Oh my F**king Gawd!!!!!!!!!!

hahahaha i am stopping now..i have explained my point, you can continue if you wish .

What frightens me is a lot of the BNPs manifesto pledges are not part of any rascist rabid idiocies at all.. i saw more 'raving lunacy' from george galloway last night..This is not defending them ..just reading http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/manf16.htm

 

well im not carrying on either.. i was just having fun.. the whole thing was just fun to see if i could beat dok... but you can't beat dok.. this is his hobby.. he has turned forum debating into an art form

 

I think you can..you just have to know when to stop...

 

The BNP are nazi meat ball heads

 

Your maturity is really impressive. You might think this is a funny issue for you to joke about while you're stoned, but for a lot of people, it's something that seriously impacts their lives. The fact that you can't engage with the discussion on an adult level is pathetic. It sickens me that you have such contempt for the plight of gay people in today's Britain.

Also, let me explain this one last time as you seem to be either failing to grasp it or being deliberately obstructive:

The problem is not the word 'faggot'. Nobody is suggesting that the word 'faggot' should never again be uttered in public or obliterated from the English language, any more that the words 'gay' or 'queer'. The problem is that by using the word as an insult, you're reinforcing the idea that homosexuality is something wrong and something to be ashamed of. If you insult someone for whom you have contempt by calling them a faggot, then you're implying that being a faggot is equally worthy of contempt. It's not a particularly difficult concept to get your head round, and it has nothing to do with censoring language.

You sound like a fucking kid. This isn't about 'winning' or 'losing', it's about trying to understand how gay people still suffer in this country. While you're busy playing your childish games and having a laugh, gay people are busy getting discriminated against, bullied and assaulted:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1479383,00.html

 

Interesting analogy. The origin of the word **** is exclusively as a reference to female genitalia. By using it as derisive slang you could argue that you are reinforcing negative connotations of the vagina and implying that female sexual organs are in some way a cause for scorn. But we know you're not being misogynistic when you call people cunts because the word has evolved and entered the language as a pejorative term used in a context other than referring to girly bits.

Words like faggot and gay are not nearly so evolved or so removed from their origins but it's possible the same process might occur so that using the word gay (as in "those trousers are so gay") will be seen as no more homophobic than using the word **** is misogynistic.

I'm sure some women are offended by use of the word **** because of its potential to be construed as misogynistic, but many aren't. I'm sure some gay people will be offended by use of the word faggot in a non-gayness related context (eg. Nazi faggot)... but many won't. I value creativity, innovation and evolution in use of language highly and this will rarely occur without offending some people. True it's a fine line with new and evolving words and it's important to be aware of the power and history of these words. But it's also important not to stifle language development by being excessively concerned about causing offence. I think as long as they are not used with homophobic intent I have no problem with people using words like gay or faggot in creative and interesting new ways. That's the way language evolves, that's how we ended up with the word ****.

 

There's no direct parallel. We're not currently living in a society where misogyny is widespread, and so it's possible to use a word like '****' without misogynistic overtones (which assumes it ever had any in the first place, but seeing as the word 'prick' is used in a derisory fashion, it would appear that genitalia are generally used as terms of derision in a non-discriminatory fashion).

If, as a society, we'd evolved beyond homophobia, then I'd have no problem with the use of the word faggot as an insult, and your analogy would stand. It'd just be a quaint little historical quirk. But in the present social context, I find it hard to see how you could argue that the use of the word is liberating language rather than encouraging prejudice. The use of the word to describe something as obnoxious as a Nazi surely demonstrates how 'faggots' are still being associated with something undesirable and disgusting?

 

I'm amazed by how many people in this thread seem to be missing the fundamental point of the argument. This has nothing to do with a particular word offending people. You can say 'faggot' as much as you want, and I won't find it slightly offensive. The problem is not the word.... the problem is the attitude that the use of the word in a negative context perpetuates. Why, for example, would you call a Nazi a faggot unless you think that a faggot is something bad? Given that a faggot (in this context) is a gay person, it's the idea that's offensive. The word is incidental to that.

