I don't get it...Language (no spam)

[Siberys]

Ok...I have in general a beef with profanity to begin with but one phrase used sticks out more than many others and even has it's own anti-speaking commercial against the phrase.


That's So Gay.


Ok we have Damn and Hell, which are words used in the bible and I believe Damn is latin. We have ass which is a Donkey and somehow became an anus. We have bitch that went from pregnant female dog to unsavory woman. You get the idea.

The FCC was established to protect the oh-so-delicate ears of the television and movie viewing audience from these many words, and some people, such as my personal hero, John Belushi, came up with the 7 Dirty Words you can't say on television, and got arrested for using them in a comedy club.

George Carlin carried on the legend of Belushi after he died, keeping the 7 dirty words alive and kicking. Slowly but surely the FCC loosened it's grip, and now more and more 'naughty' words can be said on television no problem.

However...despite it not being censored by the FCC, there are anti-language commercials out there for the phrase "That's so gay," which somehow, despite ALL other words having the capability of meaning something else than it's original meaning, every one of these commercials automatically places a bias against gay people as if that was somehow the person who uttered the phrase's intention.


So I don't get it. Gay never even used to mean homosexual, it just meant happy. Hell the song "I feel pretty" uses the word, so where's wanda sykes to make disparaging remarks about that? What about words that used to be medical terminology that are now somehow offensive, like Retarded. That used to mean mentally deficient, and a cooking method for a slower form of bread rising. Even just now when I say deficient, I know there are some people out there who say "Wow that's just a horrible thing to say." Deficient, lack of efficiency. It's a term that does in fact apply, it's not an insult, it simply means that a retarded person's brain is not as efficient as the average person's.

Mental retardation is a problem, I get it. I also get that there are still prejudices out in the world against gays, blacks, and women. But now all of the sudden a new regime of forced tolerance towards gay people is becoming the status quo. Work force training videos teach you to be tolerant and respectful towards anyone who isn't a white male (and yeah, I've seen a few of these training videos in my life even though I'm only 22, the main character is -always- a white male). And...I'm sorry but is it not my American right to hate a gay person or a black person for no other reason than for them being gay or black? No, I don't hate people like that and do agree that it is horrible to hate a person without any justification, but the hypothetical question remains, as an American, am I not -allowed- to hate a person? Am I not allowed to use the English language as I please within the limitations of the constitution?


I'm sorry but all of this PC over-protective bullcrap is an utter waist of time and in my opinion, slows the evolution of our mind and existence as a society. I'm not going to compare this to Orwell's "New Speak" but even so, I have to say something.


So, the only thing I can adequately say towards the anti-language commercials against "hating gay people," and the overall change of the english language to somehow force gay to only mean, and only ever mean Homosexuality, all I can say is....


That's so gay.



EDIT: Allow me to add an argument my mother tried to make-


"Unfortunately it just flat out doesn't mean stupid, that's why they have the commercials. What if everyone said to you "That's so josh."



Now, my name is Josh. How many times do you all think I've heard that god awful joke "Bah I'm just joshing you, get it? Cuz you're name is josh!" Did I ever stop to think that this is somehow insulting because Josh means to joke. No. I didn't. It's not an insult to everyone named Josh, so why is "that's so gay" an insult to gays?

[Xandax]

It is insulting due to the history behind it more so then the literal meaning behind it.

Some words and phrases are used purely due to the derogatory meaning, even if the literal meaning can be/could be relative harmless.

So when people go "that's so gay" it is a dig at homosexuality and how it is wrong, meaning it is a stab at a certain segment.
The person uttering the words might just be ignorant or a caveman and not intending to use it that way.
However, even if we remove the entire homosexual context from the word gay, and the entire meaning of the phrase would change - would people then use the phrase in that situation? No they would not. It is used in that context *only* because of the derogatory nature of it.

And no - the argument with "Josh" is pretty much useless as "Josh" is not a common derogatory term used towards a group of people some dislike and whom only now starting to get equal rights to some who think they dictate the world based on their reading of some random book.
Now if homosexuals had been labeled "Josh" instead of gay, you would perhaps have felt differently about it all.

I agree somewhat that PC speak is a bit over the top, however it does not hurt your constitutional rights (although I doubt such exists to be frank, and would love to know where in the constitution it says that) to hate people, not to use derogatory terms and phrases and/or watch how you convey yourself.
And whether they're derogatory is in the context more so then the actual word. We need look no further then the N word for example. You're such a "N" can be harmless if said between friends, but can be so damaging if said in another context. And the same go for most other - context.
And again - those words and phrases are only used that way - due to their derogatory nature. If gay still commonly meant happy - nobody would use it as they use it now.

