Nohomophobes

[Daft]

www.nohomophobes.com

Edited March 1, 2013 by Daft

[Rummy]

This won't load properly at work, so I'm not sure what it is. Looks pretty gay though.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Doesn't seem to be working properly for me, either.

[Daft]

I think I broke it...

[Debug Mode]

I can see where they're coming from, but I do believe more in the fact that pretty much most words are harmless and should only be classified as discriminatory if there is intent.

 

South Park did a pretty good episode about this, with the kids using the word "faggots" to describe Harley riders. The way language works in our society changes very quickly in modern times thanks to the fact that we're able to connect and communicate to many more people than we were just a short while ago. You could say it's evolving, but I think most of us know with languages such as English, it seems to be devolving.

 

Homophobia sucks ass, but I don't get why the focus should be on what essentially is a combination of sounds rather than tackling completely ridiculous beliefs regarding homosexuals.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Seems to be working now.

 

---

 

I'm with Debug. People focus too much on words rather than intent.

[Daft]

Why use those words at all then?

[Debug Mode]

Why use those words at all then?

 

..Why not? Every word has its origin, surely changing its usage from discriminating against some one into something that can applied to any one is more beneficial than just covering our mouths and thinking "Oh no, I might hurt some ones feelings!".

 

What seems more harmful to me is blocking out all the things we don't like in hopes to forget all about them, despite the fact that as long as they're used and we've moved past what they were originally intended for, offers some valuable history on the subject and how archaic our society back then appears in comparison to now.

 

Fair play to people who don't want to use them, it's a choice for every one to make for themselves. I'm still going to call my friends faggots when the word "idiot" doesn't seem strong enough for the situation.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Debug Mode

[Zell]

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't realise saying "no homo" was homophobic. I mean, where is the homophobic malice in that? If a gay person was to say "no hetero", is that heterophobic?

 

I agree with Debug Mode in that we need to look at the underlying causes of why people are homophobic and not just call people out for using certain words. Personally I'm puzzled by the idea of swear words or the fact that any word is offensive in and of itself. To be offensive there needs to be some kind of context.

[Debug Mode]

To be offensive there needs to be some kind of context.

 

Exactly.

 

It kind of scares me how people are dealing with language these days, what happens when we've reached a point that's supposedly "satisfactory"? Do we start building the foundations for thought crime?

[Daft]

They are offensive because these words have a social context.

 

The real damage comes from people thinking there is no harm in using these words, when there is. People are offended. A minority is offended or at the very least linked to derogation.

[Debug Mode]

And it's a shame they feel that way, because hardly any one uses words such as "faggot" as a means to insult homosexuality. But I'm also offended that I'm being implied to be homophobic purely for using a combination of sounds in a manner that's been common place for years.

 

This idea just seems to be fighting the easy fight rather than tackling discrimination. Why not focus on actual cases of discrimination like employers who still ask for ridiculous shit like sexuality on their application forms rather than trying to guilt your average guy into thinking his choice of words for certain friends might indirectly offend some one else, when they're not using it in a discriminatory context?

 

Pick a worthy battle to fight and I'll support it. Words have changed in meaning and severity before, and these words are following the same pattern.

[Magnus]

 

Searching Twitter for 'not homophobic but' is funnier.

[Debug Mode]

 

Searching Twitter for 'not homophobic but' is funnier.

 

Holy shit, there is actually a gold mine here

[Daft]

And it's a shame they feel that way, because hardly any one uses words such as "faggot" as a means to insult homosexuality. But I'm also offended that I'm being implied to be homophobic purely for using a combination of sounds in a manner that's been common place for years.

 

This idea just seems to be fighting the easy fight rather than tackling discrimination. Why not focus on actual cases of discrimination like employers who still ask for ridiculous shit like sexuality on their application forms rather than trying to guilt your average guy into thinking his choice of words for certain friends might indirectly offend some one else, when they're not using it in a discriminatory context?

 

Pick a worthy battle to fight and I'll support it. Words have changed in meaning and severity before, and these words are following the same pattern.

 

Because it's the naturalisation of these words that legitimises this structural violence. I think you've got it backward, why look at it on a case by case basis rather than tackling the whole discourse of heteronormativity.

