teleen_fiction | Words Have Meanings: First, Do No Harm

Current Mood: contemplative

Words Have Meanings: First, Do No Harm

Inspired by more than one comment on the post that this post links to, I'm finally going to weigh in on the whole anti-PC, thought-police, this-word-has-another-meaning-and-no-one-can-own-a-word, I-don't have-to-change-simply-because-you're-offended school of thought.

I'm going to begin by saying that I'm guilty of using pretty much every word that is at issue at one point or another, some as recently as last year, so I'm not saying that I'm not in a glass house here.

However.

For those who are against changing their language to remove certain words from their vocabularies because another person is offended by it, I ask the following question:

Who does it hurt?

Seriously, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words that others have found offensive? I know that it's an effort to do so, so I guess someone could argue that it's hurting them by virtue of the fact that changing one's vocabulary and deleting certain words is hella difficult... Well, I have to say that it's more difficult in the offline world, but online? It's as easy as being careful of what one types. I realize that for some, who type as quickly as they think, that could be a challenge, but seriously? Who does it hurt? Why is it such a big deal to just not be an asshat when someone asks you to do so?

Since I'm guilty of being that asshat, I'm going to say for me it was a combination of laziness, privilege and the fact that yeah, it's hard to change how one looks at the world. I still find myself thinking, "GAY! or "LAME!" in response to negative things I see on TV, but I've been making a conscious effort to replace both words with "WEAK!" in my internal monologue and I catch myself before speaking them out loud because I want to have a less hurtful vocabulary. Also, despite my knowing on an intellectual level that those words are not okay to use, they're deeply embedded in my psyche because they've been programmed in from a variety of different sources.

Some words are easier not to use than others, but again, all of them can be eliminated from online conversation with almost no effort at all. All it takes is a willingness to actually read over one's comment and/or post before hitting the 'post' button. It's really that simple. That, and having a mental list of words that are no longer okay to use, regardless of their original meaning. Finding out which words aren't okay is as simple as lurking for a while in a so-called 'drama' community and listening to those who speak about it there.

In no particular order, the words I feel that everyone should be eliminating from their vocabularies (and the reasons why, for those who have questions) are:

Pussy to refer to anything other than a cat and even then, you can find another word if you try, like 'kitty'. It's a gendered insult. Also, when it's used to refer to a weak-willed person with the spine of a jellyfish, it's misogynistic because it's also a term that's used to describe female genitalia and gives the impression that anything female-related is weak.

Cunt, whore, slut, and bitch are all 'gendered' insults. Find another one that isn't used primarily against women, like 'asshat'. And no, calling someone a 'dick' isn't the same as calling them a 'cunt' because women don't have the same privilege that men have.

Retarded or any variation thereof, i.e. 'fantard'. It can be offensive to those who have mental disabilities.

Midget - can be offensive to little people. I realize that it once was a medical term; that doesn't change that little people don't care for it to be used any longer. Don't use it.

Lame - can be offensive to those with physical disabilities.

Crazy/Insane to describe someone who may have a mental illness can be offensive to those who have mental illnesses.

Faggot - I refer you to

sparkindarkness, because he says it a lot better than I ever could.

Gay as a negative descriptor, i.e., 'that's so gay'. I realize that this word, like faggot, has also had other meanings, but the fact is that right now it's primarily used to describe homosexual men and when it is used as a negative in any way, it reinforces the idea, however subconsciously, that being gay is bad.

Racial slurs: The n-word is obvious, some others aren't. For example, Joan Rivers recently called Michelle Obama 'Blackie O'. "Gyp" as in 'to cheat' refers to Romani people. The phrase 'grammar Nazi' downplays the impact of Nazis on the world. Educate yourself on history before using certain words and phrases and if someone tells you that a phrase you thought was harmless was offensive to them, apologize for it and move on.

Right way to apologize: I'm sorry.

Wrong way to apologize: I'm sorry if you were offended, but my family's been using that for years and I've never heard of it as a negative before.

Keep in mind that no one has to accept your apology.

Also, please keep in mind that just because you know someone who is disabled, BGLTQP, a person of color, or a member of any other marginalized group or even if you yourself are a member of said group and don't find these words offensive, it still doesn't justify using them in polite company. Just because you or your friend is fine with something doesn't mean that everyone else in the world has to be fine with it too.

