I haven't seen a lot of guys chained to pickups and dragged until their limbs came off because they were Irish lately. Pretty much the worst thing we (Irish Americans) have to worry about are the Lucky Charms mascot and the fact that Notre Dame hasn't been a good football team since they started cracking down on under-the-table payments to athletes.
To be fair, there was a time in history when the Irish were quite mistreated.
Indeed.
It stopped because of major social change, not because people stopped using a less than PC phrase they meant no harm by.
Of which the general public's growing intolerance for "dirty mick" or "he's got a head like a n----" as general phrases was likely a part.
Seriously, it's not either/or. Not allowing your particular group to be ridiculed constantly is a big step towards some respect in the public eye.
They way I see it, and this is just opinion;
Getting rid of a figure of speech probably won't really lead to social change.
Social change though will also lead to a reduction in that particular figure of speech being used. So you're right that it's not either/or, but it does work much more one way than the other.
I haven't seen a lot of guys chained to pickups and dragged until their limbs came off because they were Irish lately. Pretty much the worst thing we (Irish Americans) have to worry about are the Lucky Charms mascot and the fact that Notre Dame hasn't been a good football team since they started cracking down on under-the-table payments to athletes.
To be fair, there was a time in history when the Irish were quite mistreated.
Indeed.
It stopped because of major social change, not because people stopped using a less than PC phrase they meant no harm by.
Of which the general public's growing intolerance for "dirty mick" or "he's got a head like a n----" as general phrases was likely a part.
Seriously, it's not either/or. Not allowing your particular group to be ridiculed constantly is a big step towards some respect in the public eye.
They way I see it, and this is just opinion;
Getting rid of a figure of speech probably won't really lead to social change.
Social change though will also lead to a reduction in that particular figure of speech being used. So you're right that it's not either/or, but it does work much more one way than the other.
The thing is, it's no effort for some change. I think it's a little insane to nitpick about how effective something will be when it's effortless and beneficial.
Also using this language is usually part of an assumption that people make. To their credit, most of the people I know wouldn't say gay around me or if they did they would realize their mistake. I have the feeling a lot of people wouldn't say that to a gay person's face in a fairly liberal environment.
However these people probably go around saying gay a lot when they assume everyone present is heterosexual. Homosexuality is one the rare minority statuses which can hidden quite easily or at least not readily apparent. When somoene who doesn't realize that I'm gay says 'don't be such a fag' 'god that's so gay' around me I'm strongly inclined to dislike them whether or not they 'meant' it as a slur.
One of my finer moments was getting a kid kicked out of a party for calling me a fag (he didn't know I was gay, but motherfucker that's why you don't assume).
Oh, I think it is possible, sure, but I don't think the use of "he/him" as a generic pronoun is necessarily one of those instances, no more than "woman" containing the word "man" reinforces negative cultural elements. Almost every language uses the masculine singular as a generic, ungendered singular as well and there is no consistent level of egalitarianism (or lack thereof) amongst the cultures that use those languages. Furthermore, the languages that either have a specific pronoun for ungendered use or languages that don't use the masculine pronoun in that role aren't on average more egalitarian than languages that do use the masculine for its ungendered pronoun.
tl;dr: There is zero correlation between a languages use of the masculine first person pronoun as an ungendered, generic pronoun and the cultural norms regarding sex, hence it is very reasonable to say that such a linguistic convention does not reflect or reinforce sexism.
Can you offer specific examples?
The only language I know intimately enough to speak on w/r/t this is Danish, which has an ungendered third-person pronoun, and their elected government was something like 60% female the last time I checked, and overall they have one of the most egalitarian societies that I'm aware of, so ... also, I thinks it's pretty difficult to point to a more or less "egalitarian" society, since what you're generally going to find is differing levels of repression for the female population. What in the world kind of rubric would you even use to measure which society was the most sexist, and then try to extrapolate that to language?
It's pretty much a philosophical point, relating to language and cognition. Measuring it by real-world measuring sticks is a little difficult. The increase of women's wages, women in the workforce, and women in positions of authority has come directly alongside an increased social pressure to be conscious of your generic pronoun usage, though, so the case could just as easily (and lazily) be made that it was the language change which allowed these things to happen, as it could be made that it's unrelated to language.
Well, let's look at some languages which either have a gender-neutral pronoun or are genderless. Danish is one, yes, a pretty egalitarian country.