It is about context more then literal meaning. And being respectful of others is not an infringement of your "constitutional rights". In fact - I think in the US constitution it says something about "All men are created equally" .... which would include homosexuals however apparently not. Maybe it really says "All men, who are just like me, are created equally with me, the rest are rabble".

It is properly difficult for a white male age 22 to understand why you need to be smacked upside down just because other segments of the population have been oppressed and persecuted for ages. However it is part of living in a multi cultured society - trying to respect others in the common room, regardless of how you feeel at home. And I suspect it is also easy to think it is all PC gone wrong.
However "we" are paying for the sins of our forefathers basically - so to speak.

[Siberys]

I sort of do and don't agree. I understand the contextual argument against it, but simply because the standard context of the word gay is homosexual, does not mean that I am automatically to be assumed to be insulting homosexuality when using that phrase nor am I to be assumed to be using gay as homosexual to begin with.

Online Etymology Dictionary


From as early as the 12th century until 1951 (over 800 years), Gay meant, and only meant happy or full of mirth.

However, in just a short 50 years, the entire meaning of it has become completely overhauled. Whats worse, according to the dictionary, Gay is homosexual in definition number 5. One through four have no connotations to homosexuality.


I understand that it's insulting to use That's so Gay so casually, but I don't understand -why- that is when it has no reason to be insulting. Furthermore, unlike other racial slurs or disparaging words, Gay was never an insult to begin with. It was a simple literal meaning of a homosexual person. Gay people still use the word "Gay" to describe themselves. If one [homosexuals] group of people can have a meaning to this word, then why can't another [people who say 'that's so gay'] have their own meaning as well? The only thing it takes to give a word meaning is a large group of people to use it in repetition.


If 200 Million Americans started using the word "Flippildygoop" to show extreme anger (in place of the normal F word) over and over and over, would this word not be considered "offensive" after some time? Perhaps even enough to warrant the attention of the FCC.


Maybe it's the ambiguity of a phrase like "That's so gay." It's not direct enough to inform you if it's simply a slang word for stupid or if it really has some underlying hate message to gay people. Personally, my opinion resides in the former. I've used the phrase before to describe things that are stupid, ignorant, moronic, and downright lacking in any common sense and even still, I honestly do not believe Gay people should be -able- to get offended by it due to the contextual nature of it relating to something entirely other than homosexuality.

[Tricky]

From as early as the 12th century until 1951 (over 800 years), Gay meant, and only meant happy or full of mirth.

Moreso than in English, the word coupled to that definition is still completely in use in Norwegian.

All of my homosexual friends (around six people) appear to use the word in the insulting sense at least twice more often than any of my heterosexual peers. Probably a lot more. But the internet is the one place where I seem to encounter it even more often.

It proves a point. I think internet culture in general has a long history with homosexually tinted insults, in particular slang. I remember playing Quake around the mid 90's, the game had all sorts of instant message beeps where player x would **** player n's **** if someone got killed with rocket launchers. My earlierst Internet experiences on clan related forums were likewise graphic.

The way I see it there are two possibilities. Either some people started doing this and created a fad that lasted for 15 years, or it is mostly emergent property type of behaviour among mostly male internet/gaming communities. I get the feeling it's a lot more reoccuring than any kind of fad I have since witnessed, so I'll have to with the latter possibility.

Some or other thing about this way of speaking keeps hitting home with a very large group of people. I feel that conventional views on sexuality (just straight/bi/pan/homo/trans/inter) won't really help solve this. Humanity likes to make things into being by labelling them, but throughout history we have had a poor accounting for correctness. What if sexuality and subsequent insults aren't quite be what we label them to be?

I'm putting my vote into that third option. Something other than differences in sexuality is responsible for this type of behaviour. It won't cease people from feeling offended and it won't cease other people from using that kind of language, but it doesn't mean it's less of a cause.

[Xandax]

I sort of do and don't agree. I understand the contextual argument against it, but simply because the standard context of the word gay is homosexual, does not mean that I am automatically to be assumed to be insulting homosexuality when using that phrase nor am I to be assumed to be using gay as homosexual to begin with.