To those who are saying, "Context is everything! I've been using 'gay' to mean 'stupid' for years and I love gay people." Sigh. Again, I have to ask - who does it hurt for you to change your vocabulary versus those who are being hurt every day by those who refuse to change it?

Oh, I almost forgot, "Aren't there more important things in the world to worry about than whether or not I call someone a pussy?" Definitely, but again, does it actually cause you physical harm to stop doing it? Fighting against the -ism's of the world isn't solely about stopping women from being circumcised or BGLTQP persons from being flogged or stoned to death. It's about changing the way that we, as a society, think about everyone who's a part of it.

Language is the primary way in which human beings express their thoughts and opinions. If we are ever going to actually be an equal society, with every currently marginalized person treated with dignity and respect, we have to not only work on the big issues, but the small ones as well. Changing our language is a part of changing how we think. I know that since I first started trying to remove certain words from my lexicon, it's really forced me to examine everything I say and do with a new eye. I've become much more aware of how our tacit approval of -ist language affects the everyday lives of marginalized people.

Note: I am not asking for a pat on the back for finally trying not to be an asshat (I'm well aware that I have not yet succeeded in this area). I'm extremely aware of my privilege and do not presume to speak for anyone but myself, despite any evidence to the contrary you might have found within (or anywhere else online). We all have to make the decision as human beings as to whether our approach to other people is to going to be, "First, do no harm," or "I don't care who's offended - this rape joke is funny!"

Finally, I'll say that I ascribe to the idea that absolutely everything is fair game in comedy, art and literature. However, I also subscribe to the idea that people can call other people out for being asshats and it's up to the individual whether they wish to continue being one or not solely in the name of being anti-PC.

And because I've been educating myself a bunch lately, here are a bunch of links that all say all of this a lot better than I just did.

101 Primer

sparkindarkness' entire journal.

Read all of that and then come back to discuss, if you wish, :).

ETA: Proof that not being an asshat is an ongoing battle: Weak is ableist. Thank you to

51stcenturyfox for letting me know, :).

ETA 2: My comment thread on the post that started all of this is here.

ETA 3: Drama communities are probably not the best place to start, lol, but if it were not for them I never would have found most of this stuff out, which is why I mentioned them. The best place to start is with the 101 Primer and go from there, :).

This post has now been edited because my essential message was being lost and I was doing more harm than good by defending my position on one phrase. Most of the comments regarding that phrase have now been screened. I'm not a PoC, so my feelings on that phrase don't matter whatsoever and continuing to argue about it only detracts from the essential point of what I was trying to say.

I apologize for the drama.

For the record I am US-born, white, queer though I easily pass for both female and straight, and able-bodied. I have no personal experience with physical, racial or ethnic discrimination and I apologize for speaking for those groups as if I were personally invested in those particular slurs not being used.

The areas in which I have personal experience and/or a personal investment include: feminism/sexim, sex work, body image/food, sexual freedom, BGLTQP rights/homophobia, bullying, child abuse, the US foster care system, the US health care system, PTSD, anxiety, depression and mental health.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

To say that they meant 'flamboyant' when 'flamboyant' is also seen as a negative for men is splitting hairs, :(.

When I hear someone saying 'gay' (especially gaaaaay) outside of the context of a gay man referring to himself that way, it means 'stupid', 'weird', 'effeminate' (which when applied towards men is seen as a negative) and generally bad.

Using it in casual conversation when it ALSO means homosexual is not cool.

And 'broad' isn't as dated as you think it is, seriously.

Right now, gendered insults reinforce misogyny.

But we were talking about 'gay'. Using 'gay' to mean anything other than homosexual (in a neutral, i.e. he's a gay man or positive, i.e. 'gay and proud' sense) reinforces homophobia.

And again, this entire conversation is splitting hairs because what it really comes down to is being willing to make the effort to reprogram oneself not to use certain language.

It isn't easy and most people don't want to bother to make the effort. It's easier in their minds to argue over how the word used to have another meaning or the old usage is outdated or that they don't mean it negatively when they say it, even if some people take it that way.

"Gay" is near and dear to my heart because a lot of teenagers spend their lives being called "gay" as a negative, because the worst thing in this world is to be seen as homosexual, which is also seen as being less than a man, and are killing themselves over it.

But because some people use it to mean 'awesome', those kids don't matter, :(. That might not be what you meant to say, but that's what I'm hearing when you argue on and on about how you and your friends don't mean it negatively.

