"Fagged Out"

[acco40]

Words do have specific meanings (many times multiple) but they also can hurt. If I went around calling all my left handed friends sinister people I don't think they would be too pleased about it.

 

Correct usage or not, if they are hurtful why use them? My teenage kids a few years ago began using the popular phrase "that's so gay" - super popular among young teens a few years ago. I told them that I did not want them to use that phrase and more importantly, not around me.

 

Now, some phrases like "call a spade a spade" does perk up some ears and I'm not encouraging anyone to always go around on pins and needles fearful of possibly insulting the uneducated. But, use some common sense when around Scouts.

[SSScout]

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones, They're a modern stoneage family.

From the, town of Bedrock, They're a page right out of history.

Let's ride, with the family down the street, Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet.

When you're, with the Flintstones, Have a yabba dabba doo time, A dabba doo time, You'll have a gay old time!

 

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Through the Looking Glass.

 

 

[Scoutfish]

 

 

Well, I'll say this:

 

If the word is used correctly, and the user of the word did indeed use it correctly without malice .. then if offense is taken ... that is the sole responsibility and fault of the offended and in no way says anything negative about the user of the word.

 

Anybody understand that?

Point is, if I use a word in it's technically correct form, and you know damn well that I do not mean hatred or malice by using it in the CORRECT way...then if you take offense by my using that word...It's your own damn fault. You are the one creating malace and you are the one who is the problem!

 

Words should be taken as they were used by the user of that word.

 

Now for example ... how freaking stupid and not to mention pointless would it be for me to go to England and tell everybody that words they use are offensive because back in the good ole USA .. people changed what the word meant and made it into something bad.

 

I would expect those English people to laugh at me and then tell me to shut my mouth.

 

Point again, if anybody ignores what other peoples intents are, and adamantly insist that everybody else must abide by thier own usages( which happen to be offensive) ..then that one person is the most vile of all. They live for, and thrive over causing dissent and hatred .

 

They are being spiteful for the sake of being spitefull.

 

 

So if somebody called me something , and in THEIR usage or native tongue, it is a compliment, then I will take it completely in the spirit it was given to me instead of the negative way that it ended up becoming. What other people say must be taken in their intent instead of being maliced by our own shortcomings and dark thoughts.

 

 

Simply put, if I take every good thing anybody says and make it into a hateful thing ...that just goes to show I am the one full of hate, not them. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[SSScout]

Yes, language does evolve. It seems to be becoming more mushy and imprecise. The passed on information appears to be more an assumed thing: the other person just will KNOW what I mean...

ya know?

 

Let's consider some current useage "adjustments". Sometimes one can figure out how the useage changed, what led to the change, sometimes you just shake your head in disbelief:

 

LIKE... as in " said" or "tell", or "seems to be"

 

GUY... as in "any human being", or "friend", or "people"

 

BAD... as in "good" or "admirable" or "enjoyable"

 

usw

 

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

The English language has an incredibly deep vocabulary - far richer than any other. In addition, new words are constantly being added to the English lexicon at an astounding rate. Together, these facts lead to a conclusion directly at odds with the proposition of SSS Scout: the language is indeed evolving but it is becoming more precise and nuanced. It is true that any given person may not have access to the full depth of the language, but that does not mean the language is becoming more "mushy and imprecise."

 

All languages evolve (well, maybe not modern French). Our common usages are not the same as those of Thomas Jefferson and his were just as different from those of William Shakespeare. Some words you used as a youth now have entirely different meanings or connotations. There is no point in bemoaning the changes (again, the French Academy will disagree) any more than there is in pushing water uphill. As teachers of the next generation, one of our challenges is to communicate effectively with them. Personally, I would no more use the words "faggot" or "niggardly" than I would use the word "zounds" (except in narrowly limited contexts).

[pchadbo]

I read this and am reminded of a lesson I learned at the knee of my grandfather lo those many years ago: "sticks and stones can break my bone but words can never hurt me." The only meaning words have is that which YOU assign them. Mrs Roosevelt once said "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

This is more pointless PC tripe.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

 

So Trevorum, would you use the word "homophobe" to describe someone, or would you consider that an impolite word to use?

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

Seattle,

I'm not sure you understood my point.. I wouldn't normally use the word the word 'niggardly' in conversation, not because it might be impolite, but because the word has - for better or worse - changed in our society to the extent that now it would not be an effective way to get across the idea of 'cheap' or 'stingy.' OTOH, if I wanted to purposely give offense to someone and still retain a cloak of virtue, I might use the word 'faggot' to describe the bundle of sticks they were carrying.

