Jump to content
NEurope
Daft

Nohomophobes

Recommended Posts

I think the word 'faggot' is very American. I can't remember ever hearing it anywhere other than Xbox Live.

'No homo' - no idea what that even means unless it's used in the context 'No homos allowed' or something like that.

'dyke' - That's pretty common up in Scotland, it's not really said as an offensive word though. Similar to how we use the word 'cunt'. It just slips into everyday conversation. "He's a good cunt". "Oh ya absolute cunt!" No harm intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the word 'faggot' is very American. I can't remember ever hearing it anywhere other than Xbox Live.

'No homo' - no idea what that even means unless it's used in the context 'No homos allowed' or something like that.

'dyke' - That's pretty common up in Scotland, it's not really said as an offensive word though. Similar to how we use the word 'cunt'. It just slips into everyday conversation. "He's a good cunt". "Oh ya absolute cunt!" No harm intended.

 

I find this offensive to my vagina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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'.

 

Personally I like to put on some reggae, paint my nails and get a bit emotional but hey... nowoman, nocry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a customer at work yesterday who had sent in a deed poll to change her surname from "Dyke".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never actually heard someone say no homo. I also agree with Charlie, the word faggot is very rare here, or at least around the people I know. The word nigger is used sometimes as a sudden and harsh turn to a joke. "You're a nigger, Harry". But the word gay is very common. That is my summation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first time and only time ive ever heard "no homo", was on a youtube prank video (could have been romanatwood or thanosfilms i forrget) where he'd go out and to men say things of a falattering nature, like an old bloke he said you but looks good in those jeans, when he reacted he held up his hands and said no homo just saying.

i didnt quite get the meaning, was he saying it as if he were exclaming there was no homosexual intent on his behalf? or was as NO, homo! answering the reacting person if they were making an advance on him?

 

i just thought it was humourous at the time, and now i have absolutely no idea what to make of it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fagoot was an insult long before it was homophobic. It just meant a bit of a waster. It's used in Fairytale of New York, "You scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot". She's not calling him gay, she just got out of a relationship with him, she's calling him a scumbag, a maggot, a faggot. So any faggots that get offended by me using the word can go fuck themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word 'gay' ideally would never have developed into what it has, it shouldn't have ever evoked negative images - there's just no benefit in it having negative connotations when something serious actually rides on it. Use another word, surely? I'm perturbed most when I see it employed in that derogatory manner by a child or an adolescent, because it halts change, doesn't it? As long as it still carries a negative meaning amongst the young, progress and tolerance for gay people is adversely affected - it's de-accelerated, delayed, or prevented, all of which aren't acceptable, especially because the eradication of this secondary meaning would damage nothing or nobody. One day I hope the act of 'coming out' isn't a thing anymore, I hope gay people sweat less about mentioning their sexuality than when they do their dietary preference. I hope they get the rights they deserve, and I hope there'll be no vicious stigmas in the future. But as long as these terms are used, these goals are only impinged. And any justifications I see for them are simply not strong enough.

 

At a stretch, use these terms amongst your friends if they're comfortable with them, but don't use them publicly.

 

As for the 'no-homo' thing, and it being fine because 'no-hetero' wouldn't be offensive to heterosexuals, that is garbage. Stewart Lee phrases it well when he says that 'all pressure should be applied upwards, not down'. Respect the minorities.

Edited by dwarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

I find your viewpoint disgraceful frankly, I can't quite believe I'm reading it.

 

How about instead of 'not meaning to be insulting to gays' by using the term faggot, you try 'not being insulting to black people' and use the word nigger. See how you get on then.

 

Very easy to say 'oh well I don't mean to be insulting', when you're sat on the other side of the fence. Maybe time to grow up and not use offensive language, regardless of your intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

 

While I agree with what you just said, I feel like your first sentence needs a little more probing. Not to sound redundant, but words like that are only marginalizing if the audience exposed to it believes it to be, so technically there are instances where using such words in an "agreed" context between two parties can do no harm. I understand your point pretty much revolved around this and how such words are shielded from the public's ears, but because the way you framed their marginalizational effect as inescapable I feel like we're going into a different field. How exactly does a using a controversial word or phrase in an "acceptable" context between two parties normalize its previous, "degrading" connotations? I'm not drawing any conclusions based on what you said, but I think these words can only have such transitive properties if the people using them made clear what they were used as in an earlier context, such as using them as genuine insults to homosexuals/people of African descent. Slurs may have new meanings as language evolves, but that doesn't mean that their previous definitions are so strongly binded to their history that they will never go away. It's a very difficult possibility, but not downright impossible.