 

I use to use the word 'gay' as a derogative all the time but some of my best friends are gay now, and you would think it were alright to apply a term that they use as an identity - a defining aspect of their self - to something I thought was bad or lame or negative? Seriously?

 

Is it okay to call some a Jew for being stingy? Even if you think that's okay, why is it that there are so many 'homophobic' terms tossed about casually? Dyke, faggot, queer, no homo, gay. There's clearly an unbalance there stemming from an almost militantly heteronormative society.

 

Have you ever been the victim of homophobia?

[Dog-amoto]

Maybe people just like these a lot?

 

 

Edited March 1, 2013 by Dog-amoto

[Debug Mode]

Because it's the naturalisation of these words that legitimises this structural violence. I think you've got it backward, why look at it on a case by case basis rather than tackling the whole discourse of heteronormativity.

 

It legitimises the structural violence? Can't say I agree with that at all, words can be hurtful, that much I recognise, but I fail to see how the transition of definition legitimises any discrimination.

 

I use to use the word 'gay' as a derogative all the time but some of my best friends are gay now, and you would think it were alright to apply a term that they use as an identity - a defining aspect of their self - to something I thought was bad or lame or negative? Seriously?

 

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Is the concept of multiple definitions completely lost on you? You've matured, and your usage and intended meaning of words has changed as it has for a lot of society. Should I refrain from saying that a gay person is 'gay' in the happy sense, just in case their emotional state is actually the polar opposite? A pretty terrible comparison admittedly..

 

Is it okay to call some a Jew for being stingy? Even if you think that's okay, why is it that there are so many 'homophobic' terms tossed about casually? Dyke, faggot, queer, no homo, gay. There's clearly an unbalance there stemming from an almost militantly heteronormative society.

 

Still finding it rather amusing that "no homo" is still being classified as homophobic, but continuing onwards. Why is the amount of words the problem? Nothing's balanced in the English language. There's so many of these words thanks to all the different cultures from regions who still felt homosexuality was something wrong and from basic linguistic evolution to find a new word to renew the "punch" that have been lost by some words as they mature in definition. It's the same pattern as curse words, the curse words of years ago are now common place today. Should we stop using the word "bitch" as it's discriminatory towards women? How about the word "bastard", because some people born into families with unmarried parents may find offence?

 

Have you ever been the victim of homophobia?

 

I see how you might think this is relevant, but no, because I'm not homosexual. But just like most people in society, I have plenty of homosexual friends, many of which I've grown up with and came out during out friendship and I recognise all the pain they have grown through. They also seem to recognise the concept of context by some miracle, and use the same words that were once used to discriminate against them.

[Daft]

It legitimises the structural violence? Can't say I agree with that at all, words can be hurtful, that much I recognise, but I fail to see how the transition of definition legitimises any discrimination.

 

Do you understand what structural violence is? Apparently I don't, my bad. I meant cultural violence.

 

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Is the concept of multiple definitions completely lost on you? You've matured, and your usage and intended meaning of words has changed as it has for a lot of society. Should I refrain from saying that a gay person is 'gay' in the happy sense, just in case their emotional state is actually the polar opposite? A pretty terrible comparison admittedly..

 

No, this is exactly the point I am making. Using the term 'gay' may seem okay to some people but to someone who identifies themselves as such, how could you not take offense?

 

 

Should we stop using the word "bitch" as it's discriminatory towards women? How about the word "bastard", because some people born into families with unmarried parents may find offence?

 

Wait, hold on, do people define themselves as a 'bitch'? Is there 'bitch' culture? Is a woman born a 'bitch'? Does the term 'bitch' appear on any official forms?

 

I'm not here to change your mind so I'm not going to argue against you. I just wanted to see what people thought. Unsurprisingly I'm not surprised by any of this.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Daft

[Ashley]

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't realise saying "no homo" was homophobic. I mean, where is the homophobic malice in that? If a gay person was to say "no hetero", is that heterophobic?

 

The implication is that being "homo" is something you wouldn't want to be.

[The Peeps]

But not everyone wants to be homo... there's certainly a variation with that particular phrase. Is it offensive if you don't want to be gay? I don't want to be gay but that shouldn't offend people who are gay. I also don't want to be a fisherman.

