Someone with full legal rights telling a second-class citizen that, while they may be upset about being a second-class citizen, they shouldn't be rude about it...
...is more or less correct, but must be aware that the optics of his statement may have more impact than its correctness. Diplomacy is the art of framing one's point so that it will be believed. In a few cases, the only diplomatic move is to be silent, and wait for the same point to be made by someone else.
True, although expecting careful diplomacy from angry teenagers may be a tad optimistic.
I was considering a comment about how polite the original complainants would be, were the boot shifted to the other foot, but then realised that this whole thing is blowing up, not out of the boot being shifted from one foot to another, but from motioning towards putting a metaphorical second boot on the other foot. Have I stretched that metaphor too far?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
True, although expecting careful diplomacy from angry teenagers may be a tad optimistic.
I was actually talking about diplomacy from the people with full rights. But expecting diplomacy to reach angry teenagers is also, as you say, a tad optimistic. Hell, not just teenagers. Look at how many people Completely Missed The Point and rioted when MLK was assassinated. Even he couldn't convince everybody all of the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my very first post on the subject in this thread, I gave a reason based on the history of English language usage leading to words with different etymologies having different connotations, and you just came back with "that's stupid, 'homosexual' has no negative connotation."
Because it is stupid and it has no negative connotation.
Yes, it's a technical term, and yes it's a bit clunky sounding. But it's not an offensive term, and should not be treated as such.
It goes back to the black individuals who complain about "black holes" (Note: not a euphemism or new slang term, but referring to the actual astronomical phenomenon of a collapsed star) being racist. Some complaints are just stupid, and should not be taken seriously. "Homosexual is offensive" is one such complaint.
It goes back to the black individuals who complain about "black holes" .
But don't you realize it's called an African American hole! And in deference to all those feminists out there, my mail is not delivered by a mailman, it's delivered by a personperson. And the term midget is offensive so we must call them dwarfs, but that's offensive so call them little people, but that's offensive so call them...nothing I guess. Everything is offensive and insensitive so stop referring to people altogether I suppose.
Some people just love to be offended. Nothing is offensive about the term homosexual but it feels good to cry about imagined insults and labeling others prejudiced for having the audacity to speak normally and accurately. People that do this are probably beyond the sway of a reasoned argument--you can't convince a baby to stop being a baby--so it's probably best to just hand them a diaper and move on. The same goes for anyone offended by the term 'heterosexual.' Or 'tree,' or 'shoe,' or any other random word in the English language that isn't used in a derogatory way; and homosexual isn't.
Ironically, if a person is offended by the term homosexual, that person is the one doing the bashing. They find their own sexual preference offensive? How tragic.
I've met some gays that love to be offended, and I've met others that are the complete opposite and those ones wish that other gays would stop spending their days desperately trying to find situations to be offended, stop protesting everything, and stop waving their hands crying 'help help I'm a victim, I'm oppressed.'
Highroller, can you appreciate how repeatedly stating "That's stupid" is not a particularly productive line of argument? Anyone can say that about anything. It gets us nowhere. What would you say to a Redskins defender who just repeated that the reasons for the complaints have no sense to them - that "redskin" is not an offensive term, notwithstanding all the evidence that it is - that people who object to the team name are as stupid as people who object to "black hole"? I know you think there are relevant differences between "redskin" and "homosexual". I think there are too. But you're using exactly the same repetitive-denial tactics here. You have done precisely nothing to provide your position with any more substance than theirs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You have done precisely nothing to provide your position with any more substance than theirs.
I was not aware that the argument that "homosexual" is an offensive term actually had a rational basis to attack, and if there's no rational basis to the argument, while it is true that little productive discussion will result, the problem's not on my end.
Latinates like "female" and "homosexual" sound clinical.
As I said before, yes, it sounds a bit clunky, but "sounds a bit clunky" does not equal "offensive." Yes, it sounds a bit technical, but "sounds a bit technical" does not equal "offensive."
Once again, I'm waiting for a logical reason why we should regard "homosexual" as offensive. I'm waiting for a rationale that actually connects the dots. Until someone provides it, I will freely reject what is freely offered.
By the way, I am following the person I posted last day on Tumblr, and here's another example of what I mean with his topic: no matter how a person tries to express or the arguments it uses, it always seems to be offensive for the LGBT community, at least the younger, internet one.
Can we agree that we're leaving the world on the hands of a bunch of intolerant, self-righteous idiots who will grow up to further spread the "Special Butterflies are Unique and must eat other little bugsies" message?
It doesn't matters if you're part of the LGBT community or not, religious or atheist, black or white... we all deserve a degree of respect and should be threated as equals, being "diferent" per popular opinion doesn't means you're not a human being, have special qualities, or that you must be threated different. What I see here is that younger members of the LGBT community at least expect to be seen as special unique martyrs that must be treated as such, and have the right to call everyone who disagrees with whatever insignificant point of view (such as fictional characters) to be called a homophobe and be attacked, thus, making this an endless chain of events: you want respect but don't give it back.
You realize that during the Civil Rights Movement and continued to today that there's exclusive inclusivity within disaffected minority groups and you're just realizing that today? Meaning there are "black people" and the "rest" of "America." Such as young black people telling other young black people not to get an education otherwise "they'll be acting white." It's basically cliquish and a bad point at self-othering, it's why yuppy white girls get called "****" and other horrible names and then start cutting themselves and so forth when they're abused by other yuppy white girls.
The point is quite simple, certain people suck at confront resolution skills and gain narcissistic empowerment through nay-saying and name-calling.
Social media allows someone like myself to voice my own opinions, and the one I find the most annoying is the "older generation is wiser" whereas the "rising young ones are the devil." They go off to college, and some people do get stupid ideas lodged into their heads. Overtime through "the real world" they mature pretty quick if they're hardworking and smart and have a heart. I've seen generations come and go, and to be honest after talking with "old people" and working along side both old and young for a long time now. I can say that I hear that complaint a lot about generations, but at the end of the day most people get along in the real sense of the word.
It's up to us, the older generation, to not be so nit-picky always talking about personal responsibility and trying to thought police the young generation to "follow our mould in the wisest." We have to consider that FDR was wrong at some point and Ol' Ronny made some bone headed screw ups and then there's Clinton, yea, and the kids have their Obama. The kids aren't stupid, they have different ideas and some people at that age had some stupid ideas. I've taken the time to talk to different youngsters over the years that have very, very different policies about life than I do. And you know what? Taking some talk to them about their hopes and dreams, and what kind of education they want helps. Help them help themselves, point to books or programs or something that you know worked for you and other people.
It's not about saying "You need to do this."
It's better to sell something as "You know, this worked me and was recommended to me by an old boss" or something like that. That's how you need to engage these people, like "I'm here to talk if you want to talk, I disagree, oh here's something else to consider." That's how we "paid it forward," we have an obligation to look at our young people and talk to them like adults, even if they're only 10. There are bad and horrible things in the world, but giving them information and talking about the passion you do have for someone. You can engage in them better in the system we have, and frankly our system sucks because it is disintegrated. Hell, try getting a "good job" and what's required to do for one. It's like you spend years "training" meanwhile it would've been easier to just hire the damn person off the street and train them day one for some positions.
It's not that "big government" is the problem, it's our anti-social "you're on your own kiddo" approach to inculcating the next generation. And these "kids" find their own little social groups and become like Young Turks and seek to change the world. These people on tumblr scare me far less than Anonymous, because Anonymous actually made the news and did some bad things like steal money. And, ironically, we see very little of Anonymous these days.
