thats sooo gay MERGED

You might as well stop using words right now then...

 

I think the definition of Forum Trolling and Flame Baiting is vague at best, and very much open to interpretation. Forgive me if this offends you, but I think the only real reason you object to Eraz's criticisms to the extent that you do is because they are criticisms of something you believe strongly in. If someone was using the same kind of tactics and style to rally against something you were against, I doubt very strongly you'd be calling for them to be banned.

I don't think I engage in his "squirrel" debates any more or less than those who keep on calling him a Nazi and such.

And you're entirely safe. Sticks and stones and all.

He's not really acted like a Nazi though, has he? He's not even a sexual deviant anymore. If you want to call someone for distorting the truth, deceit, propaganda, whatever, I'd say there's far less inflammatory and less misleading ways to do it that comparing him to the Nazis. Lots of people have engage in deception and bigotry who have never engaged in religious genocide. I'm pretty sure Eraz is one of those people.

I don't get your argument. Are you saying I'm denying you the right to free speech by criticising what you say? If so, stop, because that's just really really stupid. In calling for someone of an opposing view to be banned from the forum, you're the only one calling for a denial of freedom here. You're just as free to voice your opinion as I am to call it stupid.

Wha?

Why do you care whether I approve or not?

Others haven't let the issue drop, they just became bored with/unable to continue with it. If I have better debating skills or a longer attention span than the rest of the forum, I apologise profusely.

Again, it depends heavily on where you draw the line between flame baiting and making an unpopular argument inspite of others' criticisms.

I disagree, for the reasons I previously gave you. Plenty of kids sing "Ring-a-Roses" at school without learning (subconsciously or otherwise) anything at all about plague.

Maybe he doesn't agree with you. To be honest, as usage of the word increases, it becomes more and more divorced from any kind of homosexual connection, favourable or otherwise. People who aren't in any way homophobic use it. You may, if you wish, insist that they are institutionally homophobic. But in my view, you're wrong. I think taking these words back is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Again, it worked for the N-word.

I've been out of the closet for 7 years. I also find it quite amusing that you're accusing anyone who uses the word "gay" negatively in any context of being subconsciously homophobic, yet you're happy to imbrue "closet case" with a negative subtext.

Not sure why it's gone all italicky like that.

 

Indeed. Herbert Henck wrote something about it in response to John Cage's 4'33". It basically said that silence is a purer form than language, because as soon as you start using words you are forcing upon the listener/reader a set of pre-defined rules of discourse of which he or she may or may not be fully aware. It creates a prison of misunderstanding from which there is potentially no escape.

So I vote we all sit silent and motionless in front of our computer screens and advance the discussion through personal reflecting for as long as it takes for it to seem really stupid to self-censor for the benefit of those who might just possibly misunderstand, disagree, or move their lips when they read.

 

....

 

.
SelfControl,

My point is that Erasmus70 is flame baiting and trolling. You disagree. Fine.

From past posts you have made on the subject of coming out, I gathered that you were fairly closeted. Please excuse me if I insulted you.

You don't believe that institutionalized homophobia exists, fine. We are raised in a deeply homophobic society. It's getting better, but most folks of our generation were raised with the institution of Gay bigotry we call homophobia. It takes time to erase all of the marks that leaves on us as gay people. I am trying to learn to show more of my compassion for folks who are still struggling with those issues.

However, there is no call for Erasmus70's trolling.


.

 

To clarify, I didn't say that instutionalised homophobia doesn't exist. I just feel you are seeing it in places where it is not, maybe looking too hard for it. I certainly don't think that people - straight or otherwise - who use the word "gay" in its more recent meaning are showing marks of a homophobic culture. I mean, I use it, and I've generally not experienced a great deal of homophobia in my life, even when I was "out" in high school. It's something people tease each other about; when they use it, they're not firing off accusations of homosexuality, they're just running with the pack. You can really blame people for that, because it's just human nature. But I do personally feel that, the more people across the sexual spectrum use the word, the less impact it will actually have.

And yeah, I do kinda object to being called a closet case. I just have no idea where you got that impression.

I'm not arguing that he isn't a douche. I just think he's potentially more dangerous if he thinks he's some kind of martyr.

 

Many of the Metal Music and Rap " crowds" do have a Homophobia Agenda But Most realise sooner or later most of the great bands of late 60s 70s 80s and even 90s had lots of gay members in the band "Including the Lead Singer!.

 

Perhaps I'd be best off modifying my earlier post and saying that if there's a strong chance that your words will be misunderstood, you might want to consider saying something differently.

As I see it, the purpose of words is to communicate. If a speaker uses a word to mean one thing and the listener takes it another way, communication breaks down.

That's the problem I see with the word "gay." For years, it meant something like happy and carefree. We would hear Christmas carols about gay apparel, and decorators would refer to gay colors. When "gay" started to mean "homosexual," the old meanings of "gay" faded away pretty quickly. Language changes when a large number of people make the change, not any one person or two people.

Now we've got a growing number of people using "gay" to mean weak or lame. What is someone who is attracted to his own sex supposed to do? If I tell someone I'm gay, I would hope that common sense would tell them that I mean that I like other guys. Frankly, I hope that the sense of "gay" as weak or lame doesn't catch on and dies out like lots of other slang and fads.

When two people talk, someone can always ask, "When you use this word, do you mean it this way or that way?" Somehow that doesn't work quite as well with written communication. When I post something on a bulletin board that people are reading all around the world, I make an extra effort to write in a way that people will understand something the way I mean it.

 

What, this man, gay?! I won't hear such nonsense!

 

Well, I doubt you'd ever have that problem. It's generally as obvious in context which one you mean as the difference between "bat" the animal and "bat" the cricket playing appliance.

I'm not arguing that this development is necessarily the greatest linguistic development since Shakespeare. But I certainly don't see it as anything to worry about; it's only ever going to be recognised as a colloquialism, and certainly won't take over the original meaning in the same way that "gay" meaning homosexual took over "gay" meaning happy.

This does all remind me of that Simpsons episode where Homer objects to a gay guy using the word "queer", saying "That's our word for making fun of you."

 

they loved to use the word in multiplayer games how ever i have way to shut them up, the fact that Spartans and some of Hitler right hand mans were homosexual along with many other military giants the sense of gay man being weak goes right out the window " they shut up very fast" .

 

like i said before

 

I don't really care I'm not offended when my friends or parents say it. I just find it stupid and Immature.

 

I don't think it's a sign of institutionalisd homophobia either... I can't say I'd use that word gay in that meaning myself, but I don't people use it to be negative about homosexuality.

Let me give a parallel example... In my language, in colloquial use, people use the word blonde to signify stupid or dumb. For example "Oh my God, how could she not notice that he was cheating on her, she's so blonde!" Is this a sign of institutionalised blonde-phobia? I'm blonde myself, should I be protesting to everyone who uses the word blonde with this meaning, telling them that they are insulting me? I am not offended, and in this example, the link between the two meanings of the word is clearer than with the word gay (dumb blonde jokes...).

It might be immature etc. but I don't think we should be reading this deep into it... Semantics...

 

He was making a valid point, by using it...

 

Yeah antigay is a total retard

 

hellopeople said, "although most people dont actually mean homosexual when they use the word gay towards an inanimate object, it still puts a HUGE negative connotation on homosexuality..."


YES, this is so obvious, how can people deny it?

 

.
Lietchi, you compare the jocular use use of Gay as not being institutionalized homophobia because people tell blond jokes and use blond in a similar. I might tend to agree if blonds were being tied up to fence posts and and left for dead because they were blond. As it is, blond are considered more sexually appealing, and as such are granted better benefits in society. The use of blond as a jocular rebuff could be akin to dispersing up not down, in the same way you might make fun of a Suit. However when you make fun of an oppressed class it is different.

The same could be said for the N word at one time. The people using the word may not have thought about African Americans at all while they were using it. My brother used to say, "I'm not your ******" in the same way that people today say, "that's so gay." That's what I mean by institutionalized homophobia. The people using the term may not be aware of any homophobia and may believe themselves to be non-homophobes. Whether or not they believe themselves to be bigots, or whether or not they believe they are actively referencing Gays when they use the term is immaterial.

1) the word is used pejoratively, you don't see people pointing out a particularly brilliant bridge design and saying "that's gay."

2) the word is referencing an oppressed minority.

Certain jokes, and catch words reinforce negative attitudes and biases against a minority. That's what I mean by institutionalized homophobia. The people who use these words may not understand they negative impact or even realize it, but they do it to go along with the pack. We are not born with hate. Bigotry and homophobia are learned by people who just want to run with the pack. You would never ever see them saying "how white," in the same way. The semantics of the word, as it is used, is tied to gay oppression. To deny that sounds like your just running with the pack.

.

 

Said the child to the wise one.

Even though you may feel enlightened, my friend, you have much to learn.
Picking on children would be childish, if you weren't a child yourself.

.

 

hipunk said, "My brother used to say, "I'm not your ******" in the same way that people today say, "that's so gay.""

Yes, a very valid example...