 

I think you'll find that is possibly a misconception:

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfaggot.html

 

Like to throw my tuppence worth.

I think Dok is talking sense. Though I don't use the word, my understanding is broadened. Thanks.

 

I'm sort of agreeing with Dok but there are some words that get used so generally that people just accept them without thinking of who they might offend.

E.G. Bastard - someone born out of wedlock. There was a time that this was considered taboo, nowadays nobody goves a toss if you're married or not. However it is still a derogatory term for anyone who happens to be 'illegitimate'

Would anyone have said anything if Smartie had said "Nazi Bastard" instead?

 

I agree. The problem there though is that, again, society has moved on to the point where the attitudes reflected by those words are no longer generally held. This isn't the case with homosexuality. If anything, using words such as faggot at the moment (in a negative context) just perpetuates this prejudice rather than helping us move forward. When homophobia is dead and is no longer a problem, I don't care who gets called a faggot or in what context it's used, because it will no longer be reinforcing a negative stereotype.

There was an article on the BBC this morning about homophobic bullying in schools. 40% of those bullied attempt suicide. Is this really something we can afford to be complacent about?

 

It's a difficult and fascinating issue with excellent points being made on both sides, I don't think there is a right answer. We should certainly be aware of the power our language has to offend and to reinforce undesirable stereotypes. Blanket censorship of words like faggot is certainly not the answer though - especially when divorced from its original homophobic context and used with no homophobic intent. That comes a little too close for comfort to an attempt at dictating and fixing the meaning of the word, making it static, imposing a single interpretation. Language is robust and vibrant and words need to shift and change their meaning all the time, and they will always escape attempts to control them.

I'm perfectly happy for these things to happen in the wild just like they have been for centuries. For instance, I really like the way "gay" is attaining a new meaning and is becoming increasingly distant from having any homophobic connotation in many contexts. (This process is far from complete, but you can see it happening). We can't ignore that part of its history is as a pejorative homosexual term - that's an inescapable part of the history of our language - but its new, homonymous application needn't, eventually, reference this aspect of the word's meaning as anything other than an etymological curiosity. It's a gradual shift of awareness reflected in the language we use and the way we use it. (Cf. "Bastard" in Paul's example).

One thing is certain - trying to stop people saying it once it's out there is fruitless and counter-productive. Taboo words will always exist; harnessing their transgressive power is a far more constructive route.

 

Which is all I'm arguing. I've never suggested expunging the word faggot from the dictionary; just that we understand how its use reinforces negative stereotypes, and think a little before fuelling such prejudice.

I agree. Which is why I've not at any point advocated censorship.

But the process isn't that simple. Words don't change by themselves - they change because attitudes change. For instance, the word 'bastard' didn't suddenly lose its connection to children born out of wedlock. Such circumstances ceased to be the subject of ridicule because the world moved on, so the word bastard remains only as a historical anachronism. If people are still using the word faggot in a hundred years time when homosexuals aren't the victims of serious prejudice, the I'll have no problem with it. But at this point in time, using the word as an insult is just exacerbating the situation. You're debating linguistics, but that's not the real concern. Linguistics are just incidental to the real issue, which is attitudes.

But it's not. You may find that if you mix in liberal circles, but all that's happening their is that more liberal minded people have adopted the slang of bigots. Working in a 'straight', working-class environment, I find that the word 'gay' has lost none of it's discriminatory intent. When used as an insult, it's perfectly clear that those using the word mean 'homosexual' when they refer to something as 'gay'. If someone in my workplace calls something 'gay', they most certainly mean 'like homosexuality, which is disgusting'.

Again though, you're mistaking this as a debate about language, where in fact it's a debate about attitudes. Let me illustrate with another example. I have no problem with the word 'homosexual'. If someone was to say "oh my god, that nazi is such a homosexual", I'd find it bigoted and offensive. So the issue is not the word, it's the negative association of homosexuality. Now when the word 'faggot' is used in this way, the speaker may simply be considering the word to be a generic insult and not giving any consideration to its actual meaning, but the listener is encouraged to associate homosexuality with something abhorrent. And regardless of any other considerations, that's encouraging prejudice.