Here's the thing, you're not going to get along with everyone. There's always going to be someone who you can take the time to be there for. It might be a stranger, it might be your wife or your dog. It means being that person to someone some of the time. I can't "influence America," but if I can influence *one person* that can influence another few people during their lifetime and instill into them some of the best that others instilled into me. I feel like I did something good for the next generation, and I use this word very little, but they're entitled for us "older people" to be there for them even when they're not there for us. A lot of them are smart, but they're dysfunctional and our culture isn't one that's very forgiving at times. But, it's when that one person that was there for you, that one friend or that parent or that one stranger that gave you twenty five cents so you could make that phone call that you remember all these years later.
That's what I'm talking about, that's our responsibility and that's we change "them." Many people I was close to are dead, and it's not my legacy, but there's that I do to others. I have to be there, to be one to make other people that seek to become better as better. I cannot stand when people belittle others with inexperience in the way of things, sure we can criticize that particular person. However, to criticize an entire generation that has yet to make a huge impact in the working world? Hyperbole with a black hole plothole. It us, the older generations, that lead the younger generations through our example and our legacy systems to ruin. That, Aldath, is what we must lament and seek to fix, so that others may exceed us to the stars.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
You have done precisely nothing to provide your position with any more substance than theirs.
Neither have you. Do you really think 'it sounds clinical' = offensive? Should a heterosexual person be offended when someone accurately refers to them as a heterosexual? Of course not. If someone referred to me as a human, a male, a heterosexual, a homo sapien, etc, there is nothing to be offended about and a more appropriate response would be a shrug of the shoulders and saying something like yeah so...what's your point?
I agree with highroller. Any argument that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Asking him to prove a negative is silly and as I'm sure you know, if you're making the claim that the word homosexual is offensive, the burden of proof is on you, not him.
One thing I find interesting is when someone mentioned that gay people prefer to be referred to as 'gay' than homosexual. I have never heard, and likely never will hear, anyone use the word homosexual in a pejorative way but the word 'gay' is used in a derogatory fashion constantly. And yet, for whatever reason, saying gay is still okay. For the moment, anyway.
It's anecdotal, but literally every time someone has called me a "homosexual", they wanted to say "*******" but couldn't in that social context or didn't want to openly attack me.
When I tell someone I have a boyfriend, hearing "Oh, you're gay?" just sounds much better than "Oh, you're homosexual?"
I really don't know what to say @Highroller. By myself and plenty of others, "gay" is the preferred word when addressing or describing an individual. "Homosexual" just feels, well, dehumanizing I suppose. The world has often been used to make gay people feel like freaks, mistakes, or perverted abominations. And in my personal experience, it's a great way to say ******* while still claiming one isn't being offensive. "Gay" doesn't have the history that "homosexual" does, and this isn't about "reclaiming" a word or anything. It's just that at this time one word comes off as a bit nicer/more accepting than another.
The biggest thing I see is that saying "gay" isn't really much harder than "homosexual", so is it unreasonable to ask that you use the preferred word?
It's anecdotal, but literally every time someone has called me a "homosexual", they wanted to say "*******" but couldn't in that social context or didn't want to openly attack me.
I'm sorry that this happened to you, but I feel it is relevant to this topic to ask: had those people called you "gay" or "queer" would there have been any improvement?
I really don't know what to say @Highroller. By myself and plenty of others, "gay" is the preferred word when addressing or describing an individual. "Homosexual" just feels, well, dehumanizing I suppose.
Which you're welcome to argue. But there are many who do not regard this term as offensive. Do you have a reason we should go by your opinion over theirs?
The world has often been used to make gay people feel like freaks, mistakes, or perverted abominations.
But that's just it: if people look down on you, any term used to talk about you will become derogatory. Replace homosexual with "gay" or "queer" in that case and the same result would occur. Case in point: the term "Jew" is neutral, but then there's the phrase, "Don't be such a Jew" that turns it into a derogatory statement.
And in my personal experience, it's a great way to say ******* while still claiming one isn't being offensive. "Gay" doesn't have the history that "homosexual" does, and this isn't about "reclaiming" a word or anything. It's just that at this time one word comes off as a bit nicer/more accepting than another.
I'm not sure what's not accepting about homosexual. We call it "homosexuality," don't we?
The biggest thing I see is that saying "gay" isn't really much harder than "homosexual", so is it unreasonable to ask that you use the preferred word?
I think it's unreasonable to think that "homosexual" is offensive. And yeah, certain times homosexual is more useful.
Once again, I'm waiting for a logical reason why we should regard "homosexual" as offensive.
Then reread the sentence you quoted, which does not contain the words "clunky" or "technical", plus the sentence immediately after it. Very much like "female", "homosexual" is not an actual slur, in that it there are some contexts in which it is unobjectionable. However, those contexts are clinical and scientific. And precisely because it is used in those contexts, it carries a connotation in other contexts of impersonal distance. The religious right are not being complimentary when they carry on about "the homosexuals" any more than Grumpy the Dwarf is being complimentary when he complains about "females". To the people so described, it is an indication that the speaker does not understand nor care to understand them socially and culturally, and accordingly is somewhere between offputting and mildly insulting.
Yes, there other words that are used both clinically and socially with no negative connotations, like "American". And yes, there are words that are sometimes used insultingly that the community nevertheless embraces, like "gay". In other news, the plural of "duck" is "ducks" but the plural of "goose" is "geese". Congratulations, you have discovered that natural language is inconsistent. If this truly irritates you, I can point you in the direction of Lojban. But the first thing that is hammered into your head in Linguistics 101 is that the discipline is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is our task to observe and describe how language is actually used, not to scoff at that usage as "stupid" and "irrational". As I am describing to you, and as you have clearly observed yourself, the word "homosexual" is, in fact, commonly interpreted as objectionable in a social context. Other words are not, but that word is. So please stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of open-minded scientific rationality. By dismissing the empirical evidence, you're doing exactly the opposite of that.
And no, it is not "their problem" that "they" are interpreting the term this way. Popular consensus is the only way that any word can have any meaning at all - it's the only reason why "redskin" is a slur. And communication is a two-way street: it is your responsibility to understand how the words you use will be understood precisely as much as it is your listener's responsibility to understand the words you're using. You may honestly use "homosexual" with no ill intent, but there are people out there who honestly use "redskin" with no ill intent: they are acting in ignorance, failing to live up to their side of the responsibility, and once they have been informed of the mistake they're making, their ignorance becomes willful.
How is this different from the morons who object to "black hole"? Because they're rare. You can use the term "black hole" a thousand times and the odds are that you will never run into such an objector. Use the term "homosexual" in a social context and you're fairly likely for someone to be like, "Hey, not cool." In short, the "black hole" crazies are swimming against the current of consensus. In this regard, they're not like the "homosexual" objectors - they're like you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't understand why this has to be "scientific". If there is literally no effort in doing something differently, and it makes some people a bit more comfortable, is it that hard to do? Is it really worth fighting for the principal of something if there's nothing to be lost by saying "sure, I'll use a word people already use that's more comfortable for you" (as no new words are being invented and it's not far out of the way to just say gay).
And for the record, I 100% would rather have been called "gay" when people called me "homosexual". We all knew what they meant to say, and they picked the word for a reason. It had a negative association in those contexts, and that's why people said it.
Then reread the sentence you quoted, which does not contain the words "clunky" or "technical",
I assumed clinical was a synonym to technical, but clearly I was mistaken.
As for the sentence after that, you need to actually connect the dots. You're saying it's dehumanizing? Demonstrate this. Especially since you later undermine that very assertion in this very post.
Very much like "female", "homosexual" is not an actual slur,
I agree.
However, those contexts are clinical and scientific. And precisely because it is used in those contexts, it carries a connotation in other contexts of impersonal distance. The religious right are not being complimentary when they carry on about "the homosexuals" any more than Grumpy the Dwarf is being complimentary when he complains about "females". To the people so described, it is an indication that the speaker does not understand nor care to understand them socially and culturally, and accordingly is somewhere between offputting and mildly insulting.