Chinese - Not so egalitarian culture.
Filipino - Not so egalitarian.
Uralic Languages (Estonian, Finnish, et al.) - Actually, fairly egalitarian.
Georgian - Not so much.
Japanese - Not so much
Persian - Hooboy.
On the other hand, you have Romance languages, which also used the masculine pronouns as unmarked when appropriate. However, one could make the argument that they are null subject languages, so it doesn't quite count.
Also, one should keep in mind that the women's suffrage movement began in English speaking countries.
Though, if the use of a traditionally marked pronoun as an unmarked pronoun really bothers you, use "ou/a", which are pronouns from Middle English that filled the unmarked pronoun. I swear to god, people who use the "singular 'they'" piss me off. Think about it for a second and realise how dumb it is. Sure, there are some cases where it sounds natural, but let's look at other cases: "They is walking the dog."
Premier kakos on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Though, if the use of a traditionally marked pronoun as an unmarked pronoun really bothers you, use "ou/a", which are pronouns from Middle English that filled the unmarked pronoun. I swear to god, people who use the "singular 'they'" piss me off. Think about it for a second and realise how dumb it is. Sure, there are some cases where it sounds natural, but let's look at other cases: "They is walking the dog."
The natural way to conjugate that is "They are walking the dog," even if 'they' is singular.
Ex: "If you want to make quick money, hire a dog-sitter. Then wait until they're walking the dog, mug them, and take their purse."
Notice that sentence sounds entirely unnatural (and definitely not gender-neutral) if you replace all the they/them/their with he/him/his.
Though, if the use of a traditionally marked pronoun as an unmarked pronoun really bothers you, use "ou/a", which are pronouns from Middle English that filled the unmarked pronoun. I swear to god, people who use the "singular 'they'" piss me off. Think about it for a second and realise how dumb it is. Sure, there are some cases where it sounds natural, but let's look at other cases: "They is walking the dog."
The natural way to conjugate that is "They are walking the dog," even if 'they' is singular.
Ex: "If you want to make quick money, hire a dog-sitter. Then wait until they're walking the dog, mug them, and take their purse."
Notice that sentence sounds entirely unnatural (and definitely not gender-neutral) if you replace all the they/them/their with he/him/his.
Can we just.. I dunno, let all the people who hate using Non-PC terms form their own country or something. You know, where they can just watch kittens playing in fields on all their TV channels and play hopscotch in the parking lots.
Our own country where we don't have to deal with bigots who hide behind the "OMG, U R BEEING 2 PC ABOUT EVERTING!" excuse?
That sounds like paradise!
So, everyone who isn't PC is a bigot now? Or did I read what you wrote wrong?
I'm all for treating people as you would like to be treated yourself, hell its part of my religion! However, when we have to go around limited what we say just because someone somewhere might possibly take offense to it... Where does it stop? Tell me that. First we give up the right to say certain words. Then what? The right to believe certain ideals? Where does the line get drawn? This country was founded by a bunch of religious outcasts and even they would be spinning in their graves if they could see what we were heading towards.
We're a country built on the tolerance of beliefs insofar as they don't harm others, but when does the banning of words turn us from trying to make everyone comfortable to being a place where you either agree with whatever the ruling class says or get punished?
While a bit tangental, I think a poem says it best... First they came... at least better than I could ever hope to say it.
I really want to sympathize with the opposition here but honestly all I am hearing is "I enjoy being insulting towards gay people and I will defend my decision to do so"
Keep justifying to yourself if you need.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Can we just.. I dunno, let all the people who hate using Non-PC terms form their own country or something. You know, where they can just watch kittens playing in fields on all their TV channels and play hopscotch in the parking lots.
Our own country where we don't have to deal with bigots who hide behind the "OMG, U R BEEING 2 PC ABOUT EVERTING!" excuse?
That sounds like paradise!
So, everyone who isn't PC is a bigot now? Or did I read what you wrote wrong?
I'm all for treating people as you would like to be treated yourself, hell its part of my religion! However, when we have to go around limited what we say just because someone somewhere might possibly take offense to it... Where does it stop? Tell me that. First we give up the right to say certain words. Then what? The right to believe certain ideals? Where does the line get drawn? This country was founded by a bunch of religious outcasts and even they would be spinning in their graves if they could see what we were heading towards.