 

So, I do use the word 'homophobic' in conversation, not because it is an accurate psychological diagnosis, but because it is very effective in decribing a suite of attitudes and behaviors. If you feel that is impolite, toughen up. Or, perhaps you could wonder why I chose that particular word.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Sorry Trevorum,

 

I find it very common for liberals to be very sensitive to the language other people use which might grate on the political interest groups with which they are associated.

 

It is equally common for the same people to care not a fig about the hate language they use to pillory the political groups they don't like.

 

That sums up the attitudes you describe in your last post perfectly.

 

"Homophobe" is pseudo scientific hate language commonly used to imply that any person who disagrees with some element of the homosexual political and social agenda is sick with hate and fear.

 

It's a vile word that I'd compare to the "N" word or a term invented to drip hate on a group, such as Rush Limbaugh's use of "Feminazi."

 

So it's not a matter for toughening up to ignore use of a vile and hateful term. Rather the usage of this word, so commonly used by liberals these days, needs to be challenged at every turn.

 

You need to reconsider your use of this word. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[acco40]

Scoutfish - I think you totally missed my point. I look at speech similar to etiquette - something else that is lacking on our society today. My point is why use speech that is hurtful to others if your intent is not to hurt those folks?

 

If the word is used correctly, and the user of the word did indeed use it correctly without malice .. then if offense is taken...that is the sole responsibility and fault of the offended and in no way says anything negative about the user of the word.

So, if my friend who happens to be an adult male, 5'6", 165 lbs and who happened to be adopted is addressed a "short, fat bastard" - no offense should be taken?

 

SeattlePioneer - how on Earth does a discussion about language useage once again get turned into a "liberal" pejorative?

 

Homophobe is pseudo scientific hate language

 

And your use of the term "liberal" is what?

[Trevorum]

Seattle,

That's a very interesting take. I gather your point is that any label can be rejected as being 'hate speech.' I suppose that may be true; the origin of our infamous 'n-word' is simply a neutral color word from Latin. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger)

 

Not wanting to be discourteous , what descriptive modifier do you think would be useful as a replacement, in reference to a person who is viscerally repelled by homosexuality, does not want to have anything to do with homosexuals, is opposed to allowing equal civil rights for homosexuals, and/or believes that homosexuality is aberrant? Perhaps language has indeed moved on beyond my usage of the word 'homophobe' and there is another word that is equally useful.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I used to tell the kids when frying eggs on the cook stove to be sure there was a liberal amount of bacon fat already in the pan. I may have change my choice of words least I get accused of forcing my political views on the youth

 

I also have been known to tell the youth during the winter cabin campout to be conservative on the use of firewood, that the cabin is fine at 70 degrees or so, no need to make it 90 degrees just because its 25 or so outside. Hope thats not too political as well

 

Do we have to say keep liberal and conservative comments in the Politics Secttion or can we discuss things like we would expect the youth to?

[SeattlePioneer]

It's very common for people who have pricipled opposition to particular social, political or economic policies to be passionately and yes, "vicerally" opposed.

 

That goes for liberal and conservative. It's just a fact of life.

 

My suggestion woiuld be to deal with the issue rather than to characterize the person making the argument.

 

Just to take one example, a person may be passionately opposed to a right to burn a US flag, or passionately in favor of the right to do so. The degree of passion isn't especially relevent to the issue in either case.

[Trevorum]

yeah, well mebbe.

 

But until such time as the Rev. Phelps stops carrying around signs that proclaim "GOD HATES FAGS," I'll continue to characterize him as 'homophobic'. I think that is a very succinct summary of his world view. And if you think that makes me 'impolite', well, frankly I don't much care.

[SeattlePioneer]

Personally I consider such deliberately provocative behavior to be objectionable as well.

 

 

But I doubt you could produce any evidence that the man's behavior is pathological. Most of the world's religions consider homsexuality to be abhorrent.

 

So yes, you are doing the same thing he is by using provocative hate language in turn.

 

 

But heck --- I'd give you a pass in his case if you decided to avoid using the term except when confronted with provocation on that scale. A little tit-for-tat hate isn't inappropriate.

 

It's the casual use of "homophobe" to describe anyone who objects to some element of the homosexual political and social agenda that I find most objectionable.