I also a bit skeptical of that claim as I've been all over the US and have never heard 'gay' as 'awesome' (unless it was a sarcastic 'awesome'). Anywhere. Every time I've heard gay being used to refer to anyone but a gay man who was self-referencing, it's been thrown out as a negative, with the subtle undertone that 'gay' is inherently bad because it's connected with homosexuality.

Plus, I never mentioned either trollop or broad - I only brought up words that are in common slang use today, but it was a good misdirect from my essential point.

Words have meanings: first do no harm. If you want to keep saying 'gay' and having the illusion that when you and your friends (or just your friends - you never said that you use it) do it it's not reinforcing homophobia, feel free. It's a free country and no one has the right to stop you. All we have a right to do is tell you what we think. And I think that when you use 'gay' in that fashion, you're reinforcing the idea that being gay is bad and indirectly contributing to every teenager out there who gets bullied by that word (and other homophobic slurs plus physical intimidation over being who they are) into killing themselves.

That depends on the user, doesn't it? For a lot of people, flamboyance is seen as neutral or even positive. Just because a common usage is negative doesn't detract from individual use and view.

I'm not "arguing on and on" about it. It's simply a point I brought up to mention that even offensive words can change meaning and be use nonoffensively.

My use of dated words was off my original point of words changing meaning. It was in no way a "misdirect" nor meant to be one, and frankly I resent the accusation.

If you want to sit in on our chats, go right ahead. I can give you the chat room name and everything. Eventually it'll pop up and you'll see for yourself.

Illusion? When used as positive? I would say that's the OPPOSITE of homophobia right there. Also, coming as someone who was bullied relentlessly in school and STILL IS, I find that argument reductive and marginalizing.

I said, "If you want to have the illusion that it's positive," but it would seem that we've reached an impasse as far as understanding goes.

I was also bullied for all of my school career, both my students and other teachers. I continue to have people who attempt to bully me for my beliefs and identity in everyday life. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is that male students who are perceived as gay, whether they are or not, are killing themselves because slurs are continually thrown at them and they see, "That's so gay!" to mean bad every day of their lives on TV or online and it drives them to the belief that who they are is fundamentally wrong.

It doesn't change the fact that when people who are not gay use gay, it's generally used as a negative.

It's simply a point I brought up to mention that even offensive words can change meaning and be use nonoffensively.

You're right, but RIGHT NOW, gay is generally used as a negative. Sitting in on your chats would only prove that for your tiny subsection of the world, it's somehow used to mean 'awesome' whereas for most of the rest of the world and the media it's used to mean, "stupid, effeminate (as a negative towards men), flamboyant (as a negative towards men)" and generally has a negative meaning.

Using gay in any context other than to refer positively to gay men, i.e., when they do it self-referentially, contributes to homophobia.

See, here's the thing. Your post was about multiple words. My reply was about multiple words. Now you're only going on about one word. I brought up this example as a demonstration of how meanings change over time and you're only showing how words stagnate, how words aren't ALLOWED to change meaning. I'm going about this from a linguistic standpoint.

Besides, "effeminate" and "flamboyant" are not inherently used as insults. They are a lot of the time, but that doesn't make the words or concepts themselves inherently insulting when brought up. It depends on user, on context, on a lot of things.

Now you're only going on about one word.

You're right, because that one word is the one that I was having trouble believing was now being used as a positive when I see it overwhelmingly use as a negative.

you're only showing how words stagnate, how words aren't ALLOWED to change meaning. I'm going about this from a linguistic standpoint.

Sigh. This is always the argument that's brought up whenever someone wants to argue about using 'gay'. I'm well aware that words can evolve over time. We're not talking about over time though; we're talking about right now. Right now, 'gay' is being used as a slur against homosexual people and/or it's becoming synonymous with the negative. Until homosexuality is 100% accepted, I'm going to argue against anyone who isn't homosexual using it. At all.

It depends on user, on context, on a lot of things.

Very true. However, this post was mostly about how we interact with each other online and I honestly don't think that it's too much to ask to be a bit more civil in a medium that is nearly all text.

And "right now" I see it being used as a positive AS WELL as a negative. I never said it wasn't being used negatively. I simply commented that I do see active positive usage. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it doesn't diminish the experiences of those who have.