Online Etymology Dictionary


From as early as the 12th century until 1951 (over 800 years), Gay meant, and only meant happy or full of mirth.

However, in just a short 50 years, the entire meaning of it has become completely overhauled. Whats worse, according to the dictionary, Gay is homosexual in definition number 5. One through four have no connotations to homosexuality.
<snip>

As said - things change.

<snip>
I understand that it's insulting to use That's so Gay so casually, but I don't understand -why- that is when it has no reason to be insulting. Furthermore, unlike other racial slurs or disparaging words, Gay was never an insult to begin with. It was a simple literal meaning of a homosexual person. Gay people still use the word "Gay" to describe themselves. If one [homosexuals] group of people can have a meaning to this word, then why can't another [people who say 'that's so gay'] have their own meaning as well? The only thing it takes to give a word meaning is a large group of people to use it in repetition. <snip>

Look at it this way - if there were no insulting value to it, nobody would use the phrase.
It is only used due to the insulting nature. It is only used in that manner to denote something that the user finds silly, stupid, offensive and so on.
You might not understand it, when the context is used derogatory and used only due to that derogatory nature - it becomes an insult, regardless of what the word used to mean or whether you think it should be insulting or not.

<snip>
If 200 Million Americans started using the word "Flippildygoop" to show extreme anger (in place of the normal F word) over and over and over, would this word not be considered "offensive" after some time? Perhaps even enough to warrant the attention of the FCC.
<snip>

Possible. Especially if it became a label to identify and prosecute and insult a specific segment of the population. Or if it became an accepted name for a specific act.
Not just because it is a word and it is used. It must get a direct context.
Many words exists which show extreme anger - however because they're not tied to insults or acts, they're neutral.

<snip>
Maybe it's the ambiguity of a phrase like "That's so gay." It's not direct enough to inform you if it's simply a slang word for stupid or if it really has some underlying hate message to gay people. Personally, my opinion resides in the former. I've used the phrase before to describe things that are stupid, ignorant, moronic, and downright lacking in any common sense and even still, I honestly do not believe Gay people should be -able- to get offended by it due to the contextual nature of it relating to something entirely other than homosexuality.

There is no ambiguity. The context as you describe yourself is no other then the derogatory meaning. Regardless of the original meaning of the word, you yourself use the derogatory meaning.
The same could be said for any word which is offensive to the segment - they should not be able to be offended. If you use the derogatory sense of a word, you're using it as an insult.
The usage you describe yourself is the very reason it is offensive.

As said - if it still meant happy, you'd not say "that's so gay" when wanting to berate something. Therefor you yourself take the inferred negative meaning of the word and use that derogatory and then trying to display some sense of "I don't know why it is offensive".
You've just shown why yourself - there really is no ambiguity.

[Xandax]

<snip>
All of my homosexual friends (around six people) appear to use the word in the insulting sense at least twice more often than any of my heterosexual peers. Probably a lot more. But the internet is the one place where I seem to encounter it even more often.<snip>

That's no difference then any group of people adopting derogatory labels about themselves and using them internally amongst that group.

[Tricky]

My main point was the internet thing though.

[Xandax]

My main point was the internet thing though.

Ahhh - yeah, it is one place where the anonymity and the disconnectedness comes into play.

[dragon wench]

As Xandax has been explaining,
It really does not matter what the original meaning of "gay" might have been.
The reality is that now the word is used by both homosexual and heterosexual people to denote a sexual orientation where one prefers their own gender.

However, while using the term "gay" itself in reference to homosexuality is often not intended as offensive, owing to years and years of discrimination, the phrase "That's so gay," has only one meaning. It is associating the word "gay" with something stupid or undesirable, and it's meaning explicitly denotes homosexuality.
There's really no mystery here, "That's so gay" is akin to using the "N word" in reference to Blacks.
Language use is very closely related to culture, you need to look at both when studying the etymology of words.

[Curry]

It's not an insult to everyone named Josh, so why is "that's so gay" an insult to gays?

It is only natural for human beings to target their anger on others, and now it's open season on the white male. No matter what you say, someone is going to be offended.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

It is only natural for human beings to target their anger on others, and now it's open season on the white male. No matter what you say, someone is going to be offended.

Meh, [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEpO5qya-J4"]I can take it[/url].

[DesR85]

It is only natural for human beings to target their anger on others, and now it's open season on the white male. No matter what you say, someone is going to be offended.

In addition, human nature can be animal-like at times. Don't think anyone's going to deny that.