Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OK to use?


Macciza

19-Jan-2011
3:25:50 PM

On 19/01/2011 Wendy wrote:

>'fraid i can't find any connection between happy gay and gay as rubbish.
> In fact, many sites don't even offer that as a definition and those that
>do don't offer any explanation of it's development, > snip <

At least try Wikipedia documenting of the word from the 12th Century, onwards to the Gay '90's (that's the optimistic 1890's) thru to the later mid -20th century shift towards it's preferred use by certain sub-cultures to describe 'homosexuals', a term which was viewed as too clinical or 'queer' which was felt to be derogatory. Gay was 'appropriated' due to many of it's earlier meanings and used with pride.

>whether it has anything to do with people with disabilities is still irrelevant
>if said people are offended by it (which I haven't actually looked into),
> snip <

This 'fanatical' approach to the issue, summary dismissal of relevant facts with out research, in order to maintain your beliefs, and your intolerant attitude towards those who do not agree borders on 'bigotry' in my book.

>potentially one post from the no side that might be considered showing
>contempt and denigrating. Things look pretty polite and considered overall.

Well lets see, we have been called 'thick as two planks', and implicated as 'racists' by false association, had comments quoted as 'A massive load of horse shit' with attendant cheap shot at character association by insultive stereotypings, been called immature, dumb etc, had it implied that we are acting like teenagers or even pre-schoolers, and that we are homphobes.
And we are the ones called 'Bigots'? Come on . . .


Miguel75

19-Jan-2011
3:58:02 PM

Mods, should we lock this topic? It seems to have reached saturation point with no new points aside from personal rebuttals....

Samuel

19-Jan-2011
4:03:25 PM

If your gay nobody cares any more so get over it you big hetero's.

Man am i going to laugh when i hear "Money for nothing" bleeped on the radio.

Olbert

19-Jan-2011
4:03:42 PM

On 19/01/2011 Miguel75 wrote:
>Mods, should we lock this topic? It seems to have reached saturation point
>with no new points aside from personal rebuttals....
I like the fact that Chockstone is interesting to read - its sooooooo much better than the standard threads which have been repeated a bajillion times


Miguel75

19-Jan-2011
4:09:50 PM

I agree, posts that get people thinking are much more interesting and was thinking of starting a similar thread around blasphemy... Somehow I don't think it'd be as long, interesting or passionate! On the brighter side I might be able to add more money to the swear jar..


Miguel75

19-Jan-2011
4:13:42 PM

Oh, Evanbb you owe the swear jar 80 cents for your Team America quote.


evanbb

19-Jan-2011
4:16:14 PM

On 19/01/2011 Miguel75 wrote:
>Oh, Evanbb you owe the swear jar 80 cents for your Team America quote.

Punishment accepted. And I'll do it again.


Miguel75

19-Jan-2011
4:20:48 PM

Sweet! I'm saving for a portaledge fly...:-)

Wendy

19-Jan-2011
4:23:42 PM

On 19/01/2011 Macciza wrote:
>On 19/01/2011 Wendy wrote:
>
>>'fraid i can't find any connection between happy gay and gay as rubbish.
>> In fact, many sites don't even offer that as a definition and those
>that
>>do don't offer any explanation of it's development, > snip <
>
> At least try Wikipedia documenting of the word from the 12th Century,
>onwards to the Gay '90's (that's the optimistic 1890's) thru to the later
>mid -20th century shift towards it's preferred use by certain sub-cultures
>to describe 'homosexuals', a term which was viewed as too clinical or 'queer'
>which was felt to be derogatory. Gay was 'appropriated' due to many of
>it's earlier meanings and used with pride.

given that wikipedia is the first thing that comes up when you google it, strangely enough, i did read it, and I did notice that whilst it documents a long history of the word, it does not suggest that the current pejorative usage comes from that long history. it doesn't really suggest where it comes from at all. I'll repeat again, in case it isn't clear, the article has no explaination of the development of gay as a pejorative. of course i am aware that it has been reclaimed by the gay community in the sense of homosexual. i am not at all aware of its perorative use be reclaimed by the gay community. I see no connection between this use and happy and carefree or bright and showy or those "uninhibited by moral constrainsts". No one has yet given me an explaination of its development outside of the homophobic one.
>
>>whether it has anything to do with people with disabilities is still
>irrelevant
>>if said people are offended by it (which I haven't actually looked into),
>> snip <
>
>This 'fanatical' approach to the issue, summary dismissal of relevant
>facts with out research, in order to maintain your beliefs, and your intolerant
>attitude towards those who do not agree borders on 'bigotry' in my book.