I'm talking about the negative BEING ACTIVELY CHANGED into a positive and you're still saying that anyone using it as a descriptor is immediately using it as a negative, regardless of ACTUAL usage. That's just not the case. And you know? It was a very minor point in my initial remark anyway.

I'm being civil. I'm speaking linguistically here anyway.

I'm glad that where you are it's being used positively. I'm not sure that I believe it when I have overwhelming evidence to the contrary that shows it being used negatively.

On second thought, I believe I'd like to see those chats, just so I can have a better idea of the context where it's being used positively. If we could start a movement where gay was synonymous with cool, I'd be all in favor of it, :)

But again, to date I have NEVER seen gay used in that fashion by anyone. Ever.

I never said that was the only use I ever heard of "gay" as a descripter. I simply said that there's a group I'm in that happens to do so.

Also as far as the sexualities of the people involved, I have absolutely no idea. I know one person isn't gay since he's married to a woman, but he could be bi for all I know.

And ok so that's your experience. My experience is different than yours. It's not invalid just because it's not yours.

Also I'll PM you the information about location.

No one's experience invalidates another's - you are correct in that.

However.

If I have had an overwhelmingly negative experience with a certain word, it will color my perspective towards the negative where that word is concerned.

Yeah, but the reception should still exist, instead of claiming that because you've never heard it, any other usage is doubtful.

It is doubtful to me. That doesn't negate your experience, but until I have a positive experience of my own, my opinion on this subject isn't going to change.

Edited 2011-02-03 06:39 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you're dismissing me because of that. It was meant to be a minor point anyway, part of a whole.

And I don't see what's wrong in pointing out that words change meaning. It's BECAUSE they change meaning that "gay" became an insult in the first place. And why there's resistance to "lame" being one--because it hasn't been used to refer to disabled people in a very very long time. It just doesn't mean that any more, unlike gay, which still has and will continue to have for a long time the meaning of liking the same sex. People just don't consider words that lost group meaning ages ago to be considered still insulting to that group, and frankly why should they? It's asking us to delve back into ancient etemology that's past our parents' ages.

As stated, it's different for words like "gay" where the group meaning is still in the here and now. But "idiot"? "Lame"? I really can't see that, and I'm in a group that likely would have been termed "idiot" if I was around in those ages.

I can only fall back to my original question: if someone tells you that they are offended by something you've said (or written), do you apologize and stop using it or do you give them a history lesson as to why you used the word in the first place?

For the record, I saw someone who was offended by the word 'lame' fairly recently (http://community.livejournal.com/ffrantsrants/231603.html) - does it really cost me anything not to use the word anymore?

Who does it hurt to change one's language to be sensitive to the feelings of other people?

If I were really generous, I could maybe come up with 100 words and phrases that either I feel are offensive or that someone else has told me are offensive to them personally. What does it cost me not to use those words and phrases any longer?

It costs me time and effort, certainly. It also requires me to put thought into what I say and to be more creative when I'm looking for a way to describe something.

Why use 'pussy' when I can say that someone is a weak-willed individual with the spine of a jellyfish? Why not use thesaurus.com to find a more clever way of saying something?

Why is it so important to hold onto these words at all?

People can be offended by anything. As a bird owner, I'm offended when people use "parroted" to mean mindless imitation because parrots are more intelligent than that. But I know where to draw the line. I know that not every word that I personaly am offended by is either intended to be offensive or actually has offensive connotations in the modern world.

Have you ever heard the phrase "even a chicken can be tragic if your father died choking on an egg"? It's the same with offense. Somewhere, you're going to find someone being offended by pretty much anything the world has to offer. Does that mean we have to bend over backwards for them? It shouldn't.

I'm not saying that no words are offensive. But I'm saying we have to think logically and practically about what can really be considered such. And words that have lost those meanings decades ago really ought to be considered as to why we consider them offensive if no one uses them to describe humans any more.

Interesting train of thought and no, I haven't heard that phrase. However, intent isn't magical and if I offend someone through using a questionable phrase, I still think that the best course of action is to apologize and not use it around them anymore.

And words that have lost those meanings decades ago really ought to be considered as to why we consider them offensive if no one uses them to describe humans any more.

Who is 'we'? I can make the decision that 'lame' is okay to use and could never hurt anyone because no one uses it to describe those with disabilities any longer, but I'm not physically disabled and therefore have the privilege to say that it doesn't have to bother me.