 

Comedian Louie CK for instance used to sling the word "faggot" around without understanding its true origins. Theoretically speaking, if more cases like him were around, the word would have a considerably higher tolerance within the public.

 

 

Penn and Teller did this amazing segment on profanity; centering the whole thing around how they almost called their show "humbug" instead of "Bullshit!" During the 19th century, humbug was the modern equivalent of the word bullshit. It wasn't a nice thing to say nor was it a nice thing to call someone, but it was an effective word in expressing disbelief because it was shocking. Today, the word barely has any cultural significance because it has lost its appeal through time and no longer reflects the way people speak. In some instances, people have even used it as a more polite way of saying bullshit. Obviously the word doesn't share the inflammatory history of 'nigger' and 'faggot,' but it just goes to show that if you give it enough time, a word can evolve or just outright disappear. What I'm saying is, words like those will always have controversial values if the people hearing them consider them to have such values, and if we can change the way they think about those words, then we can change the way they're interpreted--even if they have a dark history behind them.

 

"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.

 

That reminds me. This past Halloween, I wanted to dress up as the online alias I've been using on Steam for the past year: "Sexy Hitler". It wasn't "sexy" in the contemporary sense of slutty Halloween costumes so much as it was a black shirt with rolled-up sleeves, a visible black tank top underneath, a fake mustache, and a red armband prominently displaying a swastika. I've received a few reactionary objections to dressing like this, the reasons of which ranged from "glorifying racism" to "commemorating the needless deaths of millions." All from wearing a costume for Halloween. Bear in mind that this isn't a costume being worn prominently in some central European town, this was for a party in some dude's backyard, in a country that is majorly anti-Semitic and still believes it won the Yom Kippur War of 1973. There is hardly anyone here who can see it and become offended by it (some would actually commend it, but for the wrong reasons). In this instance, would wearing the costume still have been considered something done in bad taste? Had I walked around the street wearing it I don't think it even would have "encouraged" or "helped develop more anti-Semitic sentiments" because whether or not these people saw it their feelings against the Jews and the state of Israel would have remained unchanged. Moreover, the guilt over allowing the Holocaust to happen is something that is beyond my time and control. I do not feel guilty for something that others have done elsewhere as I am distanced from it by generations. It is theirs to bear.

 

As a vehicle of expression, my costume, like profane words, was neutral. It is only anti-Semitic and racist if some viewers project it to be so. Their sense of political correctness has neutered the richness of language and expression; the byproduct of which has created a hyper-sensitive society incapable of laughing things off due to some superstitious, self-imposed tension. It has blinded them from seeing that the very attempt to not offend someone actually makes people pay more attention to things such as sex, race, and physical appearance and ignores what makes the person standing in front of them an individual.

 

Symbols like the swastika have power over us because we allow them to. In granting that symbol power, you also grant those who bear that symbol power. By reducing that symbol, through lampooning for example, you reduce its power and commensurately, reduce any power those who bear that symbol have. Without our fear or hate to grant power to that symbol it becomes meaningless. This does not mean we have to forget that some people committed atrocity against other people--but we diminish their power over us to further commit atrocity. Uniforms and symbols do not harm people. People harm people. And without their 'symbol', their effect on people is reduced. And I believe this ties in directly with using words like faggot and nigger in new, different contexts.

 

 

I had a similar discussion recently that involved "rape culture," and how "rape jokes" (like that Bro rape video I posted) and simply using the word "rape" in a different context outside sexual assault makes people complacent to the crime. Their argument was that if you say those things long enough, people will come to think of rape as something normal or even funny, but even with all I just said I fail to see any sort of evidence to support the flow of logic of such statements. One even went so much to say that one shouldn't joke about rape because a potential rapist might hear it and think his desires for forceful sex are hilarious and acceptable. Rapists know they're hurting people. Hurting people IS part of the point. The idea that rapists are just "normal" people who are simply misled by fiction makes me want to puke.