I agree. But it's perfectly productive to encourage liberal-minded people to think a little about the language they use. Why be offensive just for the sake of it? We're not exactly short of expletives, are we?

 

Humans are always doing things, saying things for the sake of it. Usually because they don't have real justification for their argument, sometimes because they simply want to. It's hard when something is done for no reason, we think there must be a reason but sometimes there isn't one. People can be cruel, unfair and unforgiving bastards who hopefully will get theirs in the end if necessary

 

The two are inexorably intertwined. But I would say that!

Good point. Language use is always dictated by context and audience.

When I hear such a use of the word gay I am not encouraged to alter my attitudes towards homosexuality; my tolerance is strong enough to resist the kind of simplistic neuro-linguistic programming you're suggesting. Similarly, when I use the word gay in such a context, I'm not doing so with the intention of reinforcing the negative stereotype of homosexuality, and I assume that the audience I'm speaking to will understand this subtlety - if they don't it's their problem. Are you suggesting I should censor myself in case people misunderstand my use of language? Dumb down my expression of meaning to the lowest common denominator in order to make sure everything I say is acceptable to all?

Offensiveness, like humour, is a mode of thought which disrupts usual cognitive patterns and forces people to think, to have new ideas and to make new connections between ideas. As such it's extremely valuable. Look at the debate it's started here! If even a tolerant, intelligent, liberal person like yourself can find the throwaway use of a word like faggot offensive that indicates to me precisely how much power this word has. Agreed it shouldn't be used all the time, it should be used carefully and in context, but I'm not going to expunge it from my vocabulary, precisely because of the power it has to shock and offend - very useful things to do sometimes. I have no problem with offending people for the sake of it. In fact I think we should all do that more often. It's good for us.

 

PS. Nob jockey

 

That's a gross simplification of my position. I'm not suggesting the use of a word suddenly transforms people into homophobes - what I'm suggesting is that it encourages a culture in which it's seen as the norm to cast homosexuality in a negative light, thus encouraging prejudice. Where do you think homophobes originate? They don't materialise out of a social vacuum.

And should you use such language amongst friends who you know to be liberal-minded, then that would be fine. I tell outrageously offensive jokes to people who I know won't take them in the wrong way.

So if you help encourage a culture of homophobia that leads to children killing themselves as the result of bullying, then that's their problem?

No, I'm suggesting that you should censor yourself in order to avoid contributing towards a culture of homophobia. It's not something to get outraged about. We practice self-censorship every day. It's called tact and discretion.

Let me be clear - this isn't about offensiveness. I don't find a word inherently offensive, or I wouldn't even use 'faggot' in the context of this thread. What I care about is the culture of violence and intimidation that's created and encouraged by the continuing negative associations surrounding homosexuality, to which derisory expletives like 'faggot' contribute.

But I don't find it inherently offensive. What I find offensive is the attitude that it fosters and encourages when used as a derisory context. Like I just said, if I found the word offensive, I wouldn't continue using it within the context of this discussion. The offence is not cause by the word, but by its use and context.

Quite. But I would argue that that context should not include its use in a public forum as a derisory word.

I never suggested you should.

I entirely agree. But you seem slightly fixated on the notion that I'm trying to censor your vocabulary, when nothing could be further from the truth. All I'm suggesting is that people practice a little tact and discretion and avoid contributing to hate and prejudice. Is that really such an unsavoury notion?

 

You really can't draw any direct link between use of a word like faggot in a non-homophobic context and people killing themselves because of bullying. To put the two together in a sentence like that leads to the inference that the two exist in a direct causal relationship and is consequently a grossly oversimplified misrepresentation of the case. Your argument does hold water, but what you are talking about is a subtle, complex, aggregate relationship between words like this and homophobic stereotypes. Any such reinforcement of which, I would argue, would rely upon a predisposition towards intolerance to begin with.