Except that's a blanket generalization. There are plenty of gay people who do not react negatively to homosexual. Moreover, you state later that just because something sounds clinical does not make it dehumanizing. So clearly, "Clinical, therefore dehumanizing" doesn't follow.
Yes, there other words that are used both clinically and socially with no negative connotations, like "American". And yes, there are words that are sometimes used insultingly that the community nevertheless embraces, like "gay". In other news, the plural of "duck" is "ducks" but the plural of "goose" is "geese". Congratulations, you have discovered that natural language is inconsistent.
Which takes place here. So, right now your arguments have been:
1. Clinical, therefore problem, which you have now contradicted.
2. Majority of people think it's offensive, which you have yet to demonstrate.
But the first thing that is hammered into your head in Linguistics 101 is that the discipline is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is our task to observe and describe how language is actually used, not to scoff at that usage as "stupid" and "irrational". As I am describing to you, and as you have clearly observed yourself, the word "homosexual" is, in fact, commonly interpreted as objectionable in a social context. Other words are not, but that word is. So please stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of open-minded scientific rationality. By dismissing the empirical evidence, you're doing exactly the opposite of that.
It is amazing to me that you can make a paragraph saying what is essentially, "**** logic, there is no reason, you're just wrong," and then attack me for not being rational or open-minded.
And no, it is not "their problem" that "they" are interpreting the term this way.
Whoa, hold on there. Not all gay people find "homosexual" offensive. Don't deny the existence of said people and then portray me as the one who's being presumptuous.
Popular consensus is the only way that any word can have any meaning at all -
I think it's pretty clear it's not popular consensus. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if an actual argument were provided that it is, in fact, popular consensus that might advance the discussion some?
it's the only reason why "redskin" is a slur. And communication is a two-way street: it is your responsibility to understand how the words you use will be understood precisely as much as it is your listener's responsibility to understand the words you're using. You may honestly use "homosexual" with no ill intent, but there are people out there who honestly use "redskin" with no ill intent: they are acting in ignorance, failing to live up to their side of the responsibility, and once they have been informed of the mistake they're making, their ignorance becomes willful.
Now you're contradicting yourself.
I know you think there are relevant differences between "redskin" and "homosexual". I think there are too.
Very much like "female", "homosexual" is not an actual slur
So is "redskin" a slur or isn't it? Is "homosexual" a slur or not a slur? Because if one is and the other isn't, you cannot affirm this and simultaneously say there's no meaningful distinction between the two, can you?
How is this different from the morons who object to "black hole"? Because they're rare.
Even if you're going to go by claiming it's a numbers game, your argument still falls short, because you haven't demonstrated how rare or how commonplace such an opinion with regards to "homosexuality" is compared to the contrary.
Again, connecting the dots is necessary.
You can use the term "black hole" a thousand times and the odds are that you will never run into such an objector.
Except it wouldn't matter. Even if such objectors were commonplace, it would not make their arguments any less absurd. I'm not sure why I would need to even say this to a proponent of linguistics. You're now saying that if a bunch of people were to claim, erroneously, that despite the fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people but a neutral term regarding an astronomical body, that "black hole" is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?
There is the recognition that words have meanings which evolve over time, yes, but there is also the recognition that people are sometimes totally off-base about the meanings of words.
Should we then conclude that if the majority of people decide we're going to start calling black people "darkies" again and that's totally ok, that would make it ok?
As for the sentence after that, you need to actually connect the dots. You're saying it's dehumanizing? Demonstrate this. Especially since you later undermine that very assertion in this very post.
If actual-factual gay people saying "When I hear this I feel dehumanized" does not constitute a demonstration that the term is dehumanizing, then what on earth are you expecting?
Except that's a blanket generalization. There are plenty of gay people who do not react negatively to homosexual. Moreover, you state later that just because something sounds clinical does not make it dehumanizing. So clearly, "Clinical, therefore dehumanizing" doesn't follow.
That's not what I said. What I said was that some words are used clinically but do not carry a negative connotation. That is to say, they do not "sound clinical" when used in other contexts. "Homosexual", however, does.
It is amazing to me that you can make a paragraph saying what is essentially, "**** logic, there is no reason, you're just wrong," and then attack me for not being rational or open-minded.
You: I don't believe humans have ten fingers! There's no reason for it. If humans had ten fingers, why wouldn't all these other animals have ten fingers? The idea is just stupid! Me: The evolutionary process is inconsistent. The same path taken by one species might not be taken by another. Our job as biologists is to describe what we see. If we rely on abstract generalizations and let that override what we see, we're not being good biologists. And when we look, we see that humans do have ten fingers. You: That's not scientific at all!
I think it's pretty clear it's not popular consensus. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if an actual argument were provided that it is, in fact, popular consensus that might advance the discussion some?
Read the article SSJRanulf linked. The prof interviewed is kind of pompous, but when it gets into observed usage it's rather telling.
So is "redskin" a slur or isn't it? Is "homosexual" a slur or not a slur? Because if one is and the other isn't, you cannot affirm this and simultaneously say there's no meaningful distinction between the two, can you?
I explicitly said there are meaningful distinctions between the two - you seem to have read a negation somewhere into your first "gotcha" quote, but you'll find there isn't one. One distinction between the words is that "redskin" is a straight-up slur while "homosexual" is in this context-based grey zone. However, one trait the words do share - with each other and with every word whatsoever - is that their meaning is defined by social consensus. So if you think social consensus is no grounds to object to the use of "homosexual", then you yourself have no grounds to object to the use of "redskin".
Except it wouldn't matter. Even if such objectors were commonplace, it would not make their arguments any less absurd. I'm not sure why I would need to even say this to a proponent of linguistics. You're now saying that if a bunch of people were to claim, erroneously, that despite the fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people but a neutral term regarding an astronomical body, that "black hole" is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?
First of all, please understand that when you come out with stuff like "I'm not sure why I would need to even say this to a proponent of linguistics", you are only embarrassing yourself. It's as if you're in a discussion of infectious diseases and you're scoffing at germ theory. What I have said and am about to say is absolutely 100% mainstream linguistics. I'll try to explain why, but it would help a lot if you first acknowledged that you are not an expert and may not know as much about the subject as you think you do.
Okay. Now, please notice that your question is riddled with assumptions: you say that these hypothetical people are "erroneous" and that it is a "fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people". But this definition you are assuming as "fact" is precisely what we're trying to determine the truth of. Obviously, you can't do that. So let's cut those question-begging assumptions out to get a question we can actually answer: "Are you saying that if a bunch of people were to claim that 'black hole' is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?" And yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. It sounds crazy to you because there aren't a bunch of people claiming that, and thus the few people who are claiming it aren't correct. It's a claim with a highly counterfactual premise, against which the intuitions can revolt. (Similarly, it may sound crazy, but nevertheless is true, that if James Holmes were elected President of the United States, he would be allowed to walk into the White House. Big freaking "if".)
Imagine we lived in a reversed world where "black hole" was commonly thought to be a racial slur and only a very few people used it for an astronomical phenomenon. It would sound just as crazy to reverse-you that if a bunch of people used the astronomical definition, that would make it correct. And a hyperintelligent alien who visited both our world and the reverse-world could not find a single criterion to declare one "correcter" than the other. (And then it visits France where they have different words for everything...) A definition if correct if and only if it lines up with general usage in the language-speaking community, and a definition is erroneous if and only if it contradicts general usage in the language-speaking community. There's simply no other way to do linguistics. So when you ask about a bunch of people who "erroneously" claim that a word means something, what you're actually saying to a linguist is that a bunch of people claim that a word means something, but actually, no, a bunch of people don't claim the word means that. It's oxymoronic.
So, yeah. The meaning of words is arbitrary. I already told you what the first lesson of Linguistics 101 is; this is the second. And I'm not exaggerating here - "descriptive not prescriptive" and "language is arbitrary" were literally the first two things my prof wrote on the board on day one.
Should we then conclude that if the majority of people decide we're going to start calling black people "darkies" again and that's totally ok, that would make it ok?
If the majority of people includes the people being addressed as such (because remember, communication is a two-way street), then yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Our culture already made pretty much exactly this decision with "negro" and then again with "black".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As for the sentence after that, you need to actually connect the dots. You're saying it's dehumanizing? Demonstrate this. Especially since you later undermine that very assertion in this very post.
If actual-factual gay people saying "When I hear this I feel dehumanized" does not constitute a demonstration that the term is dehumanizing, then what on earth are you expecting?
To be fair, we do only currently have a sample size of one, which is a poor sample size of anything.
Also, if someone wants to say "Homosexual was only used because they couldn't say *******", then you could argue that people only call someone "African American" because they wanted to say "N***er". It would all depend on the tone/ignorance of the person who was saying it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
[quote from="SSJRanulf »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/606681-is-heterophobia-becoming-a-real-deal-or-are-we?comment=61"]It's anecdotal, but literally every time someone has called me a "homosexual", they wanted to say "*******" but couldn't in that social context or didn't want to openly attack me.
I'm sorry that this happened to you, but I feel it is relevant to this topic to ask: had those people called you "gay" or "queer" would there have been any improvement?
Which you're welcome to argue. But there are many who do not regard this term as offensive. Do you have a reason we should go by your opinion over theirs?
Since this is a matter where you have asked others to cite their sources, could you please give examples of gay people who do not regard this term as offensive?
But that's just it: if people look down on you, any term used to talk about you will become derogatory. Replace homosexual with "gay" or "queer" in that case and the same result would occur. Case in point: the term "Jew" is neutral, but then there's the phrase, "Don't be such a Jew" that turns it into a derogatory statement.
The issue with this argument is that being derogatory is not a simple on and off switch but rather a scale. For example if someone who is against Germans calls me a German, then that would be derogatory but if the same person calls me a Nazi that would be worse, since that is a worse word to use. So the only way for the words to have the same affect is for homosexual to not be an offensive term, which would be a circular argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
But that's just it: if people look down on you, any term used to talk about you will become derogatory. Replace homosexual with "gay" or "queer" in that case and the same result would occur. Case in point: the term "Jew" is neutral, but then there's the phrase, "Don't be such a Jew" that turns it into a derogatory statement.
Fun fact, I've been raised in a Jewish family and everyone I know uses the term "Jews" and "Jew" all the time. I only just found out two months ago that apparently we consider the term "Jew" to be derogatory when other people use it.
There should be pamphlets for these things.
It's often better to treat these things on a person by person basis, apologize if you accidentally offend someone and then use their preferred term with them from then on.
One distinction between the words is that "redskin" is a straight-up slur while "homosexual" is in this context-based grey zone.
I will agree that it is context-based. However, inherent to the idea of it being "context-based" is the fact that, which you seem to acknowledge by virtue of agreeing that homosexual is not a "straight-up slur," is the idea that homosexual is not an offensive word, or at least not inherently so.
And if we're going by context, then I would argue that any word ever could be considered offensive. Which seems to be your point as well. Which is fine, but that does not point to "Why should we consider homosexual to be offensive?" At least not in situations where it's not intended as such.
Basically, if we both agree that "homosexual" isn't a slur, and we both agree that its offensiveness is inherently context based, and we both agree if any word can be turned into a derogatory statement based on context, then where, precisely, are we disagreeing?
So if you think social consensus is no grounds to object to the use of "homosexual", then you yourself have no grounds to object to the use of "redskin".
Have you established you even have social consensus?
Okay. Now, please notice that your question is riddled with assumptions: you say that these hypothetical people are "erroneous" and that it is a "fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people". But this definition you are assuming as "fact" is precisely what we're trying to determine the truth of. Obviously, you can't do that. So let's cut those question-begging assumptions out to get a question we can actually answer: "Are you saying that if a bunch of people were to claim that 'black hole' is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?" And yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. It sounds crazy to you because there aren't a bunch of people claiming that, and thus the few people who are claiming it aren't correct. It's a claim with a highly counterfactual premise, against which the intuitions can revolt. (Similarly, it may sound crazy, but nevertheless is true, that if James Holmes were elected President of the United States, he would be allowed to walk into the White House. Big freaking "if".)
So we're just going to ignore both the fact that the word's definition and the word's etymology have no link to anything offensive against black people, AND that the context was not as such, AND that the intention is not as such?
Fun fact, I've been raised in a Jewish family and everyone I know uses the term "Jews" and "Jew" all the time. I only just found out two months ago that apparently we consider the term "Jew" to be derogatory when other people use it.
There should be pamphlets for these things.
I know, right?
I heard some people in a conversation say that they heard the word "Asian" was offensive because they'd heard a group of Korean people say that they didn't want to be called Asian, they wanted to be called Korean.
Now, I'm Korean, and to me that is absolutely baffling.
I'm just going to leave this here and then back away because I'm probably one of those tumblr SJWs that people love to hate (at least I have a tumblr and I do talk about things that effect me like sexism and homophobia).
Let's not generalize "tumblr" when it comes to this. Tumblr is a vast and varied place. There are some kids, some older people, a lot of porn, a lot of fandom stuff and gifs, and actually a pretty big neo nazi community. And a lot of the stuff you'd see sometimes is actually anti feminist troll blogs. So there's a lot of different opinions.
I wouldn't say heterophobia is an issue deserving of more than passing attention.
Yes, there are a few people who are "bigoted" against straights, discount their views, are uninterested in them as people, etc etc. These people are especially loud and popular on new-left websites like tumblr, SA, and deviantart. I guess in a strict sense this means that heterophobia (and "cisphobia") are real things. It's important to acknowledge that they do exist, because the position that there is no discrimination against straights is easily disproven by linking to some rando's blog.
However, that doesn't mean that heterophobia is a real problem. People make sweeping generalizations all the time, and The tumblr-bloggers are just as easily ignored as radical nazi blogs or redpillers. You also have to remember that queer culture nowadays is spearheaded by teenagers, and us teenagers are loud, impulsive, and generally less interested in reasoned debate and more interested in whatever gets you more retweets.
RE: "Homosexual" as an offensive term.
The idea behind this is that "homosexual" is a clinical, and therefore medical, term. Calling someone "a homosexual" therefore puts their sexuality in a medical context, which is of course uncomfortable. Queerness, in my opinion, needs to be normalized and integrated into everyday language if it is to be accepted by mainstream culture. This is the same reason why pro-gay activists push for more representation in TV shows and video games - exposure leads to normalization. The term is uncomfortable and is easily (mis)construed as hostile. Furthermore, integration of "gay" into everyday language will hopefully deter its use as a pejorative adjective ("that's so gay").
SSJRanulf mentioned that he felt when people refer to him as "homosexual," he felt dehumanized. I have to say that I agree - I'm bisexual, but that label to me feels impersonal and awkward. It's no surprise that conservative Christians have shifted what was once called the gay agenda to the ~*~homosexual agenda~*~ - same reason as what was once called "the prison lobby" is now called the It feels like a substitute for a slur, the same way "thug" can be used against the African-American movement without being overtly racist (though, like thug, homosexual has appropriate uses). It doesn't really bother me personally, but I can understand why someone would ask that you referred to them as gay or whatever their preferred word.
Regardless as to whether or not straight people feel that their use of "heterosexual" is appropriate, the fact remains that it will be interpreted as anywhere from uncomfortable to hostile by some. If a word is interpreted as offensive by many, and there exists a suitable replacement for a word, why is it so difficult to simply use the replacement? Why is this even an issue?