 

How about instead of 'not meaning to be insulting to gays' by using the term faggot, you try 'not being insulting to black people' and use the word nigger. See how you get on then.

 

Is it ever right to denounce a word being used in a certain context simply because it has controversial origins? I don't think "freedom" and "freedom of expression" are the same thing, but I believe society needs a lot of desensitizing. Sure, people in societies with free speech can still say such things, but they have to say them with responsibility. And it's bound to be a sad state of affairs if you have to change the way you express yourself in order not to step on anyone's emotional toes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Carlin is a self-righteous, pretentious prick who spouts common sense as if it's revolutionary thinking, and morons lap it up and hail as their figurehead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we considered the words like mong, retarded, spastic etc? Admittedly I don't know if mong has any legitimate non-derogatory root(I question its original termage), but I bring it up as Ricky Gervais made a point about it before, in that it doesn't mean what it once did etc. While we're also at it, what about terms like crazy, mental etc?

Edited by Rummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish gays would stop trying to steal all of these words for their own. Language evolves. Why can't I call somebody a faggot or a poof? I've never used either of those words to describe a gay man (unless they were being a faggot or a poof). Claiming that the insult is within the roots of the word is completely idiotic, considering "gay" used to mean happy, ad had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish gays would stop trying to steal all of these words for their own. Language evolves. Why can't I call somebody a faggot or a poof? I've never used either of those words to describe a gay man (unless they were being a faggot or a poof). Claiming that the insult is within the roots of the word is completely idiotic, considering "gay" used to mean happy, ad had nothing to do with homosexuality.

 

That's a good point. The word gay existed for another purpose, and evolved into meaning homosexuality - why can't it evolve out?

 

EDIT: Actually, I can see why evolving out can kinda be different; it's a negative rather than positive - but still I see no reason why it shouldn't. I also add lame to the previous list; wasn't it originally used to refer to the physically disabled?

Edited by Rummy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
George Carlin is a self-righteous, pretentious prick who spouts common sense as if it's revolutionary thinking, and morons lap it up and hail as their figurehead.

 

Common sense isn't so common, at least that's the case where I'm from.

 

Carlin never said anything we haven't thought of before. It was just the way he said them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't make me put my penis in you.

 

On me, ok. In me?

 

Also ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I'm with bard - when you can gaurentee people understand your intent there isn't going to be the same problem with offence.

 

The normalization of this kind of stuff gets tricky in the fact that it lets backwards ideas hide in plain sight. One person uses it in the "new sense and the other still connects the reason for being bad to its original meaning.

 

Also topic threads are awesome and inspire conversation, mega threads are gay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think people are trying to be way too careful nowaday. I actually showed my best mate this (he is gay) and he said that people are trying to be way too PC. He says things are gay all of the time. I'm not even going to lie, I do it too and I don't think people should be offended by it because everybody knows it's not meant as a malicious attack towards gay people. Don't get me wrong, the last thing I'd want to do is offend people and I wouldn't go up to them and start saying they're disgusting or whatever but there's going to come a time when everybody's going to get offended by everything. Me and my best friend joke all of the time. He calls me a fat bastard and I call him a homo and we laugh about it. Why not make fun of what we are? Yes, I'm fat and yes, he's gay but people get way too uptight about trying to offend people. Like when someone says something stupid and you point it out, they reply "Oh, so now you're calling me stupid?!"...no, I'm saying that the statement you just came out with is stupid, I didn't call YOU stupid. Or when people whisper someone's race like it's racist. It's the person's race, how would they get offended? I wouldn't get offended. People often get my race wrong but I don't say "Oh, that hurt my feelings!", I just correct them and move on.

 

I agree with what some of the people on here have said, you can have a joke with your friends and family if they understand your intent and know they don't mean it offensively. Gay used to mean happy and now it means liking the same sex. I can kind of see how people could get offended but I think those who do might need to look at the situation because if they get offended by something like that, they must be extremely sensitive people and may as well not face the world. If I went up to them and was saying "YOU'RE GAY! EURGH!" or something, fair enough, but if I was saying "Ah, that film is gay" and they were crying about it, I'd wonder what planet he's from.

 

This isn't me trying to be offensive or anything but just what I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×