English's Lovely Slang

[Perseus]

People always get butthurt over the word "gay", "fag", etc. when it is used as an insult. I don't see why. No one gets mad when someone calls someone dumb. "Dumb" is a term for mute people, but yet, no one gets their panties in a bunch if someone uses it as an insult, same with "lame". Lame means cripple(d), for those of you who don't know. "Fag" and "gay" have joined that boat. Saying those words doesn't make you a homophobe. I say them all the time, and I am no where near a homophobe.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

The words dumb and lame are rarely used in their original definitions. Maybe using the words does not make one a homophobe, but that does not change the fact that the words are offensive when used as a general insult.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

XD
Yeah EASJR1991 is right, whether or not the term is now just a general insult, it's still an insult.
Plus, If I were mute or crippled I'd take offense to the terms "dumb" and "lame" too.

[darkwoon]

People always get butthurt over the word "gay", "fag", etc. when it is used as an insult. I don't see why. No one gets mad when someone calls someone dumb. "Dumb" is a term for mute people, but yet, no one gets their panties in a bunch if someone uses it as an insult, same with "lame". Lame means cripple(d), for those of you who don't know. "Fag" and "gay" have joined that boat. Saying those words doesn't make you a homophobe. I say them all the time, and I am no where near a homophobe.

That's because the meaning of words like "dumb" or "lame" slided, and nowadays, they are nearly exclusively used as ways to insult people in a way or another. "Gay" or "fag" are still commonly used in their first meaning, hence the perceived "homophobic" tone of their use as insults.

More generally speaking, words that target a specific community are very negatively perceived when used as insults, as they associate the community with the negative connotation of the word. Moreover, you can't always be sure of how your reader/interlocutor will understand the word: you may not have the gay-community in mind when using the word as an insult, but maybe other hearing you do have. That's why it is not a very good idea to use such insults - you can never be sure you'll not be misunderstood.

[Perseus]

That's because the meaning of words like "dumb" or "lame" slided, and nowadays, they are nearly exclusively used as ways to insult people in a way or another. "Gay" or "fag" are still commonly used in their first meaning, hence the perceived "homophobic" tone of their use as insults.

More generally speaking, words that target a specific community are very negatively perceived when used as insults, as they associate the community with the negative connotation of the word. Moreover, you can't always be sure of how your reader/interlocutor will understand the word: you may not have the gay-community in mind when using the word as an insult, but maybe other hearing you do have. That's why it is not a very good idea to use such insults - you can never be sure you'll not be misunderstood.

"Dumb" is still used in its original meaning. "Gay" used to mean "happy" as many know, but it no longer does. The word has evolved, as it is now doing. A plethora of words have double meanings. And why wouldn't "lame" and "dumb" be offensive towards people who are those things?

[Scarface]

I personally don't care, if people think that they're getting to me by using words. Even if they're derogatory then that's their burden not mine. I will never take offense to it as I use the term "Gay" and "Dumb" I think of it as a term you probably have all heard "Words are words until you give them meaning" Why give words that just shouldn't mean anything to me meaning? I take every insult with a grain of salt. If people would like to use them, more power to them.

[BOBBY HILL]

And the word gay translates to happy

[Hatsune Miku]

How many times does this have to be repeated? A word only has as much power as you give it. It's just a word, nothing more. Ignore it and move on.

[Perseus]

How many times does this have to be repeated? A word only has as much power as you give it. It's just a word, nothing more. Ignore it and move on.

Sorry for giving the forum life, Matt.

[darkwoon]

"Dumb" is still used in its original meaning. "Gay" used to mean "happy" as many know, but it no longer does. The word has evolved, as it is now doing. A plethora of words have double meanings. And why wouldn't "lame" and "dumb" be offensive towards people who are those things?

True, but "dumb" used in its insulting meaning quite probably comes not from "mute" but from "lacking brightness" - "a wall painted of a dumb green". And it isn't offensive because the cultural background doesn't really contain an element of segregation against mute people. Or, to make a caricature: I have seen a lot of gay parades on gay lobbies on TV, but I haven't really saw something similar for mute people.

