There are few things less shocking than being called "gay" on Xbox Live because I lost at Halo 3. Frankly, it's de rigeur.

    And I return to the example of pronouns. Do you similarly not care when someone uses exclusively masculine pronouns? Do you deny the link between language and cognition, between words and subtle prejudices?

    wisdom wrote:
    if knowledge is power and power corrupts, be smart, be evil
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    Technically, the ungendered pronouns in the English language are identical to the masculine pronouns. Appropriation of singular plurals ("they") and other methods are all part of the [understandable] backlash. :P

    EDIT: I'm not going to deny that this helps reinforce a patriarchal society, of course, in its ... own small way.

    words
  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    Uh, yes?

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Technically, the ungendered pronouns in the English language are identical to the masculine pronouns. Appropriation of singular plurals ("they") and other methods are all part of the [understandable] backlash. :P

    EDIT: I'm not going to deny that this helps reinforce a patriarchal society, of course, in its ... own small way.
    You know, I only learned 6 months ago that using "they/their" as a substitute for "he/his" was completely wrong? I used to do it all of the time.

    I like that most of my professors mix it up really well when lecturing, usually using more "she"s then "he"s.

  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    It bothers me less and less over the years when people say gay and fag and shit like that. I guess my real stance would be that I'm not going to really be a part of any unified effort to get people to stop saying it, as I think a lot of what Pony is saying is valid.
    I still think it'd be great if it just stopped being part of the vernacular, though.
    I mean I'm guilty of saying shit like 'retarded' and 'lame' just as others are of 'gay' 'homo' and whatnot. I don't generally justify it to myself, but if I had to I would say that the words are negative adjectives regardless of the groups of people associated with them.
    It's not an excuse or anything, but no matter how you slice it, retarded and lame are quantifiably negative words when not applied to the mentally/physically handicapped. Actually, even then they are as well, which is why we have a whole set of new words (like handicapped/differently abled, etc) to substitute.
    Gay, however, is actually a historically positive adjective when not associated with the group of people it now represents.
    As I said, this is not me trying to make excuses for my speech, this is just how I would justify it if I absolutely had to.
    When it comes down to it, there are very few negative words that we can safely use if we want to be entirely unoffensive. To be hyperbolic, even the word 'dumb' is technically offensive in the same way that lame is, except for mutes instead of people with sub-par leg function.

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    I like looking at books like the Dungeons & Dragons manual and seeing which gender they ascribe to things like each class. :3

    words
  • reVersereVerse Never odd or even Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Man, what faggotry is this? Why are those queers trying to reduce the size of the vocabulary of young people everywhere? This whole thing is gay.

  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Nocturne wrote: »
    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    Uh, yes?
    Yeah, seriously. My male teachers say he/his, female teachers say she/hers, and nobody really cares. I wish they would just either officially expand 'they' to also be a singular pronoun or just invent one that takes its place. It would make everything so much easier.

  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Snork wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    Uh, yes?
    Yeah, seriously. My male teachers say he/his, female teachers say she/hers, and nobody really cares. I wish they would just either officially expand 'they' to also be a singular pronoun or just invent one that takes its place. It would make everything so much easier.

    Yeah, and "s/he" is just an annoying speedbump when reading things.

  • SnorkSnork Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    Uh, yes?
    Yeah, seriously. My male teachers say he/his, female teachers say she/hers, and nobody really cares. I wish they would just either officially expand 'they' to also be a singular pronoun or just invent one that takes its place. It would make everything so much easier.

    Yeah, and "s/he" is just an annoying speedbump when reading things.
    how do you even pronounce that

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited October 2008
    Snork wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    Snork wrote: »
    Nocturne wrote: »
    I mean, do you also just shrug your shoulders when teachers say "he/his" for all examples in class, because it's simply the habit? They're not sexists, they're just lazy with their language. No biggy.

    Uh, yes?
    Yeah, seriously. My male teachers say he/his, female teachers say she/hers, and nobody really cares. I wish they would just either officially expand 'they' to also be a singular pronoun or just invent one that takes its place. It would make everything so much easier.

    Yeah, and "s/he" is just an annoying speedbump when reading things.
    how do you even pronounce that
    first iteration you use your own gender and maintain for the duration

    if orating multiple pieces, rotate thenceforth

    words
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited October 2008
    I'm all for this. It started well after I was out of high school, yet I've still managed to pick it up from the internet. I feel like a fucking moron the few times I've called something gay before my mouth catches up with my brain.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    I like looking at books like the Dungeons & Dragons manual and seeing which gender they ascribe to things like each class. :3

    in the 2nd edition D&D books, there was a thing at the beginning that was like "in most examples in this book we use male pronouns because let's be honest most of the players and characters are male and it's awkward to write him/her everywhere"

    in 3rd edition, and 4th continued this stance, they randomly switch-up what pronouns they are using for a particular class, feat, power, spell, whatever. the pronoun use is consistent within that section, but the next one is probably going to be different.

    for example, the 3rd edition paladin section in the PHB used all female pronouns (and the example art for the Paladin was female), but the 3rd edition fighter used all male (and the 2 example fighters were male).

    since english lacks a proper gender-neutral pronoun that doesn't pluralize or depersonalize, it's really the best compromise

Sign In or Register to comment.