In most cases where language is at issue, a privileged majority is saying, "Hey, it's okay that we use this because we're not talking about you specifically, [marginalized person]. Why can't you take a joke? Why do you have to be so serious about it? It's only a word, for heaven's sake!"

I get upset when I see prostitutes and strippers denigrated in the media, but since we're all second-class citizens anyway, I'm not really allowed to get mad if a friend of mine says (while we're watching that new show Face Off), "I wouldn't hire that guy to do makeup on a dead whore." But he wasn't using whore to mean prostitute - he split that hair when I called him on it.

Here's the thing - most of these words could be replaced by more neutral ones pretty easily, but I think that people enjoy the 'dirty/wrong/bad word' aspect of it, which is why they're so resistant to change. As I said before, it's easier to use the word that only a small minority is offended by than to go to the effort of finding a better word to use.

Someone will always be offended, so we shouldn't even bother to try? And how many people have to be affected before something isn't okay anymore? 100, 1000, 10000? How many people being hurt by this language does it take before it's something okay to care about?

We=people who use the language, people in this thread, etc.

I don't see that happening, what you describe about a "privileged majority" saying that to anyone else. What I see is asshats and non-asshats. But you don't have to be privileged to be an asshat, nor does privilege necessarily mean you'll be one either.

Re: numbers, how should I know? I'd wager no one would. But at the same time, some people are oversensitive. Should we just ban every word that anyone could possibly percieve as offensive on the off chance that they would? How far back do we go in word meanings? 1950? 1900? 1750? Middle ages? Earlier?

You keep seeming to veer away from the position of my stance. You're delving more into the social aspects while I've said several times that I'm talking about things from a linguistic standpoint. If the offensive definition isn't present at all in the modern usage, why should we keep reviving ancient definitions? We don't do that in any other case. Does anyone really bring up that a "secretary" used to mean the desk being written on rather than the person doing the writing? Does anyone use "saunter" to mean "dream" any more? Or "doom" to be a law or decree? If those meanings are gone, then what's keeping offense around?

Would we be offended by "addict" since it used to refer to slavery? Are we to find "gauche" or "sinister" offensive because they originally refered to left-handers? I really don't think people would, simply on account of them being so ancient in those meanings that they don't matter any more.

I'm ignoring the linguistic aspect because it's derailing and you haven't answered my essential question:

Forget the 100 words and phrases I haven't actually itemized, is it really such a hardship to eliminate the words I did mention from your vocabulary?

And now we've come to 'some people are oversensitive'. Deep breath.

Most people who are offended by certain words or phrases have a legitimate reason to be so that has nothing to do with them WANTING to start a fight, but more that they're tired of having to listen to these phrases and have decided to stand up for themselves.

They seem oversensitive online because we're dealing with people from all over the world here and so sometimes it can really feel as though everyone is just looking for things to offend them. I once made the mistake of saying that they did and I was wrong to do so.

Very few people go looking for fights, but sometimes someone will see a phrase that's meant as a joke ('raped by dickwolves' comes to mind) and it triggers a visceral response in them. They are hurt by the language and call out the person who said it.

It's not 'oversensitivity', it's sensitivity and telling someone that they need to 'lighten up', 'grow a thicker skin' and not be so sensitive about it is a shitty thing to do.

Finally, who said a word about BANNING anything? As I've said several times, everyone has a perfect right to say whatever they wish (at least in the US, anyway). I'm only saying that it might be nice for people to VOLUNTARILY make the effort to eliminate certain slurs from their vocabularies.

First, do no harm. That's it. Basically, the atheist's one commandment - don't be an asshole (if you can avoid it).

And that's my entire point here. It doesn't cost anyone anything but a little time, thought and effort NOT to say certain words when they've been asked not to use them, but they'd rather keep saying them than be kind to the person who was hurt.

Oh, and I do understand what seems to be your underlying argument about 'policing' language, but language shapes the way we think and if we can choose more civil methods of communication I think we'll all be better off as a species, :).

My apologies, I'm going to bed now, so if you reply it will be a few hours before I get back to you.

How is it derailing to approach a discussion of word usage from a linguistic perspective? That's what words ARE. That's by its very nature the ENTIRE subject at hand.

"Banning" used as the whole "don't use these words" point of the post. Obviously there won't be any legal consequence, but that's another issue with words.