There were no real political or cultural opposition towards lames and dumbs (at least, not recently), hence it is pretty clear for most people that when you use the word as an insult, you don't really think about the physically-impaired ones. On the other hand, when you use "gay", it is not necessarily clear for your interlocutor that you are dissociating the slang insult from the homosexuals, hence the misunderstanding.

It is quite probable that in a century, "gay" will be just as accepted as an insult as "dumb" nowadays; but as of now, it carries a way too heavy political and cultural weight to be accepted in the society as a whole with such a meaning.

[The Dark Lord]

gay is a meaningless insult, not designed to be homophobic

[steve1234]

Its the same for the word midget. No one understands that dwarfs find that word very offensive.

I can certainly understand why gay people would find people who use the words 'gay' and 'fag' as insults offensive. Same for the words 'dumb' 'retard' 'midget' etc etc.

I don't use the words 'gay' or 'fag' to insult people, as people understandably find offensive from those words. But, I wouldn't get annoyed with my friends when they use those word, as I personally don't find the words offensive.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

gay is a meaningless insult, not designed to be homophobic

And that's one of the things that ticks me off about people saying it!
People are so indifferent and ignorant that they have no idea how offensive or hurtful something they say can be! Words are literally the most powerful thing a human can utilize, no other animals or living things that we know of have them, and yet we throw powerful, harming, destructive words around as if they meant nothing. There is not a single word (well, other than articles I suppose) that is meaningless, especially not a word that can completely ostricize someone just because others think that two men (or two women) having sex is wrong. Just because someone is using it as a general insult, doesn't make it okay, it implies that they think being gay is wrong, something worthy of being used as an insult. You can't say that "gay" is a meaningless insult unless you're the one who has taken the most offense to it being said. The only one who can say something is meaningless or trivial is the one most harmed by it, whether "it" is a word or an action. [/endrant]
....
wow, that was the most passionate I've ever gotten on a forum post....

[Amnesiac]

Words are literally the most powerful thing a human can utilize, no other animals or living things that we know of have them, and yet we throw powerful, harming, destructive words around as if they meant nothing.

Well, they do mean nothing until you give them a meaning. Words are just sounds, or characters when written. They have no meaning until you label them with one. If I changed the word "potatoes" to the word "fucking" and asked "Could you pass the fucking?", it wouldn't be technically offensive because I changed the definition and context it was being used in.

If people simply stopped interpreting words as something "destructive" and instead just shrugged them off, this world would be a better place. I couldn't care less if someone swore at me, because they're just words, what physical harm could they possibly do?

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

Well, they do mean nothing until you give them a meaning. Words are just sounds, or characters when written. They have no meaning until you label them with one. If I changed the word "potatoes" to the word "fucking" and asked "Could you pass the fucking?", it wouldn't be technically offensive because I changed the definition and context it was being used in.
But the fact of the matter is that "fucking" doesn't mean "potatoes"
What I meant was that words, verbal communication, and all of the connotations and definitions and the associated with them and the context in which they are used are powerful.


If people simply stopped interpreting words as something "destructive" and instead just shrugged them off, this world would be a better place. I couldn't care less if someone swore at me, because they're just words, what physical harm could they possibly do?
Verbal abuse is a real problem, and even if the occasional person swore you out or something, many people saying many hurtful things can really compound on a person. Just because you take "who gives a shit" attitude when someone else insults you, doesn't mean everyone can.

[Amnesiac]

But the fact of the matter is that "fucking" doesn't mean "potatoes"
What I meant was that words, verbal communication, and all of the connotations and definitions and the associated with them and the context in which they are used are powerful.[QUOTE]

Sure they can be powerful, but only if you percieve them as powerful, and that power can be easily ignored. This may seem like a vague response, but there's more:

[QUOTE=Riu-chan;1012405]Verbal abuse is a real problem, and even if the occasional person swore you out or something, many people saying many hurtful things can really compound on a person. Just because you take "who gives a shit" attitude when someone else insults you, doesn't mean everyone can.

Well if I can mold my mind around the idea that words simply convey messages, not emotion, then I'm sure most other people would be able to as well. I don't think words carry emotion — they simply describe it. No, emotion is more heavily expressed physically (via hugs, kisses, punches, ect.) rather then through a bunch of empty sounds or printed characters. People can say all sorts of things designed to offend people. But their message doesn't really carry emotion until they actually make a gesture. Somebody could say "I hate black people", and that would be a description of their feelings. It doesn't REALLY carry emotion until they, let's say, walk up and punch a black person in the face.

Or the Westboro Baptist Church. They can preach and write on their websites "we hate homosexuals", but the level of emotion that they feel isn't exposed until they go around the nation protesting funerals. The fact that they would actually take the time and money to do that really shows how strongly they feel about it; the words they say simply state a message where depth of emotion or seriousness can't be measured.

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

But the fact of the matter is that "fucking" doesn't mean "potatoes"
What I meant was that words, verbal communication, and all of the connotations and definitions and the associated with them and the context in which they are used are powerful.

Sure they can be powerful, but only if you percieve them as powerful, and that power can be easily ignored. This may seem like a vague response, but there's more:
Perhaps you can ignore their meaning, their connotations, but you can never ignore the information they relay. The second someone says something like "That's so gay!" as a generic complaint about something, the person who hears will instantly know that they think being gay is a negative thing, and that information will never leave your brain.
Even so, words are powerful, politicians don't get up knock each other out to win an election, they argue and debate.
The Bible has the power to move people to believing in what seems like an impossible tale of a guy up in the sky who controls everything into a perfectlly natural thing to think, William Shakespeare had the power to make people laugh and cry with a few simple flicks of a quill pen, Harriet Beecher Stowe had the power to help set a war in motion by telling people of horrible things that were happening in their very own country.
Hurtful words can drive a person to suicide, or murder. Charasmatic speakers can tempt people to eat an apple off a forbidden tree, and convice someone to do just about anything they want them to.

Well if I can mold my mind around the idea that words simply convey messages, not emotion, then I'm sure most other people would be able to as well. I don't think words carry emotion — they simply describe it. No, emotion is more heavily expressed physically (via hugs, kisses, punches, ect.) rather then through a bunch of empty sounds or printed characters. People can say all sorts of things designed to offend people. But their message doesn't really carry emotion until they actually make a gesture. Somebody could say "I hate black people", and that would be a description of their feelings. It doesn't REALLY carry emotion until they, let's say, walk up and punch a black person in the face.

Or the Westboro Baptist Church. They can preach and write on their websites "we hate homosexuals", but the level of emotion that they feel isn't exposed until they go around the nation protesting funerals. The fact that they would actually take the time and money to do that really shows how strongly they feel about it; the words they say simply state a message where depth of emotion or seriousness can't be measured.
Honestly, I somewhat agree with you here, I'm not arguing that physical actions don't convey emotion, and truthfully, sometimes they do say alot more (not always though).
But I do think words convey emotion, that's pretty much what they're meant for, conveying feelings and information.

[Amnesiac]

Perhaps you can ignore their meaning, their connotations, but you can never ignore the information they relay. The second someone says something like "That's so gay!" as a generic complaint about something, the person who hears will instantly know that they think being gay is a negative thing, and that information will never leave your brain.
Even so, words are powerful, politicians don't get up knock each other out to win an election, they argue and debate.

As I said before, you can't measure the depth of emotion someone is conveying purely through words. Usually, when people say "that's gay!", it's not a homophobic statement but rather a redefinition of a word that's already been redefined twice in history. If they really think of homosexuality in a negative light, they'd say "that's gay!" with an angry physical gesture accompanying it, such as a furious expression and curled up fists.

When politicians debate, they are simply stating their positions. Whether or not they actually care is measured through their physical expressions, or changes in voice. A politician slamming his fist down and yelling "abortion is wrong!" obviously feels emotionally opposed to abortion compared to a politician who neutrally states "abortion is wrong".


The Bible has the power to move people to believing in what seems like an impossible tale of a guy up in the sky who controls everything into a perfectlly natural thing to think, William Shakespeare had the power to make people laugh and cry with a few simple flicks of a quill pen, Harriet Beecher Stowe had the power to help set a war in motion by telling people of horrible things that were happening in their very own country.
Hurtful words can drive a person to suicide, or murder. Charasmatic speakers can tempt people to eat an apple off a forbidden tree, and convice someone to do just about anything they want them to.

The reason people react emotionally to words is because of how they interpret and picture them in their minds. In debate, a person has the ability to change your mind because you interpret their argument and pit it against your own. The one that, from your point of view, makes more sense wins.

Somebody could easily read a sad story without becoming emotional. It's only when the imagery enters your mind that you actually react to it. Your brain, using the definitions associated with words from whatever language, comprehends the story and paints a visual in your head (what literary experts call "imagery") and you react to that, not necessarily the words themselves. The words mean nothing until you give them definitions.

Honestly, I somewhat agree with you here, I'm not arguing that physical actions don't convey emotion, and truthfully, sometimes they do say alot more (not always though).
But I do think words convey emotion, that's pretty much what they're meant for, conveying feelings and information.

I understand your position, and I respect it, but I have to disagree. Thus is the world of Ramblings of the Wise :P

[The Dark Lord]

And that's one of the things that ticks me off about people saying it!
People are so indifferent and ignorant that they have no idea how offensive or hurtful something they say can be! Words are literally the most powerful thing a human can utilize, no other animals or living things that we know of have them, and yet we throw powerful, harming, destructive words around as if they meant nothing. There is not a single word (well, other than articles I suppose) that is meaningless, especially not a word that can completely ostricize someone just because others think that two men (or two women) having sex is wrong. Just because someone is using it as a general insult, doesn't make it okay, it implies that they think being gay is wrong, something worthy of being used as an insult. You can't say that "gay" is a meaningless insult unless you're the one who has taken the most offense to it being said. The only one who can say something is meaningless or trivial is the one most harmed by it, whether "it" is a word or an action. [/endrant]
....
wow, that was the most passionate I've ever gotten on a forum post....

For any of that rant to be true you would have had to define gay as homosexual. If you define it as annoying or as its original meaning, happy, then it isn't homophobic. Gay no longer exclusively means homosexual but it now, like many words, has a variety of meanings used in different contexts

[Scooby Dooby Drew]

As I said before, you can't measure the depth of emotion someone is conveying purely through words. Usually, when people say "that's gay!", it's not a homophobic statement but rather a redefinition of a word that's already been redefined twice in history. If they really think of homosexuality in a negative light, they'd say "that's gay!" with an angry physical gesture accompanying it, such as a furious expression and curled up fists.

When politicians debate, they are simply stating their positions. Whether or not they actually care is measured through their physical expressions, or changes in voice. A politician slamming his fist down and yelling "abortion is wrong!" obviously feels emotionally opposed to abortion compared to a politician who neutrally states "abortion is wrong".
I'm afraid you're missing the point of my argument, my argument isn't "Words speak louder than actions", but rather "Words hold the power to convey information and to an extent emotions, and the information conveyed with words can never be taken back." I'm not claiming that actions are less powerful, or say less than words.
And the word gay, because of its many redefinitions, can mean a whole lot more than the speaker meant it to. Even if they're simply using "gay" as a generic complaint, not everyone will see it that way. As you said yourself Darth Egg, "Your brain, using the definitions associated with words from whatever language, comprehends the story and paints a visual in your head (what literary experts call "imagery") and you react to that, not necessarily the words themselves. The words mean nothing until you give them definitions." It isn't what the speaker is saying that's important, it's how the listener hears it. If the listener takes the word gay as meaning "a generic insult, but at the same time showing the speaker's dislike of homosexuals", then for all intents and purposes that is what it means. (This all more or less applies to Matty's post as well)

[Amnesiac]

I'm afraid you're missing the point of my argument, my argument isn't "Words speak louder than actions", but rather "Words hold the power to convey information and to an extent emotions, and the information conveyed with words can never be taken back." I'm not claiming that actions are less powerful, or say less than words.
And the word gay, because of its many redefinitions, can mean a whole lot more than the speaker meant it to. Even if they're simply using "gay" as a generic complaint, not everyone will see it that way. As you said yourself Darth Egg, "Your brain, using the definitions associated with words from whatever language, comprehends the story and paints a visual in your head (what literary experts call "imagery") and you react to that, not necessarily the words themselves. The words mean nothing until you give them definitions." It isn't what the speaker is saying that's important, it's how the listener hears it. If the listener takes the word gay as meaning "a generic insult, but at the same time showing the speaker's dislike of homosexuals", then for all intents and purposes that is what it means. (This all more or less applies to Matty's post as well)

Yes, via language words do hold the power to convey information. That's the entire point of language in the first place. I just don't believe they convey emotion. You may personally link certain words with a certain emotion, and interpret them that way when you hear them, but words themselves don't convey emotion.

When I said "using the definitions associated with words from whatever language", I meant that when you hear words used in a certain context, you're supposed to label them with the correct definition. Many words have multiple meanings, such as "gay", which has three. In Modern English, gay can either mean:


Happiness ("I'm feeling quite gay today")
Homosexuality or an action associated with it ("Did you see the gay pride parade downtown?")
An insult, to show disgust at something ("Dude, that's so gay!")


I guess I fumbled a bit in my argument. Language evolves over time, and words that originally meant something suddenly mean something else. If we were to ignore the definitions of every word and label them without care for the context they're used in, the foundation of English itself would collapse. It's our responsibility as English speakers to use the language properly, and not to ignore context and simply take a word which is being used with one definition and interpret it as another definition. What I was trying to say is that words don't have meaning until, through the set of definitions given to you via whatever language, they are labeled. I wasn't saying that people should ignore the context a word is being used in, or the effects culture have had on that word, and just interpret it in a completely different way.

[Hatsune Miku]

Sorry for giving the forum life, Matt.

Life? This topic keeps getting repeated over and over again. Let the dead stay dead.

[Perseus]

Life? This topic keeps getting repeated over and over again. Let the dead stay dead.

Not really. Show me proof of this in ROTW. And instead of complaining about it, don't post in my thread. It's off topic, and I don't want mod coming in here and telling me that because that annoys me.

[Sith Lord 13]

Verbal abuse is a real problem, and even if the occasional person swore you out or something, many people saying many hurtful things can really compound on a person. Just because you take "who gives a shit" attitude when someone else insults you, doesn't mean everyone can.

Speaking as someone who has personal experience dealing with verbal abuse, I have to say the issue is not the words being used. It's the emotions behind them. You could avoid using blatantly insulting words, and still be verbally abusing someone. When someone says that's gay, they're using a word that is, for all intents and purposes, a different word than when someone uses the word gay in the homosexual sense. One has nothing to do with the other except for sharing a spelling and pronunciation.

tl;dr: Words are words, it's the thought behind them that matters.

[Amnesiac]

Speaking as someone who has personal experience dealing with verbal abuse, I have to say the issue is not the words being used. It's the emotions behind them. You could avoid using blatantly insulting words, and still be verbally abusing someone. When someone says that's gay, they're using a word that is, for all intents and purposes, a different word than when someone uses the word gay in the homosexual sense. One has nothing to do with the other except for sharing a spelling and pronunciation.

tl;dr: Words are words, it's the thought behind them that matters.

I agree, words are words. People can say things. It's the way they say them — the expressions and gestures they make — that actually hold emotion.