Such homophobic attitudes are a problem. I disagree that it is my personal responsibility to pander to them by self-censorship, when reclamation of homophobic phrases can be extremely linguistically and culturally valuable. I am not responsible for people minsinterpreting my words.

The term "nazi faggot" was used without homophobic intent in the context of a liberal and progressive forum where the generally held assumption is (I hope) that homosexuality is not bad or deviant or unnatural. (Fundamentalist Christians and right wing trolls excluded!) I therefore saw nothing wrong with its use in this context. It's not like Smartie was saying it to an audience of Sun readers. I don't believe it is reasonable to expect people to stop being creative with their language in any way they see fit on the assumption that homophobes or otherwise ignorant and intolerant people may misinterpret its intention and somehow be reinforced in their ignorance.

Would you have objected if the term "nazi faggot" had been uttered by a gay man? I suspect not. Are we then to probe each speaker to discover their sexuality before allowing them to use such "reclaimed" homophobic phrases? Clearly not. I don't think my sexuality should be an issue in my choice of language, or that only gay people can have a sense of humour about homophobia or that only they can use words like gay or faggot in new contexts.

 

Why not? Are you arguing that culture doesn't contribute to what is and isn't considered to be socially acceptable? On the contrary, I think it's a gross simplification to attempt to deny a link between the attitudes that we encourage and tolerate through the use of our language and the consequences of such actions.

Utter rubbish. You're the one who keeps insisting that I'm talking about a direct causal relationship, when in fact I've made every effort to explain the complexity of the situation. The only grossly oversimplified misrepresentation here is your disingenuous interpretation of my position.

I agree entirely.

I'd argue then that you're prioritising an abstract intellectual concept more highly than the plight of the victims of homophobia, and using it as an excuse for abdicating social responsibility. Are you seriously arguing that a word is more important than the suffering of thousands of people? A word which I never suggested should be censored to begin with? Is your vocabulary so limited that you're desperate to use the word faggot and can think of no suitable alternative? And why aren't you chomping at the bit to call people coons, niggers and pakis if you think the reclamation of words is so important?

No, but you are responsible for communicating effectively. Added to which, there's no misinterpretation involved. 'Faggot' is a derisory term for a homosexual. Calling someone a faggot implies that they're abhorrent because homosexuality is abhorrent. That's not misinterpretation - that's the clear linguistic interpretation. A hundred years from now when homophobia is a thing of the past, you could argue that the word is archaic and divorced from its original meaning, but in a culture where homophobia is still rampant that would be a fallacious position.

Don't make me laugh! This forum has proved itself to be far from progressive and liberal on any number of occasions.

Why use the word at all? With a wide variety of insults and expletives to choose from, why resort to the use of a word with clear homophobic connotations? For fucks sake, do we really have that much difficulty expressing ourselves that we require homophobic words to fill the gaps in our vocabulary?

And for the record, I didn't find Smartie's use of the word offensive. I considered it inappropriate. I found his subsequent dismissal of the issue and childish unwillingness to contemplate the plight of anyone other than himself to be far more offensive.

Oh please. How can you seriously argue that resorting to the use of homophobic words as insults is 'creative'? It's entirely the opposite - it's creatively redundant when people are so lacking in imagination that they need to fall back on the language of bigots in order to express themselves. There's nothing 'creative' about ignorance.

Actually yes, I would. It still encourages prejudice, whatever its source. Again (and I'm getting really bored of repeating this point), the issue is not about whether a word is offensive - it's about the social attitudes that it engenders. When people are dying as a result of prejudice, I think it's sad that anyone could argue in favour of the use of language that denigrates gay people and encourages hatred.

You attempt to divorce language from social context, but Nazi Germany didn't begin with gas chambers - it began with caricatures of Jews. When society has moved on, and homophobia is clearly in serious decline, then I'd have no issue with the use of the word faggot or any other similar word. In a culture where homophobia is deeply engrained, I don't think any of us can afford to be complacent over our use of language. Our convenience and entertainment is not more important that the lives of others.