 

I'm agreeing more with Daft in this whole discussion. Gay is more than slang, it's an official word and a whole culture of people define themselves with it. Yes there's 'new' meaning to the word which people now see as meaning lame or whatever... but put yourselves in their shoes. If you are a gay person and you hear someone saying something is gay because it's broken or they just don't like it, how could you not be offended by that?

 

I very much agree that context is everything when it comes to offending someone but some words are just inherently offensive whether you mean them to be or not. I don't like the idea of there being words you're not allowed to say but what if (mega stretch hypothetical here) an alien race came to Earth and they used the word 'human' but for them it meant something negative. They would be referring to horrible things as being 'human', would you not be offended just because you would naturally make the connection in your own mind, even if you knew they weren't intentionally causing offense?

[Diageo]

I know that while I wasn't out, whenever someone used the word 'gay' to mean something negative it would make me less likely to come out to them. While I knew or at least suspected that they weren't homophobic, it didn't help things.

 

Also, no homo implies that being 'homo' is a bad thing. As if saying something that sounds gay may make people think you are gay and that is so terrible you must correct them immediately. You don't say something selfish and then go 'noselfish', or say something girly and say 'nowoman'.

[Rummy]

Personally I really love using the word gay.

 

(no homo)

 

 

I jest. Much illustrating the points. I don't actually use faggot, or dyke, or in fact no homo. I use gay quite liberally as it's now became a synonym for lame/rubbish but they're gay words to use so I don't. What about gay people who use gay in the same sense? Or is this like the good ol' n bomb? I think 'no homo' is somewhat born out of the use of gay so liberally though.

 

'I really like his hair'

'Ha, GAAAAAAAAY'

 

Insert no homo as pre-emptive to the 'ha gay' response etc.

 

 

I'm not really saying that any of this is ok though.

[bob]

I know that while I wasn't out, whenever someone used the word 'gay' to mean something negative it would make me less likely to come out to them. While I knew or at least suspected that they weren't homophobic, it didn't help things.

 

Also, no homo implies that being 'homo' is a bad thing. As if saying something that sounds gay may make people think you are gay and that is so terrible you must correct them immediately. You don't say something selfish and then go 'noselfish', or say something girly and say 'nowoman'.

 

I think I caught a noselfish once. Nofisherman.

 

Oh man now I've offended loads of fisherman by implying that i don't want to be one...

[CooInTheZoo]

I would hope that, despite language being ridiculous, if you know a word may offend someone you would choose not to use it. Having some sensitivity for other peoples feelings should be a priority, surely? Bandying around words which you know have negative meanings attached to them doesn't make you a hero, it makes you kinda rude. That's my opinion as a gay man who has been made to feel uncomfortable by straight friends throwing the f-bomb around.

[The Bard]

To use a word like Faggot or Nigger (for example), in ANY sort of pejorative or stereotypical context is to marginalise the people it was originally used for. These words are incendiary and are emblematic of hundreds of years of social ostracisation. Sometimes my friends and I refer to each other by way of racial epithets that are traditionally used in a negative context, but we do this in the way of a sort of inside joke; by using them as terms of endearment we're consciously inverting their cultural context - but you can't expect any given person you speak to, to be intimately aware of the manner of your speaking. Language is a negotiation between two speaking parties, and outside of the context of close friendship you have to be aware of the myriad connotations any given word is invested with.

 

Combinations of words, clauses, idiosyncratic and novel uses of language to give new inflections to certain words is how language works, sure - many theorists like Bakhtin argue that this heteroglossia in language is actually what gives certain artistic media such as the novel their artistic qualities. But any given contextualisation of these hate terms is always going to be so saturated with the history of their use that by using them in an open social environment, what you're really doing is normalising their incorporation - with all their connotations - into a day to day lexicon.

 

"Language is not an abstract system of nominative forms," any given word is shaped by it's social use, and the historical social uses of these words has been entirely to marginalise a large group of people.

 

At the same time, I'm not aware of "No homo" ever having been used in any context other than an amusing deflection of the idea of your prior statement being sexually charged in any way.