I'm sorry, i don't thing it is bigotry to continue to disagree on subjects of racism, sexism, homophobia and the like. Of course, you may consider it bigotry to continue to disagree with the view of the KKK, national front, family first, country alliance etc etc, i consider it my freedom of speech as much as theirs.

Sorry, show me some relevant facts again???

What's fanatical about saying I am not comfortable with the word lame and choose not to use it???? Whether people with disabilities are or are not offended is irrelevant to my distaste for it.
>
>>potentially one post from the no side that might be considered showing
>>contempt and denigrating. Things look pretty polite and considered overall.
>
>Well lets see, we have been called 'thick as two planks', and implicated
>as 'racists' by false association, had comments quoted as 'A massive load
>of horse shit' with attendant cheap shot at character association by insultive
>stereotypings, been called immature, dumb etc, had it implied that we are
>acting like teenagers or even pre-schoolers, and that we are homphobes.
>
>And we are the ones called 'Bigots'? Come on . . .

I hate to draw the drug user stereotype on you, but are you getting a little paranoid? There's some jump in the conclusion that you are racist or immature when people simply draw corrollaries and observe that the word is popular amongst teenagers (which indeed your beloved wikipedia article does point out). You are right though, i did say that the word is homophobic, but I also acknowledge that many who use is are not intentionally homophobic, and I explained why. I am entitled to think that people must be thick, blinkered or stubborn to argue that there is no connection. You are entitled to disagree with that.

I missed the horse shit.

I'm flabbergasted that people can argue so much about their right to use a word that is clearly found offensive by the group of people associated with it. And I'm over it. And over carrots too.

Duncan

19-Jan-2011
10:32:11 PM

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/government-trying-to-work-out-if-%27bumtard%27-is-homophobic-201101193451/

One Day Hero

19-Jan-2011
10:53:17 PM

I can't believe I've never heard of The Daily Mash before. Gold!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

2-Feb-2011
3:51:06 PM

On 17/01/2011 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 17/01/2011 nmonteith wrote:
> ODH especially
>>- how many gay friends do you have? And do you constantly refer to them
>>as you refer to them on this forum? If not - why?
>
>Ummm, none (that I know of). I don't run around in normal life trying
>to think of every nasty way to refer to gay people, I just got started
>on that cause you told me off a bit, and I was bored, and I thought a bit
>of the old 'free speech vs vilification' argument would be a fun distraction
>from the bolting stuff.....I'm over it now, will behave (for a bit)

Yet another Chocky member hits the 1,000 post milestone quite a while back (I have been remiss!), with this post...
GoodoneDamo!


The good Dr

2-Feb-2011
5:35:13 PM

On 19/01/2011 Wendy wrote:

>
>What's fanatical about saying I am not comfortable with the word lame
>and choose not to use it???? Whether people with disabilities are or are
>not offended is irrelevant to my distaste for it.

Dictionary meaning of 'lame'

Meaning of lame
1. (n) a fabric interwoven with threads of metal; "she wore a gold lame dress"
2. (n) someone who doesn''t understand what is going on
3. (v) deprive of the use of a limb, especially a leg; "The accident has crippled her for life"
4. (adj.sat.) disabled in the feet or legs; "a crippled soldier"; "a game leg"
5. (adj.sat.) (of horses) disabled in the feet or legs
6. (adj.sat.) pathetically lacking in force or effectiveness; "a feeble excuse"; "a lame argument"

–adjective
1.
crippled or physically disabled, esp. in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.
impaired or disabled through defect or injury: a lame arm.
3.
weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy: a lame excuse.
4.
Slang . out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated.
–verb (used with object)
5.
to make lame or defective.
–noun
6.
Slang . a person who is out of touch with modern fads or trends, esp. one who is unsophisticated.

'Lame' has such a long history of use in the English language to describe things other than persons with disabilities that it is a bit rich trying to distill its meaning to a pejorative term against people with disabilities. The distaste for use of the word appears to be based on the association with a persons physical disabilities, a bit of a lame excuse really.


nmonteith

2-Feb-2011
5:41:13 PM

Why did you have to re-birth this topic Rod! :-(


The good Dr

2-Feb-2011
6:28:01 PM

M9's cruelty knows no bounds

There are 75 messages in this topic.