We're a country built on the tolerance of beliefs insofar as they don't harm others, but when does the banning of words turn us from trying to make everyone comfortable to being a place where you either agree with whatever the ruling class says or get punished?
While a bit tangental, I think a poem says it best... First they came... at least better than I could ever hope to say it.
I for one applaud the use of "First they Came..." to defend using "gay" as a derogatory term. Unlike homosexual people, so many people who say "That's so gay," have been savagely beaten, lynched, tortured, forcibly brainwashed, or arrested by the government never to be seen again in various countries, and it's time for someone to draw the line.
So here I stand. If you want to commit the atrocity of suggesting that people stop using a term just because a few gays get lynched by closeted rednecks, you're going to have to come through me!
Can we just.. I dunno, let all the people who hate using Non-PC terms form their own country or something. You know, where they can just watch kittens playing in fields on all their TV channels and play hopscotch in the parking lots.
Our own country where we don't have to deal with bigots who hide behind the "OMG, U R BEEING 2 PC ABOUT EVERTING!" excuse?
That sounds like paradise!
So, everyone who isn't PC is a bigot now? Or did I read what you wrote wrong?
I'm all for treating people as you would like to be treated yourself, hell its part of my religion! However, when we have to go around limited what we say just because someone somewhere might possibly take offense to it... Where does it stop? Tell me that. First we give up the right to say certain words. Then what? The right to believe certain ideals? Where does the line get drawn? This country was founded by a bunch of religious outcasts and even they would be spinning in their graves if they could see what we were heading towards.
We're a country built on the tolerance of beliefs insofar as they don't harm others, but when does the banning of words turn us from trying to make everyone comfortable to being a place where you either agree with whatever the ruling class says or get punished?
While a bit tangental, I think a poem says it best... First they came... at least better than I could ever hope to say it.
Someone else used sarcasm to reply to you, I'll be more direct. What in the infinite fucking hells is wrong with you?
Though, if the use of a traditionally marked pronoun as an unmarked pronoun really bothers you, use "ou/a", which are pronouns from Middle English that filled the unmarked pronoun. I swear to god, people who use the "singular 'they'" piss me off. Think about it for a second and realise how dumb it is. Sure, there are some cases where it sounds natural, but let's look at other cases: "They is walking the dog."
The natural way to conjugate that is "They are walking the dog," even if 'they' is singular.
Ex: "If you want to make quick money, hire a dog-sitter. Then wait until they're walking the dog, mug them, and take their purse."
Notice that sentence sounds entirely unnatural (and definitely not gender-neutral) if you replace all the they/them/their with he/him/his.
I don't understand the merit of this example?
"It doesn't sound unnatural at all when you know how to use English."
It doesn't sound anymore unnatural with masculine pronouns than female pronouns. You can't use a word's extragrammatical connotations (purse) to illustrate something grammatical. It's the height of idiocy.
If you're going to use that word and its connotations to say that it sounds unnatural with the masculine-appearing ungendered pronouns, you also need to yield that it sounds unnatural with the "singular-plural" pronouns they/their because the use of the word 'purse' suggests that the correct pronoun should be feminine-singular or is the usage of they/their plural (since the English language does not differentiate between masculine and female pluralities).
Can we just.. I dunno, let all the people who hate using Non-PC terms form their own country or something. You know, where they can just watch kittens playing in fields on all their TV channels and play hopscotch in the parking lots.
Our own country where we don't have to deal with bigots who hide behind the "OMG, U R BEEING 2 PC ABOUT EVERTING!" excuse?
That sounds like paradise!
So, everyone who isn't PC is a bigot now? Or did I read what you wrote wrong?
I'm all for treating people as you would like to be treated yourself, hell its part of my religion! However, when we have to go around limited what we say just because someone somewhere might possibly take offense to it... Where does it stop? Tell me that. First we give up the right to say certain words. Then what? The right to believe certain ideals? Where does the line get drawn? This country was founded by a bunch of religious outcasts and even they would be spinning in their graves if they could see what we were heading towards.
We're a country built on the tolerance of beliefs insofar as they don't harm others, but when does the banning of words turn us from trying to make everyone comfortable to being a place where you either agree with whatever the ruling class says or get punished?
While a bit tangental, I think a poem says it best... First they came... at least better than I could ever hope to say it.
Someone else used sarcasm to reply to you, I'll be more direct. What in the infinite fucking hells is wrong with you?
What slang can I use now for a negative outcome, action, or behavior? I'm mostly a "retarded" user myself. I've have been known to use "gay", but since highschool it quickly left my vocabulary.
Are the original seven dirty words still acceptable? Someone call a b-list celebrity because I need some guidance. How are the slang words on the international front? Maybe I can use those for a while.
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
I agree that I should stop saying gay as a synonym for stupid. At the same time, this is an unbelievably idiotic thing to be spending money on. Let's spend money on the root of the problem, not the effects of it. Also, "gay" as an insult has completely lost pretty much all of its value as a perjorative in the sense of homosexuality. I don't say [something] is retarded to make fun of the handicapped, I use it because it's become accepted lexicon for "dumb". And yes, to use the stupid strawman the other side loves to walk out, if "straight" became an insult meaning "stupid", yes I'd fucking use it. There's a reason it's called slang.
Rent on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I agree that I should stop saying gay as a synonym for stupid. At the same time, this is an unbelievably idiotic thing to be spending money on. Let's spend money on the root of the problem, not the effects of it. Also, "gay" as an insult has completely lost pretty much all of its value as a perjorative in the sense of homosexuality. I don't say [something] is retarded to make fun of the handicapped, I use it because it's become accepted lexicon for "dumb". And yes, to use the stupid strawman the other side loves to walk out, if "straight" became an insult meaning "stupid", yes I'd fucking use it. There's a reason it's called slang.
There's also a reason "straight" will never become an insult, because there isn't a widespread social prejudice against straights. Also, simply because it's slang doesn't mean it can't be hurtful. I could say it's slang to use the verb "to jew" for when someone makes an unfair deal with someone else, e.g. he jewed you on that trade, (because, well, it is slang to say that), but you'd have a hard time making a case that example isn't rooted in anti-Jewish prejudice.
Also, do you not see the difference between "retarded," which has a root in underdeveloped or definably negative characteristics, and "gay," which has no root in anything negative besides a societal prejudice against homosexuality?
It's not like you're committing a hate crime every time you say it, but it's still lazy and insensitive speech, and if you aspire to move past laziness and insensitivity, I encourage you to remove it from your vocabulary.
The Green Eyed Monster on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
I agree that I should stop saying gay as a synonym for stupid. At the same time, this is an unbelievably idiotic thing to be spending money on. Let's spend money on the root of the problem, not the effects of it. Also, "gay" as an insult has completely lost pretty much all of its value as a perjorative in the sense of homosexuality. I don't say [something] is retarded to make fun of the handicapped, I use it because it's become accepted lexicon for "dumb". And yes, to use the stupid strawman the other side loves to walk out, if "straight" became an insult meaning "stupid", yes I'd fucking use it. There's a reason it's called slang.
There's also a reason "straight" will never become an insult, because there isn't a widespread social prejudice against straights. Also, simply because it's slang doesn't mean it can't be hurtful. I could say it's slang to use the verb "to jew" for when someone makes an unfair deal with someone else, e.g. he jewed you on that trade, (because, well, it is slang to say that), but you'd have a hard time making a case that example isn't rooted in anti-Jewish prejudice.
Also, do you not see the difference between "retarded," which has a root in underdeveloped or definably negative characteristics, and "gay," which has no root in anything negative besides a societal prejudice against homosexuality?
It's not like you're committing a hate crime every time you say it, but it's still lazy and insensitive speech, and if you aspire to move past laziness and insensitivity, I encourage you excise it from your vocabulary.
I do, hence my committment to self-censorship. Even so, if I use "gay" as an insult at this current time it's not that big a fucking deal. And "jew" or "n****r" isn't a comparable point of reference because it's fallen out of favor as an insult. That's, like, kinda the whole point- it's considered ignorant to use that language. Right now, it's not considered sociologically ignorant to use "gay". It should, but it isn't. Therefore, this roots back to my previous point that we should be teaching that homosexuality isn't a Bad Thing(tm) and not to not use certain words everyone uses anyways. This is akin to treating an open wound with a band-aid - helpful, but not in the long term without proper treatment.
Rent on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
What slang can I use now for a negative outcome, action, or behavior? I'm mostly a "retarded" user myself. I've have been known to use "gay", but since highschool it quickly left my vocabulary.