The idea behind this is that "homosexual" is a clinical, and therefore medical, term. Calling someone "a homosexual" therefore puts their sexuality in a medical context, which is of course uncomfortable
If the issue is that using "homosexual" feels uncomfortable because it's a medical-sounding term, is "heterosexual" equally offensive?
I'm just going to leave this here and then back away because I'm probably one of those tumblr SJWs that people love to hate (at least I have a tumblr and I do talk about things that effect me like sexism and homophobia).
Let's not generalize "tumblr" when it comes to this. Tumblr is a vast and varied place. There are some kids, some older people, a lot of porn, a lot of fandom stuff and gifs, and actually a pretty big neo nazi community. And a lot of the stuff you'd see sometimes is actually anti feminist troll blogs. So there's a lot of different opinions.
Considering I've gotten in face-to-face debates with Tumblr lovers who tried to argue that Patriarchy crap, not to mention that "Women are right to treat every man like a rapist in waiting", yeah no. Not going to fly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
And if we're going by context, then I would argue that any word ever could be considered offensive. Which seems to be your point as well. Which is fine, but that does not point to "Why should we consider homosexual to be offensive?" At least not in situations where it's not intended as such.
Basically, if we both agree that "homosexual" isn't a slur, and we both agree that its offensiveness is inherently context based, and we both agree if any word can be turned into a derogatory statement based on context, then where, precisely, are we disagreeing?
Because, as I keep saying, communication is a two-way street. How a word is interpreted is just as important as how it is intended. Let's say you meet a random gay guy on the street and, in the course of the conversation, refer to him as "a homosexual". He is not a telepath. He can't supernaturally discern what you mean by that. Your intentions may be as pure as driven snow, but he doesn't know that. All he knows is that you used the word "homosexual", and that in the context of informal conversations like the one you're having, opponents of gays and gay rights tend to use the word "homosexual" far more than friends. So for him, the best guess about what you mean is that you're trying to distance yourself from the gayness.
Now, as the conversation continues, you may make it clear that this is not where your intentions lie. You made a mistake; you used the wrong word to communicate what you were thinking. And because language is a two-way street, he also has some responsibility to be understanding of this sort of mix-up, especially in situations where the terminology is sort of fuzzy. I'm definitely not saying he has the right to just start tearing you a new one over your word choice. But at the same time, his initial interpretation of the term "homosexual" is reasonable, and it is predictable, which means that if you have been informed of these negative connotations surrounding the word, and you choose to use it anyway out of some misguided sense of linguistic conservatism, that is entirely on you.
Here is an informative, fair-minded blog post for more on the subject of gay reactions to the terminology. Spoiler alert: She ends on "This isn't really a big deal in the grand scheme, guys", so I think she does a good job of providing perspective while having some. (She also mentions that homosexuel is apparently an accepted term in French, which is just fine too.)
Have you established you even have social consensus?
Have I conducted a peer-reviewed double-blind study establishing this effect to a statistically significant degree? No. Have I informally observed an overwhelming consensus from the gay community that they would prefer "gay" over "homosexual"? Yes. And you are here complaining about this because you have observed it too.
So we're just going to ignore both the fact that the word's definition...
Again, begging the question. A word's definition is no more and no less than how people use it. If by "definition" you mean "the little paragraph you read in the dictionary", then guess what? Lexicographers write those by going out and seeing how people use the word.
...and the word's etymology have no link to anything offensive against black people...
We ignore a word's etymology here for the same reason we don't think, "Humans evolved from fish, therefore humans have no lungs." Tons of offensive words have non-offensive etymologies. And a fair number of non-offensive words have offensive etymologies. (If anyone complains to you about the verb "to gyp" coming from "gypsy", they're full of it because absolutely nobody uses or understands it that way anymore. This popular-usage argument cuts both ways.)
In this hypothetical, the context was as such. Just as when you say "homosexual" in an informal context, the context is such as to paint you as a Rush Limbaugh.
As I said, the intention is not immediately accessible. The purpose of language is to communicate intentions, so you want to pick the best word for the job. Don't use a word and then, when your listeners tell you it's communicating something you did not intend, complain about your listeners.
Now, as the conversation continues, you may make it clear that this is not where your intentions lie. You made a mistake; you used the wrong word to communicate what you were thinking. And because language is a two-way street, he also has some responsibility to be understanding of this sort of mix-up, especially in situations where the terminology is sort of fuzzy. I'm definitely not saying he has the right to just start tearing you a new one over your word choice. But at the same time, his initial interpretation of the term "homosexual" is reasonable, and it is predictable, which means that if you have been informed of these negative connotations surrounding the word, and you choose to use it anyway out of some misguided sense of linguistic conservatism, that is entirely on you.
Have I conducted a peer-reviewed double-blind study establishing this effect to a statistically significant degree? No. Have I informally observed an overwhelming consensus from the gay community that they would prefer "gay" over "homosexual"? Yes. And you are here complaining about this because you have observed it too.
I guess this is the part where we differ. Because I've actually encountered the exact opposite: the regarding of "homosexual" as a fundamentally neutral term. Obviously if someone is using it as a cowardly means of saying the word "*******" without actually saying it, then yes, it is offensive, but that is purely based on the context of a situation, and has no reflection of the word itself because, again, you could substitute that for any word and it would be just as offensive.
It is only here, now, that I'm learning about people actually taking offense to it just off-hand, not when it's used in a particular context. And that is, to me, bewildering.
the same way "thug" can be used against the African-American movement without being overtly racist (though, like thug, homosexual has appropriate uses).
Ok, that right there is outright bull*****.
If the people being referred to as "thugs" are behaving thugishly, then yes, the term "thug" is entirely appropriate, isn't it? And if you recognize that a significant percentage of the people who are causing violent crime in a city are black, then maybe it's a good time to rethink what sort of "African-American movement" you're pushing, isn't it?
Nope, sorry, you don't get to act like criminals, and then, when people say you're acting like criminals, claim it's because you're black, and then complain that people are portraying all black people as criminals. That's what you're doing. And frankly, if you want people to start thinking positively of you, maybe a good place to start would be learning how to protest without burning a city down.
The idea behind this is that "homosexual" is a clinical, and therefore medical, term. Calling someone "a homosexual" therefore puts their sexuality in a medical context, which is of course uncomfortable
If the issue is that using "homosexual" feels uncomfortable because it's a medical-sounding term, is "heterosexual" equally offensive?
Since the word is not used often I don't have a good sample size for this, so I will be speaking from personal experience only: As a heterosexual person, the term heterosexual makes me feel uncomfortable, I am not offended by it, but it is of putting to me. Unfortunately for me it is the term I would use when talking about my orientation since the other term I know "straight" conveys a sense that my orientation is right that I don't convey.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you knew anything about the lore you'd see that they were clearly hinting that the madness on Innistrad was caused by Uncle Istvan wearing Urza's Power Armor ... tainted with Phrexyian Oil"
Graham from Loading Ready Run
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was considering a comment about how polite the original complainants would be, were the boot shifted to the other foot, but then realised that this whole thing is blowing up, not out of the boot being shifted from one foot to another, but from motioning towards putting a metaphorical second boot on the other foot. Have I stretched that metaphor too far?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Because it is stupid and it has no negative connotation.
Yes, it's a technical term, and yes it's a bit clunky sounding. But it's not an offensive term, and should not be treated as such.
It goes back to the black individuals who complain about "black holes" (Note: not a euphemism or new slang term, but referring to the actual astronomical phenomenon of a collapsed star) being racist. Some complaints are just stupid, and should not be taken seriously. "Homosexual is offensive" is one such complaint.
Some people just love to be offended. Nothing is offensive about the term homosexual but it feels good to cry about imagined insults and labeling others prejudiced for having the audacity to speak normally and accurately. People that do this are probably beyond the sway of a reasoned argument--you can't convince a baby to stop being a baby--so it's probably best to just hand them a diaper and move on. The same goes for anyone offended by the term 'heterosexual.' Or 'tree,' or 'shoe,' or any other random word in the English language that isn't used in a derogatory way; and homosexual isn't.
Ironically, if a person is offended by the term homosexual, that person is the one doing the bashing. They find their own sexual preference offensive? How tragic.
I've met some gays that love to be offended, and I've met others that are the complete opposite and those ones wish that other gays would stop spending their days desperately trying to find situations to be offended, stop protesting everything, and stop waving their hands crying 'help help I'm a victim, I'm oppressed.'
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As I said before, yes, it sounds a bit clunky, but "sounds a bit clunky" does not equal "offensive." Yes, it sounds a bit technical, but "sounds a bit technical" does not equal "offensive."
Once again, I'm waiting for a logical reason why we should regard "homosexual" as offensive. I'm waiting for a rationale that actually connects the dots. Until someone provides it, I will freely reject what is freely offered.
You realize that during the Civil Rights Movement and continued to today that there's exclusive inclusivity within disaffected minority groups and you're just realizing that today? Meaning there are "black people" and the "rest" of "America." Such as young black people telling other young black people not to get an education otherwise "they'll be acting white." It's basically cliquish and a bad point at self-othering, it's why yuppy white girls get called "****" and other horrible names and then start cutting themselves and so forth when they're abused by other yuppy white girls.
The point is quite simple, certain people suck at confront resolution skills and gain narcissistic empowerment through nay-saying and name-calling.
Social media allows someone like myself to voice my own opinions, and the one I find the most annoying is the "older generation is wiser" whereas the "rising young ones are the devil." They go off to college, and some people do get stupid ideas lodged into their heads. Overtime through "the real world" they mature pretty quick if they're hardworking and smart and have a heart. I've seen generations come and go, and to be honest after talking with "old people" and working along side both old and young for a long time now. I can say that I hear that complaint a lot about generations, but at the end of the day most people get along in the real sense of the word.
It's up to us, the older generation, to not be so nit-picky always talking about personal responsibility and trying to thought police the young generation to "follow our mould in the wisest." We have to consider that FDR was wrong at some point and Ol' Ronny made some bone headed screw ups and then there's Clinton, yea, and the kids have their Obama. The kids aren't stupid, they have different ideas and some people at that age had some stupid ideas. I've taken the time to talk to different youngsters over the years that have very, very different policies about life than I do. And you know what? Taking some talk to them about their hopes and dreams, and what kind of education they want helps. Help them help themselves, point to books or programs or something that you know worked for you and other people.
It's not about saying "You need to do this."
It's better to sell something as "You know, this worked me and was recommended to me by an old boss" or something like that. That's how you need to engage these people, like "I'm here to talk if you want to talk, I disagree, oh here's something else to consider." That's how we "paid it forward," we have an obligation to look at our young people and talk to them like adults, even if they're only 10. There are bad and horrible things in the world, but giving them information and talking about the passion you do have for someone. You can engage in them better in the system we have, and frankly our system sucks because it is disintegrated. Hell, try getting a "good job" and what's required to do for one. It's like you spend years "training" meanwhile it would've been easier to just hire the damn person off the street and train them day one for some positions.
It's not that "big government" is the problem, it's our anti-social "you're on your own kiddo" approach to inculcating the next generation. And these "kids" find their own little social groups and become like Young Turks and seek to change the world. These people on tumblr scare me far less than Anonymous, because Anonymous actually made the news and did some bad things like steal money. And, ironically, we see very little of Anonymous these days.
Here's the thing, you're not going to get along with everyone. There's always going to be someone who you can take the time to be there for. It might be a stranger, it might be your wife or your dog. It means being that person to someone some of the time. I can't "influence America," but if I can influence *one person* that can influence another few people during their lifetime and instill into them some of the best that others instilled into me. I feel like I did something good for the next generation, and I use this word very little, but they're entitled for us "older people" to be there for them even when they're not there for us. A lot of them are smart, but they're dysfunctional and our culture isn't one that's very forgiving at times. But, it's when that one person that was there for you, that one friend or that parent or that one stranger that gave you twenty five cents so you could make that phone call that you remember all these years later.
That's what I'm talking about, that's our responsibility and that's we change "them." Many people I was close to are dead, and it's not my legacy, but there's that I do to others. I have to be there, to be one to make other people that seek to become better as better. I cannot stand when people belittle others with inexperience in the way of things, sure we can criticize that particular person. However, to criticize an entire generation that has yet to make a huge impact in the working world? Hyperbole with a black hole plothole. It us, the older generations, that lead the younger generations through our example and our legacy systems to ruin. That, Aldath, is what we must lament and seek to fix, so that others may exceed us to the stars.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
I agree with highroller. Any argument that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Asking him to prove a negative is silly and as I'm sure you know, if you're making the claim that the word homosexual is offensive, the burden of proof is on you, not him.
One thing I find interesting is when someone mentioned that gay people prefer to be referred to as 'gay' than homosexual. I have never heard, and likely never will hear, anyone use the word homosexual in a pejorative way but the word 'gay' is used in a derogatory fashion constantly. And yet, for whatever reason, saying gay is still okay. For the moment, anyway.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
When I tell someone I have a boyfriend, hearing "Oh, you're gay?" just sounds much better than "Oh, you're homosexual?"
I really don't know what to say @Highroller. By myself and plenty of others, "gay" is the preferred word when addressing or describing an individual. "Homosexual" just feels, well, dehumanizing I suppose. The world has often been used to make gay people feel like freaks, mistakes, or perverted abominations. And in my personal experience, it's a great way to say ******* while still claiming one isn't being offensive. "Gay" doesn't have the history that "homosexual" does, and this isn't about "reclaiming" a word or anything. It's just that at this time one word comes off as a bit nicer/more accepting than another.
The biggest thing I see is that saying "gay" isn't really much harder than "homosexual", so is it unreasonable to ask that you use the preferred word?
Modern - GB Elves, UW Ojutai Control
Legacy - BWG Junk Stoneblade
Gay and Proud
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
Which you're welcome to argue. But there are many who do not regard this term as offensive. Do you have a reason we should go by your opinion over theirs?
But that's just it: if people look down on you, any term used to talk about you will become derogatory. Replace homosexual with "gay" or "queer" in that case and the same result would occur. Case in point: the term "Jew" is neutral, but then there's the phrase, "Don't be such a Jew" that turns it into a derogatory statement.
I'm not sure what's not accepting about homosexual. We call it "homosexuality," don't we?
I think it's unreasonable to think that "homosexual" is offensive. And yeah, certain times homosexual is more useful.
Yes, there other words that are used both clinically and socially with no negative connotations, like "American". And yes, there are words that are sometimes used insultingly that the community nevertheless embraces, like "gay". In other news, the plural of "duck" is "ducks" but the plural of "goose" is "geese". Congratulations, you have discovered that natural language is inconsistent. If this truly irritates you, I can point you in the direction of Lojban. But the first thing that is hammered into your head in Linguistics 101 is that the discipline is descriptive, not prescriptive. It is our task to observe and describe how language is actually used, not to scoff at that usage as "stupid" and "irrational". As I am describing to you, and as you have clearly observed yourself, the word "homosexual" is, in fact, commonly interpreted as objectionable in a social context. Other words are not, but that word is. So please stop trying to wrap yourself in the mantle of open-minded scientific rationality. By dismissing the empirical evidence, you're doing exactly the opposite of that.
And no, it is not "their problem" that "they" are interpreting the term this way. Popular consensus is the only way that any word can have any meaning at all - it's the only reason why "redskin" is a slur. And communication is a two-way street: it is your responsibility to understand how the words you use will be understood precisely as much as it is your listener's responsibility to understand the words you're using. You may honestly use "homosexual" with no ill intent, but there are people out there who honestly use "redskin" with no ill intent: they are acting in ignorance, failing to live up to their side of the responsibility, and once they have been informed of the mistake they're making, their ignorance becomes willful.
How is this different from the morons who object to "black hole"? Because they're rare. You can use the term "black hole" a thousand times and the odds are that you will never run into such an objector. Use the term "homosexual" in a social context and you're fairly likely for someone to be like, "Hey, not cool." In short, the "black hole" crazies are swimming against the current of consensus. In this regard, they're not like the "homosexual" objectors - they're like you.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html
I don't understand why this has to be "scientific". If there is literally no effort in doing something differently, and it makes some people a bit more comfortable, is it that hard to do? Is it really worth fighting for the principal of something if there's nothing to be lost by saying "sure, I'll use a word people already use that's more comfortable for you" (as no new words are being invented and it's not far out of the way to just say gay).
And for the record, I 100% would rather have been called "gay" when people called me "homosexual". We all knew what they meant to say, and they picked the word for a reason. It had a negative association in those contexts, and that's why people said it.
Modern - GB Elves, UW Ojutai Control
Legacy - BWG Junk Stoneblade
Gay and Proud
#MakeAmericaGreatAgain
As for the sentence after that, you need to actually connect the dots. You're saying it's dehumanizing? Demonstrate this. Especially since you later undermine that very assertion in this very post.
I agree.
Except that's a blanket generalization. There are plenty of gay people who do not react negatively to homosexual. Moreover, you state later that just because something sounds clinical does not make it dehumanizing. So clearly, "Clinical, therefore dehumanizing" doesn't follow.
Which takes place here. So, right now your arguments have been:
1. Clinical, therefore problem, which you have now contradicted.
2. Majority of people think it's offensive, which you have yet to demonstrate.
It is amazing to me that you can make a paragraph saying what is essentially, "**** logic, there is no reason, you're just wrong," and then attack me for not being rational or open-minded.
Whoa, hold on there. Not all gay people find "homosexual" offensive. Don't deny the existence of said people and then portray me as the one who's being presumptuous.
I think it's pretty clear it's not popular consensus. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if an actual argument were provided that it is, in fact, popular consensus that might advance the discussion some?
Now you're contradicting yourself.
So is "redskin" a slur or isn't it? Is "homosexual" a slur or not a slur? Because if one is and the other isn't, you cannot affirm this and simultaneously say there's no meaningful distinction between the two, can you?
Even if you're going to go by claiming it's a numbers game, your argument still falls short, because you haven't demonstrated how rare or how commonplace such an opinion with regards to "homosexuality" is compared to the contrary.
Again, connecting the dots is necessary.
Except it wouldn't matter. Even if such objectors were commonplace, it would not make their arguments any less absurd. I'm not sure why I would need to even say this to a proponent of linguistics. You're now saying that if a bunch of people were to claim, erroneously, that despite the fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people but a neutral term regarding an astronomical body, that "black hole" is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?
There is the recognition that words have meanings which evolve over time, yes, but there is also the recognition that people are sometimes totally off-base about the meanings of words.
Should we then conclude that if the majority of people decide we're going to start calling black people "darkies" again and that's totally ok, that would make it ok?
That's not what I said. What I said was that some words are used clinically but do not carry a negative connotation. That is to say, they do not "sound clinical" when used in other contexts. "Homosexual", however, does.
You: I don't believe humans have ten fingers! There's no reason for it. If humans had ten fingers, why wouldn't all these other animals have ten fingers? The idea is just stupid!
Me: The evolutionary process is inconsistent. The same path taken by one species might not be taken by another. Our job as biologists is to describe what we see. If we rely on abstract generalizations and let that override what we see, we're not being good biologists. And when we look, we see that humans do have ten fingers.
You: That's not scientific at all!
Read the article SSJRanulf linked. The prof interviewed is kind of pompous, but when it gets into observed usage it's rather telling.
I explicitly said there are meaningful distinctions between the two - you seem to have read a negation somewhere into your first "gotcha" quote, but you'll find there isn't one. One distinction between the words is that "redskin" is a straight-up slur while "homosexual" is in this context-based grey zone. However, one trait the words do share - with each other and with every word whatsoever - is that their meaning is defined by social consensus. So if you think social consensus is no grounds to object to the use of "homosexual", then you yourself have no grounds to object to the use of "redskin".
First of all, please understand that when you come out with stuff like "I'm not sure why I would need to even say this to a proponent of linguistics", you are only embarrassing yourself. It's as if you're in a discussion of infectious diseases and you're scoffing at germ theory. What I have said and am about to say is absolutely 100% mainstream linguistics. I'll try to explain why, but it would help a lot if you first acknowledged that you are not an expert and may not know as much about the subject as you think you do.
Okay. Now, please notice that your question is riddled with assumptions: you say that these hypothetical people are "erroneous" and that it is a "fact that a black hole is not a derogatory slang term against black people". But this definition you are assuming as "fact" is precisely what we're trying to determine the truth of. Obviously, you can't do that. So let's cut those question-begging assumptions out to get a question we can actually answer: "Are you saying that if a bunch of people were to claim that 'black hole' is an offensive term against black people, that they're correct?" And yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. It sounds crazy to you because there aren't a bunch of people claiming that, and thus the few people who are claiming it aren't correct. It's a claim with a highly counterfactual premise, against which the intuitions can revolt. (Similarly, it may sound crazy, but nevertheless is true, that if James Holmes were elected President of the United States, he would be allowed to walk into the White House. Big freaking "if".)
Imagine we lived in a reversed world where "black hole" was commonly thought to be a racial slur and only a very few people used it for an astronomical phenomenon. It would sound just as crazy to reverse-you that if a bunch of people used the astronomical definition, that would make it correct. And a hyperintelligent alien who visited both our world and the reverse-world could not find a single criterion to declare one "correcter" than the other. (And then it visits France where they have different words for everything...) A definition if correct if and only if it lines up with general usage in the language-speaking community, and a definition is erroneous if and only if it contradicts general usage in the language-speaking community. There's simply no other way to do linguistics. So when you ask about a bunch of people who "erroneously" claim that a word means something, what you're actually saying to a linguist is that a bunch of people claim that a word means something, but actually, no, a bunch of people don't claim the word means that. It's oxymoronic.
So, yeah. The meaning of words is arbitrary. I already told you what the first lesson of Linguistics 101 is; this is the second. And I'm not exaggerating here - "descriptive not prescriptive" and "language is arbitrary" were literally the first two things my prof wrote on the board on day one.
If the majority of people includes the people being addressed as such (because remember, communication is a two-way street), then yes, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Our culture already made pretty much exactly this decision with "negro" and then again with "black".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To be fair, we do only currently have a sample size of one, which is a poor sample size of anything.
Also, if someone wants to say "Homosexual was only used because they couldn't say *******", then you could argue that people only call someone "African American" because they wanted to say "N***er". It would all depend on the tone/ignorance of the person who was saying it.
I'm sorry that this happened to you, but I feel it is relevant to this topic to ask: had those people called you "gay" or "queer" would there have been any improvement?
Since this is a matter where you have asked others to cite their sources, could you please give examples of gay people who do not regard this term as offensive?
The issue with this argument is that being derogatory is not a simple on and off switch but rather a scale. For example if someone who is against Germans calls me a German, then that would be derogatory but if the same person calls me a Nazi that would be worse, since that is a worse word to use. So the only way for the words to have the same affect is for homosexual to not be an offensive term, which would be a circular argument.
Graham from Loading Ready Run
Fun fact, I've been raised in a Jewish family and everyone I know uses the term "Jews" and "Jew" all the time. I only just found out two months ago that apparently we consider the term "Jew" to be derogatory when other people use it.
There should be pamphlets for these things.
It's often better to treat these things on a person by person basis, apologize if you accidentally offend someone and then use their preferred term with them from then on.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
And if we're going by context, then I would argue that any word ever could be considered offensive. Which seems to be your point as well. Which is fine, but that does not point to "Why should we consider homosexual to be offensive?" At least not in situations where it's not intended as such.
Basically, if we both agree that "homosexual" isn't a slur, and we both agree that its offensiveness is inherently context based, and we both agree if any word can be turned into a derogatory statement based on context, then where, precisely, are we disagreeing?
Have you established you even have social consensus?
So we're just going to ignore both the fact that the word's definition and the word's etymology have no link to anything offensive against black people, AND that the context was not as such, AND that the intention is not as such?
I know, right?
I heard some people in a conversation say that they heard the word "Asian" was offensive because they'd heard a group of Korean people say that they didn't want to be called Asian, they wanted to be called Korean.
Now, I'm Korean, and to me that is absolutely baffling.
Let's not generalize "tumblr" when it comes to this. Tumblr is a vast and varied place. There are some kids, some older people, a lot of porn, a lot of fandom stuff and gifs, and actually a pretty big neo nazi community. And a lot of the stuff you'd see sometimes is actually anti feminist troll blogs. So there's a lot of different opinions.
I wouldn't say heterophobia is an issue deserving of more than passing attention.
Yes, there are a few people who are "bigoted" against straights, discount their views, are uninterested in them as people, etc etc. These people are especially loud and popular on new-left websites like tumblr, SA, and deviantart. I guess in a strict sense this means that heterophobia (and "cisphobia") are real things. It's important to acknowledge that they do exist, because the position that there is no discrimination against straights is easily disproven by linking to some rando's blog.
However, that doesn't mean that heterophobia is a real problem. People make sweeping generalizations all the time, and The tumblr-bloggers are just as easily ignored as radical nazi blogs or redpillers. You also have to remember that queer culture nowadays is spearheaded by teenagers, and us teenagers are loud, impulsive, and generally less interested in reasoned debate and more interested in whatever gets you more retweets.
RE: "Homosexual" as an offensive term.
The idea behind this is that "homosexual" is a clinical, and therefore medical, term. Calling someone "a homosexual" therefore puts their sexuality in a medical context, which is of course uncomfortable. Queerness, in my opinion, needs to be normalized and integrated into everyday language if it is to be accepted by mainstream culture. This is the same reason why pro-gay activists push for more representation in TV shows and video games - exposure leads to normalization. The term is uncomfortable and is easily (mis)construed as hostile. Furthermore, integration of "gay" into everyday language will hopefully deter its use as a pejorative adjective ("that's so gay").
SSJRanulf mentioned that he felt when people refer to him as "homosexual," he felt dehumanized. I have to say that I agree - I'm bisexual, but that label to me feels impersonal and awkward. It's no surprise that conservative Christians have shifted what was once called the gay agenda to the ~*~homosexual agenda~*~ - same reason as what was once called "the prison lobby" is now called the It feels like a substitute for a slur, the same way "thug" can be used against the African-American movement without being overtly racist (though, like thug, homosexual has appropriate uses). It doesn't really bother me personally, but I can understand why someone would ask that you referred to them as gay or whatever their preferred word.
Regardless as to whether or not straight people feel that their use of "heterosexual" is appropriate, the fact remains that it will be interpreted as anywhere from uncomfortable to hostile by some. If a word is interpreted as offensive by many, and there exists a suitable replacement for a word, why is it so difficult to simply use the replacement? Why is this even an issue?
Jarad Graveyard Combo[Primer]!
Sidisi ANT!
Playing Commander to Win - A guide on Competitive, 4-player EDH
LandDestruction.com - An EDH blog
If the issue is that using "homosexual" feels uncomfortable because it's a medical-sounding term, is "heterosexual" equally offensive?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Considering I've gotten in face-to-face debates with Tumblr lovers who tried to argue that Patriarchy crap, not to mention that "Women are right to treat every man like a rapist in waiting", yeah no. Not going to fly.
Now, as the conversation continues, you may make it clear that this is not where your intentions lie. You made a mistake; you used the wrong word to communicate what you were thinking. And because language is a two-way street, he also has some responsibility to be understanding of this sort of mix-up, especially in situations where the terminology is sort of fuzzy. I'm definitely not saying he has the right to just start tearing you a new one over your word choice. But at the same time, his initial interpretation of the term "homosexual" is reasonable, and it is predictable, which means that if you have been informed of these negative connotations surrounding the word, and you choose to use it anyway out of some misguided sense of linguistic conservatism, that is entirely on you.
Here is an informative, fair-minded blog post for more on the subject of gay reactions to the terminology. Spoiler alert: She ends on "This isn't really a big deal in the grand scheme, guys", so I think she does a good job of providing perspective while having some. (She also mentions that homosexuel is apparently an accepted term in French, which is just fine too.)
Have I conducted a peer-reviewed double-blind study establishing this effect to a statistically significant degree? No. Have I informally observed an overwhelming consensus from the gay community that they would prefer "gay" over "homosexual"? Yes. And you are here complaining about this because you have observed it too.
Again, begging the question. A word's definition is no more and no less than how people use it. If by "definition" you mean "the little paragraph you read in the dictionary", then guess what? Lexicographers write those by going out and seeing how people use the word.
We ignore a word's etymology here for the same reason we don't think, "Humans evolved from fish, therefore humans have no lungs." Tons of offensive words have non-offensive etymologies. And a fair number of non-offensive words have offensive etymologies. (If anyone complains to you about the verb "to gyp" coming from "gypsy", they're full of it because absolutely nobody uses or understands it that way anymore. This popular-usage argument cuts both ways.)
In this hypothetical, the context was as such. Just as when you say "homosexual" in an informal context, the context is such as to paint you as a Rush Limbaugh.
As I said, the intention is not immediately accessible. The purpose of language is to communicate intentions, so you want to pick the best word for the job. Don't use a word and then, when your listeners tell you it's communicating something you did not intend, complain about your listeners.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I guess this is the part where we differ. Because I've actually encountered the exact opposite: the regarding of "homosexual" as a fundamentally neutral term. Obviously if someone is using it as a cowardly means of saying the word "*******" without actually saying it, then yes, it is offensive, but that is purely based on the context of a situation, and has no reflection of the word itself because, again, you could substitute that for any word and it would be just as offensive.
It is only here, now, that I'm learning about people actually taking offense to it just off-hand, not when it's used in a particular context. And that is, to me, bewildering.
Ok, that right there is outright bull*****.
If the people being referred to as "thugs" are behaving thugishly, then yes, the term "thug" is entirely appropriate, isn't it? And if you recognize that a significant percentage of the people who are causing violent crime in a city are black, then maybe it's a good time to rethink what sort of "African-American movement" you're pushing, isn't it?
Nope, sorry, you don't get to act like criminals, and then, when people say you're acting like criminals, claim it's because you're black, and then complain that people are portraying all black people as criminals. That's what you're doing. And frankly, if you want people to start thinking positively of you, maybe a good place to start would be learning how to protest without burning a city down.
Since the word is not used often I don't have a good sample size for this, so I will be speaking from personal experience only: As a heterosexual person, the term heterosexual makes me feel uncomfortable, I am not offended by it, but it is of putting to me. Unfortunately for me it is the term I would use when talking about my orientation since the other term I know "straight" conveys a sense that my orientation is right that I don't convey.
Graham from Loading Ready Run