My point was that the words in question may not actually be offensive in modern usage and that we can't very well not say every single word that people ask us not to use because OF things like that. We have to use reason in deciding those things, and that's the very essence of civility--thinking before we speak. If those rational, practical thoughts result in us finding no cause to take offense to certain words, so be it. I've spoken the rationale behind why we as people shouldn't take offense to obsolete words. That's all.

It's derailing because you're putting yourself in the position of "educating" someone after you've offended them as to why they shouldn't have been offended in the first place.

I've spoken the rationale behind why we as people shouldn't take offense to obsolete words.

Who are you to decide what someone else should be offended by? I wrote about words that I'd seen other people take offense to and the reasons why they were offended. I don't have a right to go to them and say, "Well, it's an obsolete word anyway. You shouldn't be hurt and offended because..." Not if I don't want to be an asshat, anyway.

We all have a choice during our rational discourse to decide if we're going to take the feelings of other people into consideration before we speak or type. I've found several words and phrases that I find personally offensive (slurs against, BGLTQP persons, the mentally ill, misogynistic language and words that denigrate those who are free and/or charge money for sex or sex-related services) or words and phrases that I've observed others being offended by.

Now, I have no right to speak for those others (and should not have presumed to do so in this post, come to think of it) - they are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Not everyone is offended by the same things, either.

However.

If I'm interacting with someone and I say or write something that they find hurtful, it's up to me to decide how I deal with it. I can either apologize and move on or I can say, "I'm sorry if you were offended, but my family's been using that for years and I've never heard of it as a negative before."

If I've hurt someone with what I've said, educating them as to why they shouldn't have been hurt in the first place only hurts them more.

That's not derailing at all. I remained fully within the subject at hand from the getgo.

See, to me, that REMOVES hurt. To hear the WHY behind statements works towards improvement. Like to hear that the old chestnut about "rule of thumb" has absolutely nothing to do with wifebeating. There's never been any record of any such law, yet people continue to be offended by it because they only know the false definition. To hear the truth, to hear practical usages and histories of things can only clarify them.

That's not derailing at all. I remained fully within the subject at hand from the getgo.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. (http://www.derailingfordummies.com/)

All I can say at this point is that it's very easy for you to say that it removes hurt to be educated on the history. The last thing that someone who's been offended by something someone else said or did wants to hear is that the only reason that they're offended is because they're ignorant as well as oversensitive.

And as far as the "rule of thumb" goes... *headdesk*. No, there's never been a law to that effect. HOWEVER, it's certainly become part of our culture to THINK that there was, hasn't there? And because of that misconception, every time someone uses that phrase it can subtly reinforce misogyny.

This isn't only about historical accuracy, I'm sorry to say. Believe me, as a fellow student of history, I wish that education was the answer to these issues, but it isn't. This is about how words and phrases are perceived within our culture and how they can shape our thinking towards homophobia, sexism and racism, whether we intend for them to do so or not.

I like to believe that most people aren't intending to be racist, homophobic and/or misogynistic when they use these expressions, but their lack of intent isn't a 'get out of hurt/offense free card'. People are responsible for what they say and do that hurts other people, however intentionally or unintentionally they do so.

If I say something hurtful or offensive without realizing that it, I still owe the person who was hurt by it an apology. The best analogy I've yet heard is stepping on someone's foot. Very few people go out of their way to step on someone else's foot, but they are still expected to apologize for the hurt even though they didn't mean to do it. The person who was stepped on isn't expected to say, "Oh, I'm sorry that my foot was in your way."

Oh geez that site. No, posting something entirely on-topic is not derailing.

There's got to be a dividing line is what I'm saying. There's practical usage to be considered, and I don't think we should bend over backwards for everyone who's offended by outdated meanings. There's plenty of words in current usage to be rightly offended by. Why should we dredge up ancient linguistics that no one in everyday life would associate with offense?

The topic was not harming others with language and being courteous enough to change one's speech if someone is hurt and/or offended by it. To me, it's derailing to try and explain why they shouldn't be hurt or offended in the first place.

There's practical usage to be considered, and I don't think we should bend over backwards for everyone who's offended by outdated meanings.

And there we've come to the crux of our disagreement. I don't see it as 'bending over backwards'. I see it as showing human decency when someone says, "Hey, that phrase hurts my feelings."