Are the original seven dirty words still acceptable? Someone call a b-list celebrity because I need some guidance. How are the slang words on the international front? Maybe I can use those for a while.
While I don't want to actually say insults to people's faces, is there actually any evidence that forcing changes in language use reduces bigotry?
By that, I mean, if someone uses 'gay' as an insult, or 'Paki' are they more likely to discriminate, abuse or oppress in other ways?
Certainly there are language acts which are bigoted, but can we affect say, job discrimination in any way by stopping people from using epithets?
This is an ideology that some people seem to have, and I always thought so too.
However, in my life I've met a few people who don't care about PC-ness but maintained (and maybe showed me) that they weren't bigots.
I've an uncle who would use the word 'Nip' and 'Jap' but was always very nice to my Japanese wife.
I had a friend who would use words like 'Paki' and 'Coon' but was friends with plenty of Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean people.
Certainly there are dicks who want the right to abuse others and lie about not actually being prejudiced. But I've met people who use 'bigoted' language and aren't bigoted at all.
I do, hence my committment to self-censorship. Even so, if I use "gay" as an insult at this current time it's not that big a fucking deal. And "jew" or "n****r" isn't a comparable point of reference because it's fallen out of favor as an insult. That's, like, kinda the whole point- it's considered ignorant to use that language. Right now, it's not considered sociologically ignorant to use "gay". It should, but it isn't. Therefore, this roots back to my previous point that we should be teaching that homosexuality isn't a Bad Thing(tm) and not to not use certain words everyone uses anyways. This is akin to treating an open wound with a band-aid - helpful, but not in the long term without proper treatment.
Soooo ... you're saying that groups that were formerly heavily oppressed asserted themselves, in part by demanding that people be more conscious of their language use, and in turn these groups became less oppressed as people's awareness of the issues and the hidden, unexamined prejudices which exist in our society rose, is not a good reference point for the repression of homosexuals, because ... why?
Because it's like the "in" thing to bash fags these days, whether it be ironic or not, and really the gay-ass fags should just shut up and wait for everyone to learn to accept them by not demanding their rights?
It is directly comparable to "n*gg*r" or "jew." but you don't want to take responsibility for playing a part in that. I'm not saying you're necessarily a bigot if you use the term pejoratively, but you're lazy and insensitive if you do, that's for certain. There's really no arguing that.
While I don't want to actually say insults to people's faces, is there actually any evidence that forcing changes in language use reduces bigotry?
By that, I mean, if someone uses 'gay' as an insult, or 'Paki' are they more likely to discriminate, abuse or oppress in other ways?
I assume there is a correlation, but as the old trope goes, correlation does not imply causation. (Bigots use bigoted language; that does necessarily imply that bigoted language creates bigots.)
As I alluded to in my conversation with Green-Eyed Monster, there is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the effects of language on cognition, and it is a much deeper and broader conversation than simply bigotry. People have wondered how language affects (or constrains) thought since Shakespeare wrote about a rose by any other name, but it's only been in the last 60-80-ish years that we've really rigorously looked at the possibility. I mean, if you go back to the 1930s-50s, you've got the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you've got Derrida's writings on grammatology, you've George Orwell writing about "Newspeak," and so on. And there's a lot of evidence that they were right, to a degree; there are a lot of situations where language shapes thought - but not necessarily in ways we expect. People spend their entire careers studying this phenomenon and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion to take something as complex as psycholinguistics and condense it down to a context-less generalization that bigoted speech fosters bigoted thought.
Feral on
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.
Just substitute any other word for a group of people instead of gay.
"That's so ____"
jewish
christian
white
black
republican
democrat
redheaded
left-handed
etc...
If you can substitute something like that, say the phrase the same way in front of that same group of people and not feel uncomfortable, go right ahead and keep on saying "That's so gay".
But most people wouldn't be comfortable doing that, because its insulting.
MuddBudd on
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
No one is saying stop using the term. We'd just like people to stop using the term in a derogitory manner.
Multiple people are saying stop using the term.
Nobody has said "don't use 'gay' as a synonym for 'homosexual'," they've been saying "don't use 'gay' as a synonym for 'bad'."
No, that's not what I meant. I thought that by 'in a derogatory manner' he meant 'actively equating homosexuals with bad things'. My bad if I misunderstood him.
On that plane, though, no, I don't think it's wrong to use the phrase 'gay' to describe something bad. That instance (that usage of the word) is not endemically bad. We don't need to coddle people, we need people to grow up.
What slang can I use now for a negative outcome, action, or behavior? I'm mostly a "retarded" user myself. I've have been known to use "gay", but since highschool it quickly left my vocabulary.
Are the original seven dirty words still acceptable? Someone call a b-list celebrity because I need some guidance. How are the slang words on the international front? Maybe I can use those for a while.
Posts
They way I see it, and this is just opinion;
Getting rid of a figure of speech probably won't really lead to social change.
Social change though will also lead to a reduction in that particular figure of speech being used. So you're right that it's not either/or, but it does work much more one way than the other.
One of my finer moments was getting a kid kicked out of a party for calling me a fag (he didn't know I was gay, but motherfucker that's why you don't assume).
Well, let's look at some languages which either have a gender-neutral pronoun or are genderless. Danish is one, yes, a pretty egalitarian country.
On the other hand, you have Romance languages, which also used the masculine pronouns as unmarked when appropriate. However, one could make the argument that they are null subject languages, so it doesn't quite count.
Also, one should keep in mind that the women's suffrage movement began in English speaking countries.
Though, if the use of a traditionally marked pronoun as an unmarked pronoun really bothers you, use "ou/a", which are pronouns from Middle English that filled the unmarked pronoun. I swear to god, people who use the "singular 'they'" piss me off. Think about it for a second and realise how dumb it is. Sure, there are some cases where it sounds natural, but let's look at other cases: "They is walking the dog."
The natural way to conjugate that is "They are walking the dog," even if 'they' is singular.
Ex: "If you want to make quick money, hire a dog-sitter. Then wait until they're walking the dog, mug them, and take their purse."
Notice that sentence sounds entirely unnatural (and definitely not gender-neutral) if you replace all the they/them/their with he/him/his.
I'm all for treating people as you would like to be treated yourself, hell its part of my religion! However, when we have to go around limited what we say just because someone somewhere might possibly take offense to it... Where does it stop? Tell me that. First we give up the right to say certain words. Then what? The right to believe certain ideals? Where does the line get drawn? This country was founded by a bunch of religious outcasts and even they would be spinning in their graves if they could see what we were heading towards.
We're a country built on the tolerance of beliefs insofar as they don't harm others, but when does the banning of words turn us from trying to make everyone comfortable to being a place where you either agree with whatever the ruling class says or get punished?
While a bit tangental, I think a poem says it best...
First they came... at least better than I could ever hope to say it.
Keep justifying to yourself if you need.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I for one applaud the use of "First they Came..." to defend using "gay" as a derogatory term. Unlike homosexual people, so many people who say "That's so gay," have been savagely beaten, lynched, tortured, forcibly brainwashed, or arrested by the government never to be seen again in various countries, and it's time for someone to draw the line.
So here I stand. If you want to commit the atrocity of suggesting that people stop using a term just because a few gays get lynched by closeted rednecks, you're going to have to come through me!
If you're going to use that word and its connotations to say that it sounds unnatural with the masculine-appearing ungendered pronouns, you also need to yield that it sounds unnatural with the "singular-plural" pronouns they/their because the use of the word 'purse' suggests that the correct pronoun should be feminine-singular or is the usage of they/their plural (since the English language does not differentiate between masculine and female pluralities).
Whew. Glad somebody got that.
Being asked not to be a bigot is oppressive?
Do you know what "First they came..." is meant to be about?
Look, I admit I say "gay" "fag" etc a lot and should probably cut back. But it's not like I'm being oppressed when someone asks me to stop it.
Are the original seven dirty words still acceptable? Someone call a b-list celebrity because I need some guidance. How are the slang words on the international front? Maybe I can use those for a while.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HAGc521SAo
Who spent money on what now?
Also, do you not see the difference between "retarded," which has a root in underdeveloped or definably negative characteristics, and "gay," which has no root in anything negative besides a societal prejudice against homosexuality?
It's not like you're committing a hate crime every time you say it, but it's still lazy and insensitive speech, and if you aspire to move past laziness and insensitivity, I encourage you to remove it from your vocabulary.
I do, hence my committment to self-censorship. Even so, if I use "gay" as an insult at this current time it's not that big a fucking deal. And "jew" or "n****r" isn't a comparable point of reference because it's fallen out of favor as an insult. That's, like, kinda the whole point- it's considered ignorant to use that language. Right now, it's not considered sociologically ignorant to use "gay". It should, but it isn't. Therefore, this roots back to my previous point that we should be teaching that homosexuality isn't a Bad Thing(tm) and not to not use certain words everyone uses anyways. This is akin to treating an open wound with a band-aid - helpful, but not in the long term without proper treatment.
"that's bullshit"
"that's fucked up"
"That's totally Amish"
(fuckem' they'll never know)
I host a podcast about movies.
By that, I mean, if someone uses 'gay' as an insult, or 'Paki' are they more likely to discriminate, abuse or oppress in other ways?
Certainly there are language acts which are bigoted, but can we affect say, job discrimination in any way by stopping people from using epithets?
This is an ideology that some people seem to have, and I always thought so too.
However, in my life I've met a few people who don't care about PC-ness but maintained (and maybe showed me) that they weren't bigots.
I've an uncle who would use the word 'Nip' and 'Jap' but was always very nice to my Japanese wife.
I had a friend who would use words like 'Paki' and 'Coon' but was friends with plenty of Pakistani and Afro-Caribbean people.
Certainly there are dicks who want the right to abuse others and lie about not actually being prejudiced. But I've met people who use 'bigoted' language and aren't bigoted at all.
What do you reckon?
Because it's like the "in" thing to bash fags these days, whether it be ironic or not, and really the gay-ass fags should just shut up and wait for everyone to learn to accept them by not demanding their rights?
It is directly comparable to "n*gg*r" or "jew." but you don't want to take responsibility for playing a part in that. I'm not saying you're necessarily a bigot if you use the term pejoratively, but you're lazy and insensitive if you do, that's for certain. There's really no arguing that.
I assume there is a correlation, but as the old trope goes, correlation does not imply causation. (Bigots use bigoted language; that does necessarily imply that bigoted language creates bigots.)
As I alluded to in my conversation with Green-Eyed Monster, there is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the effects of language on cognition, and it is a much deeper and broader conversation than simply bigotry. People have wondered how language affects (or constrains) thought since Shakespeare wrote about a rose by any other name, but it's only been in the last 60-80-ish years that we've really rigorously looked at the possibility. I mean, if you go back to the 1930s-50s, you've got the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, you've got Derrida's writings on grammatology, you've George Orwell writing about "Newspeak," and so on. And there's a lot of evidence that they were right, to a degree; there are a lot of situations where language shapes thought - but not necessarily in ways we expect. People spend their entire careers studying this phenomenon and I don't think it's a foregone conclusion to take something as complex as psycholinguistics and condense it down to a context-less generalization that bigoted speech fosters bigoted thought.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just substitute any other word for a group of people instead of gay.
"That's so ____"
jewish
christian
white
black
republican
democrat
redheaded
left-handed
etc...
If you can substitute something like that, say the phrase the same way in front of that same group of people and not feel uncomfortable, go right ahead and keep on saying "That's so gay".
But most people wouldn't be comfortable doing that, because its insulting.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
So can I still say "I'll beat you like a red-headed stepchild?"
You know where the word 'sinister' for 'evil' came from, right?
Edit: honestly, if somebody said "that's so jewish" or "that's so christian" to mean "that's so stupid," i'd probably laugh my ass off.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think it would depend on their tone but yeah.
In fact that's probably a better point than I was trying to make, that the phrase is inherently ridiculous in the first place.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Yeah, you should use "evangelical."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWbLkXhGEmo
Nope, not even once.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Multiple people are saying stop using the term.
It doesn't embed.
And after watching it ... oh god, that's just stupid. Like I didn't already hate Katy Perry enough already!
Nobody has said "don't use 'gay' as a synonym for 'homosexual'," they've been saying "don't use 'gay' as a synonym for 'bad'."
No, that's not what I meant. I thought that by 'in a derogatory manner' he meant 'actively equating homosexuals with bad things'. My bad if I misunderstood him.
On that plane, though, no, I don't think it's wrong to use the phrase 'gay' to describe something bad. That instance (that usage of the word) is not endemically bad. We don't need to coddle people, we need people to grow up.
I prefer to say "Fuck that's so goddamn deaf."
Alternately, "You're so mute." I haven't heard any complaints about that one.