There's plenty of words in current usage to be rightly offended by.

It's the words in current usage that I was talking about in my post. Every single word or phrase currently listed in the post are ones that I've seen someone else take offense to within the last ten months for the reasons that I listed with each of them.

Why should we dredge up ancient linguistics that no one in everyday life would associate with offense?

No one is 'dredging up' anything and I really have to take exception to your use of the word 'ancient'. Every one of these words has been used in it's "ancient" meaning within the last 100 years and to me, that's not ancient history.

And who is this no one in everyday life of whom you are speaking? The reason that I brought these words up is that there are people in everyday life who ARE offended by them.

I just realized that I never addressed your point about the privileged majority several comments back. I am in that majority. I'm US-born, Christian Protestant-raised (though I'm atheist, I can still pass for Christian), white, able-bodied, and though I'm queer I can easily pass for both straight and cis-gendered. I have pretty much every form of privilege it's possible to have except that of being male.

I'm the person that can dismiss someone who tells me that 'pussy' is misogynistic because even though I'm a woman, I'm not affected on an obvious level every day by sexism because I also happen to be beautiful (not vanity - I make my living off my looks and looks are fleeting). I don't have to worry about wheelchair ramps and disabled access. I don't have to worry about 'gay' used as a slur because I can walk down the street holding hands with the person I'm currently in a relationship with.

I don't have to care. I can dismiss every person who tells me that something I've said or done is hurtful because I 'know the history' or 'no one uses that word anymore'.

And again I come back to no one in everyday life. No, it's the MAJORITY of those in everyday life, but it's not the majority who are being hurt here, it's those on the fringes and they're the ones I was speaking on behalf of.

Again, it wasn't my place to do so. I shouldn't have presumed to speak for groups of which I'm not a part.

However.

I'm a woman. I'm bisexual. I have gender identity questions. I'm a sex worker.

As a member of those groups, I'm personally invested when I encourage people to stop using 'gay' to mean anything negative. I have a right to be enraged when I see sex workers being treated as expendable people by society and the media. And I have a vested interest in doing my best to try and fight the rape culture and the sexism that's still inherent in our society.

Everyone has issues about which they are passionate and again, it's impossible to please everyone. I'm not trying to please everyone - if I tried that, I would fail. I'm only trying to be as open-minded and sensitive to the feelings of others as it's possible for me to be. I'm not sure where that line is and I know that no matter how hard I try, I will offend someone through careless words or deeds at some point in the future.

But I'd like to be able to say that I cared enough to try.

...And now you're trotting out the laundry list of what qualifies you to say what?

My point is that the words I listed have current meanings entirely removed from the meanings they used to have, and no matter how long ago or how recently, they no longer have those meanings. Ergo, to use them in those contexts would be seen as quaintly old. We don't keep rehashing every single meaning of every single word. Why do we do so for certain words we find offensive in their old meanings?

It's also human decency to let things take their course. And linguistic course is something that's run for a lot of words. If we wanted to, we could probably find offense in half the current English language. But to strike those from our lexicon simply because of what people in the past used them as, to disregard current definitions, is to show only stubbornness.

My "laundry list" only explains why I might be offended by 'x'. Naturally, you can disregard it at will.

But to strike those from our lexicon simply because of what people in the past used them as, to disregard current definitions, is to show only stubbornness.

At this point, I think we've come to the end of meaningful discussion. You believe that 'gay' can sometimes mean 'awesome' and so you feel that it's fine for you and your friends to use it. I'm not going to change your mind and in truth, without knowing every fact I can't even say that you're necessarily wrong. All I can say is that if it's truly the case that you and your friends are using 'gay' in that fashion, I hope that it catches on and that it will help BGLTQP persons to gain acceptance.

My final thought on this is that people don't get hurt and offended over language because it's fun for them or because they're being stubborn about seeing the language evolve. They get hurt because they've been hurt by that word in the past. Period.

No one likes being offended. It's exhausting to have to argue about why something that one person feels is innocent just isn't to another. Neither party is necessarily in the wrong, but again, if I step on your foot, I'm not going to blame you for having it there - I'm going to apologize for stepping on you. Oh, and just in case your brain goes to the place that mine just went - I'm assuming that you didn't put your foot out to trip me because again, there are very, VERY few people in this world who truly enjoy being stepped on.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject