NationStates Jolt Archive

SANTA ROSA, Calif. - When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."

Those three words landed the high school freshman in the principal's office and resulted in a lawsuit that raises this question: When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?

After Rice got a warning and a notation in her file, her parents sued, claiming officials at Santa Rosa's Maria Carillo High violated their daughter's First Amendment rights when they disciplined her for uttering a phrase "which enjoys widespread currency in youth culture," according to court documents.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?

That's so gay.


Sorry, sorry, someone was bound to, I'll get my coat.

Too excessive. It should be addressed as a sensitivity issue and not Hate Crime. If anything, it'll just make it more popular by rebellion.

Do they realise the word 'gay' has become so divorced from its two previous original meanings in today's slang that asscosiating its use in the above context to hate speech is absurd.

I don't think there should be a law about "hate speech"

it's stupid. I should be able to say whatever I want provided it doesn't incite violence.

So if you say "that's so gay" to a gay person and he/she pops you in the mouth, does that make it hate speech?

I don't think there should be a law about "hate speech"

it's stupid. I should be able to say whatever I want provided it doesn't incite violence.

wtf, funny seeing how gay a few years back used to be a normal word (with quite hilarious effects when you take it out of context ;))

this is just taking it to far, i thought hate speech was to prevent people (and most important people with power) saying stuff like "we should round up all foreigners and burn them" or stuff like that.

I'm not sure if it should be classified as hate speech, but something should definitely be done about it. The phrase is pretty damn near universal, at least around here. What do you think that does to gay kids in junior high or high school? Being constantly surrounded by epithets and implicit hatred can't be a good thing, that's for sure...

well i guess we can expect a flood of lawsuits out of our nations schools.

language changes. the powers that be need to deal with it.

I don't think there should be a law about "hate speech"

it's stupid. I should be able to say whatever I want provided it doesn't incite violence.

I agree with you. However, the officials in the article thought that phrase might incite violence. My next question: Is the possibility of a violent reaction enough to justify banning this phrase?

This is so gay.

Hate Speech laws, who says Fascism is dead?

Gay = Happy? Right?

Damn political stupidity.

So if you say "that's so gay" to a gay person and he/she pops you in the mouth, does that make it hate speech?

uh....I think you know what I meant.

I personally wouldn't call something "gay", but if I wanted to I should be allowed to.

Too excessive. It should be addressed as a sensitivity issue and not Hate Crime. If anything, it'll just make it more popular by rebellion.

A sensitivity issue? My God All this political correctness crap with its 'issues'. You didn't get all this crap in the old days. Back then people got on with it. In the past people had proper diseases - people suffered from plagues and agues, not 'syndromes' and 'dissorders' - it used to be "Bring out your dead" not "bring out your wheezy". The whole world has gone soft and I blame the traitorous puritan imigrants and their inexplicable raise to power.

uh....I think you know what I meant.

I personally wouldn't call something "gay", but if I wanted to I should be allowed to.

I agree, by the way. My point is that it's not a simple issue, and not easily dismissed as an overreaching by the school system. I think that they probably went overboard a bit, but I wasn't there either. Also, I'd imagine the kid was a bit justified if she was taking shit about her religion.

I agree with you. However, the officials in the article thought that phrase might incite violence. My next question: Is the possibility of a violent reaction enough to justify banning this phrase?

no, I meant, you probably shouldn't be allowed to threaten people, or to try to use your words to entice other people to break the law.

I agree with you. However, the officials in the article thought that phrase might incite violence. My next question: Is the possibility of a violent reaction enough to justify banning this phrase?

A vioent reaction from gays? What are they going to do?? Tell you to talk to the hand or storm 'Claire's Accesories'?

A vioent reaction from gays? What are they going to do?? Tell you to talk to the hand or storm 'Claire's Accesories'?

Ah. Another idiot. Pick a fight in a gay bar and see how quickly you get the shit kicked out of you.

uh....I think you know what I meant.

I personally wouldn't call something "gay", but if I wanted to I should be allowed to.

So, by that same rationale, should you want to, should you be allowed to say things like, "that's so niggerish," or "you look kikey," or "only camel joockey's say that," etc.? Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to talk about gays because we haven't seen a homosexual Martin Luther King yet?

How is saying “that’s so gay” (which means “that’s so stupid” not “that’s so homosexual”) more offensive that asking a mormon the idiotic question of “do you have 10 moms?”

Calling someone “gay” (a loser, an idiot, etc.) has become, to the youth of America, nothing more than a simple insult, not a slur. “Faggot” still works, “gay” has got a new meaning. Once again, the “system” is years behind.

I don't care for the easy use of "that's so gay" as a put-down but I'm not sure I'd qualify it as hate-speech in and of itself. Then again, using "gay" as a pejorative does encourage homophobia. So, I don't know. Does this seem like an all-around over-reaction? Yes. Do I wish Americans would quit clogging the courts with law suits every time someone hurts their feelings? Absolutely. I also think the young woman being taunted should have done what we did in my day, and told her tormentors to eat shit and die. Of course, in my day it was "mammoth shit," but you get the idea.

click (http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&type=Movies&movie=40_Year_Old_Virgin&quote=knowyourgay.txt&file=knowyourgay.mp3)

So, by that same rationale, should you want to, should you be allowed to say things like, "that's so niggerish," or "you look kikey," or "only camel joockey's say that," etc.? Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to talk about gays because we haven't seen a homosexual Martin Luther King yet?

Yes, you should have the option. Not that those are intelligent statements by any means, but ignorance is not against the law.

So, by that same rationale, should you want to, should you be allowed to say things like, "that's so niggerish," or "you look kikey," or "only camel joockey's say that," etc.? Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to talk about gays because we haven't seen a homosexual Martin Luther King yet?

Yes. You should.

People being offended by words, whether they be slurs or "swear" words, is idiotic. They are words, and "fuck" is really no different than "dog" except for how it is percieved. Perception is false, and artificial. Crude words, slurs, and cursing is only offensive because we make it so. It's a load of bullshit.

It always was.

"That's so gay" just shows how pervasive homophobia is in our society.

So, by that same rationale, should you want to, should you be allowed to say things like, "that's so niggerish," or "you look kikey," or "only camel joockey's say that," etc.? Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to talk about gays because we haven't seen a homosexual Martin Luther King yet?

I draw the line at inciting violence.

I wouldn't say any of those things, but a lot of people would I guess, and just because I think something is stupid to say doesn't mean we need to legislate it.

there is a difference to me, with someone saying "I hate <people group>" and them saying "Let's kill <people group>".

That's so gay.

That's so gay.

Already been done. Twice. :p

Already been done. Twice. :p

Thrice. I wonder if they'd consider it hate speech if I said "that's so queer".

It always was.

Wrong. Before "gay" meant "homosexual" it meant "happy." Saying "That's so happy" is not hate speach. Try again.

Ah. Another idiot. Pick a fight in a gay bar and see how quickly you get the shit kicked out of you.


Are you talking from personal experience? Did you get 'fagbashed' or are you one of those queers that likes to dress up in a Nazi uniform and ram your boot up a fellow's garry glitter whilst in leather?

So the school had a classic overreaction. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

I presume arsebandits and marmite miners are okay terms still, then?

I'm glad I live in a place where fags are fags, men are men and sheep are scared.

I don't care for the easy use of "that's so gay" as a put-down but I'm not sure I'd qualify it as hate-speech in and of itself. Then again, using "gay" as a pejorative does encourage homophobia. So, I don't know. Does this seem like an all-around over-reaction? Yes. Do I wish Americans would quit clogging the courts with law suits every time someone hurts their feelings? Absolutely. I also think the young woman being taunted should have done what we did in my day, and told her tormentors to eat shit and die. Of course, in my day it was "mammoth shit," but you get the idea.

That's what I think as well (the bolded - well, also the stupid lawsuits). I don't think speech should be outlawed though. I do think it's hate speech but would just hope that the principle would explain to the student that using the word "gay" in such a way incites hatred towards homosexuals and the kid should merely be urged not to do so.

Banning a word as hate speech- when directed at children, will only make the word a stronger curse, and encourage the children only to use it as a direct and harmful insult. I expect that this is the exact opposite of the desired effect.

"Thats so gay" is something kids grow out of saying anyway.

Everyone needs something to hate anyway. If you try and do away with kids' homophobia, they'll just turn into Jack the Ripper clones instead.

That's what I think as well (the bolded - well, also the stupid lawsuits). I don't think speech should be outlawed though. I do think it's hate speech but would just hope that the principle would explain to the student that using the word "gay" in such a way incites hatred towards homosexuals and the kid should merely be urged not to do so.

In all honesty, I've never even considered the term to have anything to do with homosexuality in that context. It's the same word but a totally different context.

First, it should be noted that this isn't about any "hate speech law", it's about a school policy.

Secondly, it would be interesting to know what sort of punishment the kids who were teasing her about being Mormon got.

I think we'd do better to tackle homophobia directly rather than attacking one particular expression.

I agree, by the way. My point is that it's not a simple issue, and not easily dismissed as an overreaching by the school system. I think that they probably went overboard a bit, but I wasn't there either. Also, I'd imagine the kid was a bit justified if she was taking shit about her religion.

How is saying “that’s so gay” (which means “that’s so stupid” not “that’s so homosexual”) more offensive that asking a mormon the idiotic question of “do you have 10 moms?”


First, it should be noted that this isn't about any "hate speech law", it's about a school policy.

Secondly, it would be interesting to know what sort of punishment the kids who were teasing her about being Mormon got.

For once, Nazz and I see one from the same point of view. I also was gratified to see that there are others who also thought of this. I find it remarkable that these other kids in class don't get this level of punishment (we don't know that they were punished at all, really) for razzing her about her religion. I see a double standard being applied.

...not that I think a permanent remark in a student's record is warranted in either case.

Wrong. Before "gay" meant "homosexual" it meant "happy." Saying "That's so happy" is not hate speach. Try again.

While true that it certainly did mean "happy" first, it is much more common in our day for it to mean "homosexual". You are, IMO, highly naieve, if you actually believe that using "gay" as a perjorative didn't come from the more common usage.

So, by popular decree, I should be able to call southern boys "hicks," "rednecks," and "heyseeds," and not expect to get into a fight, because ya know, they're just words.

First, it should be noted that this isn't about any "hate speech law", it's about a school policy.

Secondly, it would be interesting to know what sort of punishment the kids who were teasing her about being Mormon got.

Very good point.

I would expect the school to show a little level-headedness and tolerance about towards this incident. Oh wait, public school policy is zero tolerance.

While true that it certainly did mean "happy" first, it is much more common in our day for it to mean "homosexual". You are, IMO, highly naieve, if you actually believe that using "gay" as a perjorative didn't come from the more common usage.

But at the same time, it has pretty much lost that anti-homosexual connotation.

It's not much different than former ethnic slurs or terms that evolved in to terms with a completely different or non-pejorative meaning.

"Thats so gay" is something kids grow out of saying anyway.
I don't know about that... I'm in college, and people around here still use it.

Of course, I am in Alabammy, so maybe that's to be expected...

But at the same time, it has pretty much lost that anti-homosexual connotation.
You're joking, right?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay

Almost every definition acknowledges the word's implicit homophobia.

So, by popular decree, I should be able to call southern boys "hicks," "rednecks," and "heyseeds," and not expect to get into a fight, because ya know, they're just words.

And if you aren't able to, who is to blame? You, or the southern boys who respond with violence?

(hypothetically)

In all honesty, I've never even considered the term to have anything to do with homosexuality in that context. It's the same word but a totally different context.


And I believe you, as I have heard that from a lot of people that use the saying "that's so gay" in a negative way. After hearing that it is offensive to gay people (which I know you have no problem with), will you still say it?

I think that language is very powerful can easily alienate groups, accidentally even, if not used in a conscious way.

I
Of course, I am in Alabammy, so maybe that's to be expected...

I hear it here all the time in Ohio. Honestly, I can't think of a single time it was used in a way that even remotely hinted of homophobia.

The people who don't like homosexuals are going to call them fags, not gays.

So, by popular decree, I should be able to call southern boys "hicks," "rednecks," and "heyseeds," and not expect to get into a fight, because ya know, they're just words. You have the right to insult them, they have the right to get personal about it. It's kind of beautiful; the obsession with rights coming full circle and meeting with reality again.

God, the stupidity.. First, as a retort, it didn't make any sense in the context. Then, she gets a mark on her record. Then the school gets sued.
It's like the stupidity is contagious.
If I had been that principal I'd have given her a lecture on the wonderfull art of sarcasm and teach her to avoid nonsensicly calling everything gay.

But at the same time, it has pretty much lost that anti-homosexual connotation.

It's not much different than former ethnic slurs or terms that evolved in to terms with a completely different or non-pejorative meaning.

Gay started out as a positive term for homosexuality (good as you) and then was taken to use negatively. I don't see how using the word gay as a negative thing has lost its anti-homosexual connotation if it's still offensive to gays when used in such a way.

This thread is just too gay for words.

And I believe you, as I have heard that from a lot of people that use the saying "that's so gay" in a negative way. After hearing that it is offensive to gay people (which I know you have no problem with), will you still say it?

Oh, absolutely not. I don't use it particularly often to begin with (getting rather old for it), so it tends not to be a problem. There are a ton of other ways I could say the exact same thing without risking any kind of implicit insult or potential offensive remark to gay people.

Or any people for that matter....homophobia doesn't just hurt the gay community.

I think that language is very powerful can easily alienate groups, accidentally even, if not used in a conscious way.

Well, yeah. That's why you should avoid using terms that might have that kind of a problem; recall the scandal surrounding a guy who used the term "niggardly" when referring to his competitor, who was black. That term isn't offensive at all but there's a lot of ways it could be misinterpreted.

God. Damn. Liberals.

So, by popular decree, I should be able to call southern boys "hicks," "rednecks," and "heyseeds," and not expect to get into a fight, because ya know, they're just words.

hey, you probably will get a fight, now the question is, should you be punished by the government or your school for saying it, that is an entirely different question.

Gay started out as a positive term for homosexuality (good as you) and then was taken to use negatively. I don't see how using the word gay as a negative thing has lost its anti-homosexual connotation if it's still offensive to gays when used in such a way.

It is, but most people don't intend it that way. That's what I'm getting at; you shouldn't say it because it can be interpreted as an insult, but very few people actually intend it to have a homophobic connotation.

I hear it here all the time in Ohio. Honestly, I can't think of a single time it was used in a way that even remotely hinted of homophobia.

The people who don't like homosexuals are going to call them fags, not gays.

So referring to something you don't like or something bad as Gay isn't implicitly homophobic?

Is there a name for the little world you live on?

"Thats so gay"

Is anybody offended by this language? Do any of you think this is a reference to homosexuality or the gay community?

So referring to something you don't like or something bad as Gay isn't implicitly homophobic?

Is there a name for the little world you live on? It comes from "homophobia", but it doesn't mean that the person saying it is "homophobic". Speaking a word does not mean you intend to drag its etymological baggage with you.

Given that the people I know don't really have a taboo about dark mutterings to do with gays, it's pretty easy to tell when they're being "homophobic" and when they are not.

And what, for goodness' sake, is this LGBT thing? Is it necessary to lump in gays with trannies, etc? Completely different, no?

So referring to something you don't like or something bad as Gay isn't implicitly homophobic?

If so, not intentionally. I can say that most people who use it don't even consider the link with homosexuality, so any homophobic or offensive connotation is more due to their own indiscretion than any actual hostility or unacceptance towards LGBT people.

Is there a name for the little world you live on?

Obani Draco.

So referring to something you don't like or something bad as Gay isn't implicitly homophobic?

Is there a name for the little world you live on?
Agreed. Even when the thing described isn't stereotypically "gay", it's still pretty obvious that the phrase is meant as an insecurity-driven insult. It's like, by associating the word "gay" with something lame or negative, you're trying to say that you're not gay yourself. Sorta like how people insult and talk trash about others to make themselves look better. As for people who use it out of sheer ignorance, well... that just says that they're too stupid to realize the phrase's effect. It's a pretty clear-cut thing.

So referring to something you don't like or something bad as Gay isn't implicitly homophobic?The phrase 'that's so gay' has about as much to do with homosexuality as the 'merry' in merry christmas has to do with the hobbit from Lord of the Rings.

I'm trying to remember...was there this much fuss when "ghetto" became an adjective?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?

Meh. It'll serve them right for such a poor use of vocabulary.

It is, but most people don't intend it that way. That's what I'm getting at; you shouldn't say it because it can be interpreted as an insult, but very few people actually intend it to have a homophobic connotation.

Which is why I said that they should merely explain to the kid what the saying can do and go no further (I don't like censorshp but I'm all for tolerance education), hoping that the kid gets the message by being treated as intelligent enough to understand what that kind of language does.

I can't read minds (yet), but I bet that most people use in to mean "that's so stupid"; that still doesn't stop it from being offensive to homosexuals. Obviously you understand that, but that is just the point I wanted to make clear.

I have the perfect image spam for this thread, but I'm sure if I posted it, there'd be absurd screams of "OMGooses!!! He R teh homophobe!!!1one" :rolleyes:

A vioent reaction from gays? What are they going to do?? Tell you to talk to the hand or storm 'Claire's Accesories'?

Are you talking from personal experience? Did you get 'fagbashed' or are you one of those queers that likes to dress up in a Nazi uniform and ram your boot up a fellow's garry glitter whilst in leather?

Do calm down. This is a debate thread, not a trolling contest.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I can't read minds (yet), but I bet that most people use in to mean "that's so stupid"; that still doesn't stop it from being offensive to homosexuals.

"Sticks and stones" and all that. It's just a bleedin' word.

I have the perfect image spam for this thread, but I'm sure if I posted it, there'd be absurd screams of "OMGooses!!! He R teh homophobe!!!1one" :rolleyes: Is it that one with the Koreans and "You aren't this gay but you're trying", or words to that effect?

I have that one squirreled away somewhere.

Arsebanditry! Best word ever!

Which is why I said that they should merely explain to the kid what the saying can do and go no further (I don't like censorshp but I'm all for tolerance education), hoping that the kid gets the message by being treated as intelligent enough to understand what that kind of language does.

Oh, yeah. It would be a lot better if they did that than try and censor speech, which does nothing but worsen the original problem and alienates people, especially the kids in this case, from actually listening to attempts to expand tolerance and acceptance of LGBT people.

I can't read minds (yet), but I bet that most people use in to mean "that's so stupid"; that still doesn't stop it from being offensive to homosexuals. Obviously you understand that, but that is just the point I wanted to make clear.

Oh, absolutely. That's what I'm getting at as well; even if you don't intend it to be, it can be interpreted as offensive by a gay person because of the term itself. You shouldn't say it because there is a very high risk of it being misinterpreted and offending someone.

I'm trying to remember...was there this much fuss when "ghetto" became an adjective?

I know when I use it some people give me that look like "you shouldn't say that"

I don't really care though. It's part of my vocabulary, I don't mean it to dis anyone.

I can't read minds (yet), but I bet that most people use in to mean "that's so stupid"
I don't think that's the real issue, though. The question isn't how it's used -- it's pretty obvious that most use it as a generic put-down. The question is why they use that particular word. And I think the answer to that is clear -- they want to distance themselves from homosexuality to make themselves look "cool", so they habitually associate the word "gay" with negative things. So, even when the phrase is used as a generic insult not referring to something homosexual ("that new rule is so gay", "this restaurant is so gay"), it still carries strong homophobic connotations.

I have the perfect image spam for this thread, but I'm sure if I posted it, there'd be absurd screams of "OMGooses!!! He R teh homophobe!!!1one" :rolleyes:

Noooo. We would never do such a thing to you. ;)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?
The parents sued the school for giving their daughter shit?

Sheesh.

"Eat me" is also common parlance, and you don't get away with saying it in schools either.

And who is claiming this is hate speech? You don't get to cuss in school either. You don't get to call someone a fucking stupid piece of shit in school either. That's not because it's hate speech, but because there are anti-harrassment policies in many school boards.

"Sticks and stones" and all that. It's just a bleedin' word.

Yeah! Fuck tolerance!

"Eat me" is also common parlance, and you don't get away with saying it in schools either.You don't? Why not?

I know when I use it some people give me that look like "you shouldn't say that"

I don't really care though. It's part of my vocabulary, I don't mean it to dis anyone.

Well, but, dear Smunkee, you shouldn't say that. One might say, "Don't be such an Okie." You may not mean it to dis people, but not everyone understands that, and they might take it as you buying into the idea that gay people not worthy of respect. "They" in this case being the Smunkettes you're raising. You can change your vocabulary, you know. (Unless you meant "ghetto" as an adjective is part of your vocabulary, in which case ... :confused: what? )

I don't think there should be a law about "hate speech"

it's stupid. I should be able to say whatever I want provided it doesn't incite violence.

What am I missing here? The parents sued because the daughter was disciplined. I'm not seeing a 'hate law' anywhere except in the minds of the person who started this thread, and the person who wrote that article.

Noooo. We would never do such a thing to you. ;)

Riiiiiight... :p

I don't care for the easy use of "that's so gay" as a put-down but I'm not sure I'd qualify it as hate-speech in and of itself. Then again, using "gay" as a pejorative does encourage homophobia. So, I don't know. Does this seem like an all-around over-reaction? Yes. Do I wish Americans would quit clogging the courts with law suits every time someone hurts their feelings? Absolutely. I also think the young woman being taunted should have done what we did in my day, and told her tormentors to eat shit and die. Of course, in my day it was "mammoth shit," but you get the idea.

Did absolutely no one actually read the article?

The girl who said, 'that's so gay' was not sued by anyone.

You don't? Why not?

Say it to your teacher. Say it to another student within a teacher's hearing. You will be disciplined. Teachers are in the legal position of in loco parentis, and have every right to take you to task for your rude language.

"That's so gay" just shows how pervasive homophobia is in our society.

No it doesn't.

Gay when used in this sense means corny.

Yeah! Fuck tolerance!

You can't force what you call "tolerance," unless you want a nice, cozy li'l police state. And I'm guessing you'd probably have to tinker a bit with people's brains as well.

You can't force what you call "tolerance," unless you want a nice, cozy li'l police state. And I'm guessing you'd probably have to tinker a bit with people's brains as well.

lol at "tolerance"

Please point out to me where I said tolerance needed to be forced. I'll wait.

*waits forever because it ain't gunna happen*

You can't force what you call "tolerance," unless you want a nice, cozy li'l police state. And I'm guessing you'd probably have to tinker a bit with people's brains as well.

You can't force tolerance.

But you can enforce an atmosphere that fosters learning, by preventing students from making offensive statements or harrassing other students.

Just like, in the workplace, you don't get to call your boss "that ****** bitch" and think that freedom of expression is going to protect your ass....and turn around and sue your workplace for turfing you for your inappropriate language.

Did absolutely no one actually read the article?

The girl who said, 'that's so gay' was not sued by anyone.

True, but her parents sued because she was disciplined.

And why would I want to read the article, for goodness' sake? That would only confuse me with facts. I'm not here to learn, I know.

True, but her parents sued because she was disciplined. And this has what to do with a so called Hate Law?

This whole thread is premised on a big steaming pile of bullshit. And people whining about 'people suing for nothing' should be pissing in the direction of the parents of the girl.

Perhaps people should get thicker skin.

Or any skin at all, for that matter.

Saying that's so gay in this case makes about much as saying, "That's so frugblod."

What is gay about having 10 moms?

The real issue is discrimination because of religion. I think that does fall under hate speech... but I was under the impression that hate speech required the intimation of violence.

Perhaps people should get thicker skin.

I agree

Yeah! Fuck tolerance!

Perhaps people should get thicker skin.

Saying that's so gay in this case makes about much as saying, "That's so frugblod."

What is gay about having 10 moms?

The real issue is discrimination because of religion. I think that does fall under hate speech... but I was under the impression that hate speech required the intimation of violence.

This isn't actually about hate speech.

However, you do bring up a good point. The kids bugging her about her religion should also be spoken to.

Fuck "hate speech". Perhaps the law ought to consider that people are neither obliged to listen or read anything, nor do they have a divinely ordained right to never be offended.

Once more, I return to this; surely, is "hate speech" and intolerant diatribes are as rankly illogical and flawed as is commonly held, censorship is superfluous, since nobody will take them seriously?

Perhaps people should get thicker skin.

No doubt. Parent's who think their kids should be free to say whatever they want in school need to get a thicker skin.

Or homeschool.

ghetto is in my vocabulary, I don't say anything about anything 'being gay' because I am not sure what that means.......

I say "I had to ghetto rig my radio to get that station" or "my car is so ghetto" and people look at me like I am saying something bad.

In fact, I replaced "****** rig" with "ghetto rig" because I don't like to say "******", which is what most people around here say.

Dang. Never mind. *wanders off*

Perhaps people should get thicker skin.

Hear HEar.

Well, but, dear Smunkee, you shouldn't say that. One might say, "Don't be such an Okie." You may not mean it to dis people, but not everyone understands that, and they might take it as you buying into the idea that gay people not worthy of respect. "They" in this case being the Smunkettes you're raising. You can change your vocabulary, you know. (Unless you meant "ghetto" as an adjective is part of your vocabulary, in which case ... :confused: what? )

ghetto is in my vocabulary, I don't say anything about anything 'being gay' because I am not sure what that means.......

I say "I had to ghetto rig my radio to get that station" or "my car is so ghetto" and people look at me like I am saying something bad.

In fact, I replaced "****** rig" with "ghetto rig" because I don't like to say "******", which is what most people around here say.

ghetto is in my vocabulary, I don't say anything about anything 'being gay' because I am not sure what that means.......

I say "I had to ghetto rig my radio to get that station" or "my car is so ghetto" and people look at me like I am saying something bad.

In fact, I replaced "****** rig" with "ghetto rig" because I don't like to say "******", which is what most people around here say.

Afro-engineer is popular here. :rolleyes:

ghetto is in my vocabulary, I don't say anything about anything 'being gay' because I am not sure what that means.......

I say "I had to ghetto rig my radio to get that station" or "my car is so ghetto" and people look at me like I am saying something bad.

In fact, I replaced "****** rig" with "ghetto rig" because I don't like to say "******", which is what most people around here say.


Maybe they were appaled that you didnt use the word "******" and think that black people should grow a thicker skin... and a lighter one :p

Jesus wept.

Apparently only Neeskia and I bothered to read the article.

The OP is hysterical nonsense. We aren't talking about any kind of hate speech or hate crime law.

The girl got "a warning and a notation in her file." That's it. If that is an "overreaction" by the school, what would be appropriate?

Language that is appropriate in a school setting is an issue. If you read the article, the school district had good reasons for considering the phrase harrassing. Even the lawyers for the parents admit the phrase is inappropriate and shouldn't be used.

I think the most disturbing thing is that the students that made fun of the girl's religion weren't disciplined. There comments about the LDS Church were as bad as the girl's statement.

language changes. the powers that be need to deal with it.

you are such a ******.

******, of course, being defined by me as "foolish person".

Afro-engineer is popular here. :rolleyes:

Hm. Haven't heard that one. Which may be a good thing. My reaction to it would probably not be pleasant.

lol at "tolerance"

Please point out to me where I said tolerance needed to be forced. I'll wait.

*waits forever because it ain't gunna happen*

Words are used to express opinions. Saying one can't say certain words, because someone or some group finds them offensive is nothing more than a silly attempt to sweep certain opinions under the rug. "This opinion over here is okay, because no one really finds it offensive (yet), but your opinion is right out. You hurt that poor fellow's feelings over there."

No doubt. Parent's who think their kids should be free to say whatever they want in school need to get a thicker skin.

Or homeschool.

No. Granted, people should, and generally do, moderate their language in light of their context, however, people have no right not to be offended. Children will always bully and taunt each other, and no amount of linguistic rape will change that.

The girl got "a warning and a notation in her file." That's it. If that is an "overreaction" by the school, what would be appropriate?


Okay, replace "gay" with "stupid" or "silly" in the girl's remark. Think she would've received any disciplinary action?

Words are used to express opinions. Saying one can't say certain words, because someone or some group finds them offensive is nothing more than a silly attempt to sweep certain opinions under the rug. "This opinion over here is okay, because no one really finds it offensive (yet), but your opinion is right out. You hurt that poor fellow's feelings over there."

SO you couldnt point out to me where I said tolerance needs to be forced and instead have to restate how you think that I am sayign that tolerance needs to be forced? LMFAO! I think you need to wake up... drink some coffee or something.

No. Granted, people should, and generally do, moderate their language in light of their context, however, people have no right not to be offended. Children will always bully and taunt each other, and no amount of linguistic rape will change that.

"Linguistic rape" -- could you amp up the hyperbole a little more? :rolleyes:

Yes, children will always bully and taunt each other and adults will always seek to discipline children for doing so. That's how we teach children to act civilized.

To equate a warning from the principle with "linguistic rape" is ..... linguistic rape.

No. Granted, people should, and generally do, moderate their language in light of their context, however, people have no right not to be offended. Children will always bully and taunt each other, and no amount of linguistic rape will change that.

Ok, post-Columbine, people are whining that teachers don't do enough to stop bullying, that schools aren't taking it seriously, aren't dealing with it before it gets out of hand. Then when schools decide that they are not going to tolerate bullying, or offensive 'teasing', people bitch some more.

Got it.:rolleyes:

I guess the real issue was one of "talking while a teenager." Did bring up some interesting points about what and what isn't hate-speech. Which I do think exists. The trouble is, it's hard to define. One is reminded of the Supreme Court Justice who couldn't quite define pornography but knew it when he saw it.

No, people do not have the right never to be insulted, but neither do people have the right to say any damn thing they want under an umbrella of "Well, that's just my opinion." It's the shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre principle.

Or any skin at all, for that matter.

It is just so stupid that this girl would end up in the principal's office for this. In any reasonable circumstance, a look from the teacher or a "you shouldn't say that" should be enough. Not that I even find "that's so gay" to even be on the level of a personal insult like "idiot". I am SO thankful I've graduated and don't have to worry about this stuff anymore.

Yes. You should.

People being offended by words, whether they be slurs or "swear" words, is idiotic. They are words, and "fuck" is really no different than "dog" except for how it is percieved. Perception is false, and artificial. Crude words, slurs, and cursing is only offensive because we make it so. It's a load of bullshit.


Here, Here! Three Cheers for Freedom! Huzzah!

Afro-engineer is popular here. :rolleyes:
yeah, I hear that here too, and I look at them confused, until they explain it and then they feel stupid.
Maybe they were appaled that you didnt use the word "******" and think that black people should grow a thicker skin... and a lighter one :p

I got a comment once about "you don't even know what it's like to live in the ghetto bitch" to which my friend replied, "you know she lives in the house behind yours right?" :p yeah, I grew up in the poor neighborhood.......only white kid in sight.

Everyone is chiming in over the fact that this girl said, "That's so gay."? Yet, no one is questioning the initial response that elicited the response?
Actually that has been questioned.

And it seems pretty obvious those kids needed to be talked to as well.

And then their parents could have sued, and someone else would pretend it was about a hate law.

Everyone is chiming in over the fact that this girl said, "That's so gay."? Yet, no one is questioning the initial response that elicited the response?

SANTA ROSA, Calif. - When a few classmates razzed Rebekah Rice about her Mormon upbringing with questions such as, "Do you have 10 moms?" she shot back: "That's so gay."

Is it just me or does that seem like better grounds for disciplining someone? After all, they are mocking her religion and her beliefs by teasing her about a perceived stereotype. Why is no one finding fault in that but me?

While I agree that her response may have possibly been a tad out of line, the initial questions, whether sarcastic or not, should have been thoroughly reviewed. They were specifically targeted at her and her religion, but her response was not targeted at homosexuals, even if the word does refer to homosexuals and lesbians.

you are such a ******.

******, of course, being defined by me as "foolish person".

Nice.

That's right! I didn't mean it to be racist! In fact, ****** means 'nice person' to me, so when I say it, you have no right to be offended!

SO you couldnt point out to me where I said tolerance needs to be forced and instead have to restate how you think that I am sayign that tolerance needs to be forced? LMFAO! I think you need to wake up... drink some coffee or something.

Um...if you'd kindly pull your head out of that dark, moist place in which it seems it's lodged, you might've understood what I said. As for where you said it, well, no, you didn't say it explicitly. Your sarcastic comment -- "Yeah! Fuck tolerance!" -- earlier in this thread, however, clearly implied it.

I think the parents lawsuit is stupid but the school had a serious case of overreaction as well.

Agreed, but only because the other students went off scott free.

But weighing the two, the parent's actions are definately heavier on the asshat side.

Discipline issues are always appealable through the school board.

Okay, replace "gay" with "stupid" or "silly" in the girl's remark. Think she would've received any disciplinary action?

Of course not. That's the point.

The use of gay in that phrase has a negative connotation towards homosexuals. You just equated "gay" with "stupid" and "silly." Are gays stupid and silly?

If she had made a similar comment about blacks, she should have been warned. And those that were attacking her religion should have been warned as well.

Awful lot of fuss being made over a simple warning from the principal.

No doubt. Parent's who think their kids should be free to say whatever they want in school need to get a thicker skin.

Or homeschool.

I think the parents lawsuit is stupid but the school had a serious case of overreaction as well.

Ok, post-Columbine, people are whining that teachers don't do enough to stop bullying, that schools aren't taking it seriously, aren't dealing with it before it gets out of hand. Then when schools decide that they are not going to tolerate bullying, or offensive 'teasing', people bitch some more.

Got it.:rolleyes:

So, just so as to ensure that I am completely sure, is this what I surmise has happened;

Girl is teased en masse simply due to her being Mormon, and their not being so. Girl responds with what is little more than a cultural idiom bereft of homophobic malice, and is reprimanded beyond all reasonable measure.

Oh well done, how very effective this school, and thus you contention is.

Perhaps if the correct targets were identified, instead of mindlessly following irrational directives, bullying might actually be precluded a little.

Jesus wept.

Apparently only Neeskia and I bothered to read the article. Yeah, I've established that no one cares, because it's more fun to get hysterical.

Actually that has been questioned.

And it seems pretty obvious those kids needed to be talked to as well.

And then their parents could have sued, and someone else would pretend it was about a hate law.

I read the article and found myself to be quite perplexed, as it didn't mention any recourse against the other students. I can see why the parents felt she was singled out. The girl wasn't the only person being a dickface.

So, just so as to ensure that I am completely sure, is this what I surmise has happened;

Girl is teased en masse simply due to her being Mormon, and their not being so. Girl responds with what is little more than a cultural idiom bereft of homophobic malice, and is reprimanded beyond all reasonable measure.
Was she suspended?

No.

Was she expelled?

No.

She was spoken to, and note of this was made on her file.

Oh no. How unreasonable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?She's mormon, so she deserves to be punished.

"Linguistic rape" -- could you amp up the hyperbole a little more? :rolleyes:

Yes, children will always bully and taunt each other and adults will always seek to discipline children for doing so. That's how we teach children to act civilized.

To equate a warning from the principle with "linguistic rape" is ..... linguistic rape.


I could try...;)

The warning was; a) misplaced, and wrong; not only was the girl right to defend herself, but the aggressors ought to have been reprimanded, not her.
b) teaching the girl, and her bully's, that the unthinking use of idioms is wrong, whereas maliciously motivated religious insults are fair game.

Was she suspended?

No.

Was she expelled?

No.

She was spoken to, and note of this was made on her file.

Oh no. How unreasonable.

Yes, because she did sod all wrong. The comment evidently contained no concious malice or homophobia, and for this she has a permanent stigma, whereas her bully's, for a worse offence do not.

So, just so as to ensure that I am completely sure, is this what I surmise has happened;

Girl is teased en masse simply due to her being Mormon, and their not being so. Girl responds with what is little more than a cultural idiom bereft of homophobic malice, and is reprimanded beyond all reasonable measure.

Oh well done, how very effective this school, and thus you contention is.

Perhaps if the correct targets were identified, instead of mindlessly following irrational directives, bullying might actually be precluded a little.

The unfairness in disciplining the girl and not her taunters has been addressed by both Neesika and I.

But your premise that that "that's so gay" is "bereft of homophobic malice" is wrong. She shouldn't have said it -- even the lawyers from her side admit that.

Since when is a warning equal to a "reprimand beyond all reasonable measure"? Get a grip.

Um...if you'd kindly pull your head out of that dark, moist place in which it seems it's lodged, you might've understood what I said. As for where you said it, well, no, you didn't say it explicitly. Your sarcastic comment -- "Yeah! Fuck tolerance!" -- earlier in this thread, however, clearly implied it.


Interesting interpretation. Why am I not surprised that you got it oh so very wrong? The world always so black and white to you?

I read the article and found myself to be quite perplexed, as it didn't mention any recourse against the other students. I can see why the parents felt she was singled out. The girl wasn't the only person being a dickface.

True.

And a great case could have been made to the school board.

But it looks like someone's family is hoping for some cash.

The unfairness in disciplining the girl and not her taunters has been addressed by both Neesika and I.

But your premise that that "that's so gay" is "bereft of homophobic malice" is wrong. She shouldn't have said it -- even the lawyers from her side admit that.

There's really no point in arguing with TBC, he mostly just trolls anyway.

Agreed, but only because the other students went off scott free.

But weighing the two, the parent's actions are definately heavier on the asshat side.

Discipline issues are always appealable through the school board.

Huh, I just noticed that.

*kicks self*

The students who poked fun at the girl for being a Mormon get no discipline? It is wrong to make supposed homophobic remarks but attacks on religion are okay?

...because it's more fun to get hysterical.

it is you know? :p

Of course not. That's the point.

Yes, it is.

The use of gay in that phrase has a negative connotation towards homosexuals.

How do you figure that? Was her remark directed at a homosexual classmate?

You just equated "gay" with "stupid" and "silly."

Yes, yes I did, because that was the context in which it was used. Please try to pay attention to context. If I were to say, "I'm feeling joyous and gay today," would that mean that that I'm feeling happy and want to have sex with another man? No, it wouldn't. If I were to say, "My stomach feels a bit queer," would that mean that my stomach is now attracted to men? Of course not. Say hello to this nifty thing called "context." In the context in which the girl used the word "gay," it meant "stupid."

Are gays stupid and silly?

Again, context. Read my post again.

Oh, and of course, when all else fails, try to colour me as homophobic. Well played. :rolleyes:

Yes, because she did sod all wrong. The comment evidently contained no concious malice or homophobia, and for this she has a permanent stigma, whereas her bully's, for a worse offence do not.

You are confusing two separate issues:

1) Did she do anything wrong? YES. She used an inappropriate phrase for which she received a mere warning.

2) Should her bullies have been punished? YES. They were acting inappropriately and should have been dealt with at least -- if not more -- severely.

Huh, I just noticed that.

*kicks self*

The students who poked fun at the girl for being a Mormon get no discipline? It is wrong to make supposed homophobic remarks but attacks on religion are okay?
Clearly a problem with school policy.

Doesn't need to be dealt with via a lawsuit.

The comment evidently contained no concious malice or homophobia
Dude, we've been through this before. Any usage of the word "gay" in a negative sense is either ignorant or inherently homophobic, regardless of the thing being described.

I read the article and found myself to be quite perplexed, as it didn't mention any recourse against the other students. I can see why the parents felt she was singled out. The girl wasn't the only person being a dickface.But she's a mormon dickface. Unlike the other pupils who just picked on her, she - like all christian fundamentalist retards - has an inherent general hatred for all kinds of groups, homosexuals especially (against god's will and all that crap). Such mindsets/beliefs must be fought.

The comment evidently contained no concious malice or homophobiaShe equated stupid, silly, etc with gay. And this persuasion comes from her mormon upbringing. It may not be conscious, but intentional nevertheless.

The unfairness in disciplining the girl and not her taunters has been addressed by both Neesika and I.

But your premise that that "that's so gay" is "bereft of homophobic malice" is wrong. She shouldn't have said it -- even the lawyers from her side admit that.

Since when is a warning equal to a "reprimand beyond all reasonable measure"? Get a grip.

However, I don't, nor should you employ a lawyer as an axiom upon which to make an argument. Hardly fountains of truth are they? Notably given that an admission of wrong will help her case greatly.

Were you to interview the majority of people who use "gay" as a term of denigration, I would imagine most have no problem with homosexuality itself. The term is simply a cultural idiom for bad/shite/dire, and this should be considered.

But she's a mormon dickface. Unlike the other pupils who just picked on her, she - like all christian fundamentalist retards - has an inherent general hatred for all kinds of groups, homosexuals especially (against god's will and all that crap). Such mindsets/beliefs must be fought.

I certainly hope this is sarcasm.

But she's a mormon dickface. Unlike the other pupils who just picked on her, she - like all christian fundamentalist retards - has an inherent general hatred for all kinds of groups, homosexuals especially (against god's will and all that crap). Such mindsets/beliefs must be fought.
But you have to admit that she was provoked. Sure, her retort was reprehensible, but the thing that elicited it was much more so. She may have said "that's so gay" as a brainless, spur-of-the-moment comeback, but the taunting of the other kids was clearly designed to be discriminatory and insulting.

I also find it ironic and slightly troubling that you're calling out her intolerance of others while simultaneously referring to her as a "Mormon dickface".

You are confusing two separate issues:

1) Did she do anything wrong? YES. She used an inappropriate phrase for which she received a mere warning.

2) Should her bullies have been punished? YES. They were acting inappropriately and should have been dealt with at least -- if not more -- severely.

I refuse to believe that the phrase was intended by active homophobia, nor is it generally used as such. "Fucking homo" is homophobic, "gay" has, in the UK at least, become a term of general abuse. Few who use it are homophobic, and interdiction of the term simply further glorifies it.

I certainly hope this is sarcasm.

I doubt it. UB has been very consistent in his strong opposition to religion, particularly the ones of Judaic origins.

Dude, we've been through this before. Any usage of the word "gay" in a negative sense is either ignorant or inherently homophobic, regardless of the thing being described.

Provided one accepts that those who use it believe as such; the Mormon probably did, however, most simply use it as a term of abuse, with no concious homophobia. Only those who seek to be offended would be.

I refuse to believe that the phrase was intended by active homophobia, nor is it generally used as such. "Fucking homo" is homophobic, "gay" has, in the UK at least, become a term of general abuse. Few who use it are homophobic, and interdiction of the term simply further glorifies it.

It's not your place to refuse to believe or not.

If the school has a policy against that phrase, that's up to them.

They were perfectly within their rights to take her to task for it.

They did not do so with the other students. This is wrong.

The parents had recourse. They could have discussed this with the administration, and failing that, taken their complaint to the school board. Hell, they could have contacted the Minister in charge of Education if they were really pissed.

Launching a lawsuit indicates a level of douchebaggery far in excess of any actions on part of the school.

Your opinion on the phrase is completely irrelevant as anything but idle commentary.

Yes, it is.

How do you figure that? Was her remark directed at a homosexual classmate?

Yes, yes I did, because that was the context in which it was used. Please try to pay attention to context. If I were to say, "I'm feeling joyous and gay today," would that mean that that I'm feeling happy and want to have sex with another man? No, it wouldn't. If I were to say, "My stomach feels a bit queer," would that mean that my stomach is now attracted to men? Of course not. Say hello to this nifty thing called "context." In the context in which the girl used the word "gay," it meant "stupid."

Again, context. Read my post again.

Oh, and of course, when all else fails, try to colour me as homophobic. Well played. :rolleyes:

Nice tap dance. Did I colour you homophobic? NO. Did I imply that the use of "gay" as a substitute for "stupid" or "silly" had homophobic origins? YES.

Apparently, as long as I'm not directly addressing a black student, I can use the phrases "******-knocking" and "******-rigging" in a high school classroom.

I doubt it. UB has been very consistent in his strong opposition to religion, particularly the ones of Judaic origins.

Then doesn't his post constitute some pretty hardcore flaming?

I certainly hope this is sarcasm.No, why? Religiously motivated contempt for homosexuals is unacceptable. No matter what you think of homosexuals, Mormonism and other braindead denominations are far far worse.

You are confusing two separate issues:

1) Did she do anything wrong? YES. She used an inappropriate phrase for which she received a mere warning.

Bullshit it was an inappropriate phrase. That line is so gay its stupid. She did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG!!!!

Dude, we've been through this before. Any usage of the word "gay" in a negative sense is either ignorant or inherently homophobic, regardless of the thing being described.

Given the many other derogatory terms for homosexuals, all much worse than "gay", people really need to calm down and not go apeshit over something as small as this.

It's not your place to refuse to believe or not.

If the school has a policy against that phrase, that's up to them.

They were perfectly within their rights to take her to task for it.

They did not do so with the other students. This is wrong.

The parents had recourse. They could have discussed this with the administration, and failing that, taken their complaint to the school board. Hell, they could have contacted the Minister in charge of Education if they were really pissed.

Launching a lawsuit indicates a level of douchebaggery far in excess of any actions on part of the school.

Your opinion on the phrase is completely irrelevant as anything but idle commentary.

No more idle than yours, one might note.

As for her parents, one can't account for cases of brain-AIDS such as that, and I daresay had they consulted the board, the situation would have resolved itself.

Provided one accepts that those who use it believe as such; the Mormon probably did, however, most simply use it as a term of abuse, with no concious homophobia. Only those who seek to be offended would be.
But ask yourself: why this word? Why do people insist on using this particular word as a "term of abuse"? Don't you think it's a bad thing for the word "gay" to be seen as something negative and insulting?

Given the many other derogatory terms for homosexuals, all much worse than "gay", people really need to calm down and not go apeshit over something as small as this.
It may be small, but it's incredibly pervasive. Can you imagine being a gay kid in high school, constantly having a word referring to yourself slung about as a common insult? This is a trend that needs to be reversed, at least as far as the schools are concerned. It should be treated just like any other racial or religious slur.

I doubt it. UB has been very consistent in his strong opposition to religion, particularly the ones of Judaic origins.

which is funny since he does not bad mouth Muslims much at all but Jews and Christians only.

Given the many other derogatory terms for homosexuals, all much worse than "gay", people really need to calm down and not go apeshit over something as small as this.

Um. The people going apeshit are the ones saying the word is not derogatory.

All the school did was have a policy, adopted on reasonable grounds, against the use of the phrase. The girl violated the policy and received a fricking WARNING. That's all.

It's the parents filing a lawsuit and the OP ranting about hate speech that is over the top.

Then doesn't his post constitute some pretty hardcore flaming?

Nah. He can't flame someone who's not a member of the board, and the post isn't quite trolling. I would have already checked the post with another Mod to eliminate any personal bias on my part if I thought it was actionable.

Given the many other derogatory terms for homosexuals, all much worse than "gay", people really need to calm down and not go apeshit over something as small as this.


Whose going apeshit (aside from teh mormon girls parents)? Expressing displeasure about something = going apeshit or did I miss some outlandish stuff?

Then doesn't his post constitute some pretty hardcore flaming?

Probably not since he is not actually bashing any particular poster.

No, why? Religiously motivated contempt for homosexuals is unacceptable. No matter what you think of homosexuals, Mormonism and other braindead denominations are far far worse.

And what denominations are you referring to?

And what denominations are you referring to?

you know you are just egging him on - you might want to make a new thread for that flamefest, so as not to hijack this one.

And what denominations are you referring to?All Jewish, Christian, and Muslim denominations basically. But some of these indeed stand out. Mormons, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, etc... I just don't want such people running around loose spreading their trash.

What if the thing I'm describing actually is "so gay"?

Some things are gay. Gay culture has some distinctive characteristics, and if I see them I should be able to describe them as gay. For example:

"Dude, that pink cowboy vest is so gay. What is that, latex?"

Um. The people going apeshit are the ones saying the word is not derogatory.

gay (g) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
gay·er , gay·est
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Given to social pleasures.
Dissolute; licentious.

Ok smartass, in the context it was used, how was it offensive using the adjective definition since she used it as an adjective?

Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't offensive based on the adjective definition.

That argument is so gay.

All Jewish, Christian, and Muslim denominations basically. But some of these indeed stand out. Mormons, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, etc... I just don't want such people running around loose spreading their trash.

As a methodist, I have no problems with gays or lesbians. None whatsoever. Alot of us have no problem with people who are gay or lesbian. Hell, even Israel has given rights to the gay community. Your argument is so gay it is not even funny anymore.

Now back to the topic of this thread.

Um. The people going apeshit are the ones saying the word is not derogatory.

All the school did was have a policy, adopted on reasonable grounds, against the use of the phrase. The girl violated the policy and received a fricking WARNING. That's all.

It's the parents filing a lawsuit and the OP ranting about hate speech that is over the top.

Whose going apeshit (aside from teh mormon girls parents)? Expressing displeasure about something = going apeshit or did I miss some outlandish stuff?

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I was talking about anyone who is attacking the girl for what she said in the heat of the moment as if she is some evil homophobe from that comment. Criticizing her for it seems rather pointless, blame society for that phrase IS in common usage.

And Cat-Tribe, I don't see why this girl had to be brought to the principal's office and a note going into her record for a stupid comment. Why couldn't the teacher just have said "don't say that" and just left it there? And why were the other kids attacking her for being a Mormon left alone, unpunished?

you know you are just egging him on - you might want to make a new thread for that flamefest, so as not to hijack this one.

Actually, that's a good idea. No flamefests, mind, but start another thread if you want to discuss Judaic religions in general rather than simply Mormonism, which is the relevant one in this thread.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Actually, that's a good idea. No flamefests, mind, but start another thread if you want to discuss Judaic religions in general rather than simply Mormonism, which is the relevant one in this thread.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

yes, LOL, sory, I didn't mean to encourage a flamefest, I just meant that that subject will most likely cause one.

It's a school. With policies.

You can be pulled into the principals office for making farting noises.

You can be pulled in and reprimanded for zipping your hoody up over your head and walking around like a headless zombie.

You can be disciplined for sticking french fries in your nose and pretending you're Jacque Cousteau.

Fucking deal with it.

This thread was based on bullshit hype, screaming 'hate law', and then became some sort of linguistic battle on the meaning of 'gay'. It's evolved into another pile of bullshit, but bullshit it remains.

Actually, that's a good idea. No flamefests, mind, but start another thread if you want to discuss Judaic religions in general rather than simply Mormonism, which is the relevant one in this thread.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodiaAnd? Mormonism does not inherently feature contempt for homosexuals? And on what is that contempt based? Exactly: the Bible, the common basis of all Judaic (as you like to dub them) religions.

If this had happened in another month or so we could have dragged it out and fertilized our fields with it. Oh, well. Deep breaths, Neesika. ;)

Perhaps this is in fact the source of my ire.

So much good fertilizer going to waste.

C'est la vie...but don't ask me to breath deeply with this stench in the air!

Ok smartass, in the context it was used, how was it offensive using the adjective definition since she used it as an adjective?

Oh wait, that's right, it wasn't offensive based on the adjective definition.

That argument is so gay.

Um. OK, smartass, which definition of gay was she (and you) using? Either it is of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation or it doesn't make sense.

She wasn't saying the question was "showing or characterized by cheerfulness," "bright or lively," "given to social pleasures," or "licentious."

Nor were you using any of those meanings.

So -- going by your own dictionary -- you must mean it to refer to homosexuals. And the context is certainly derogatory.

gay (g) KEY

ADJECTIVE:
gay·er , gay·est
Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
Given to social pleasures.
Dissolute; licentious.

It's a school. With policies.

You can be pulled into the principals office for making farting noises.

You can be pulled in and reprimanded for zipping your hoody up over your head and walking around like a headless zombie.

You can be disciplined for sticking french fries in your nose and pretending you're Jacque Cousteau.

Fucking deal with it.

This thread was based on bullshit hype, screaming 'hate law', and then became some sort of linguistic battle on the meaning of 'gay'. It's evolved into another pile of bullshit, but bullshit it remains.

If this had happened in another month or so we could have dragged it out and fertilized our fields with it. Oh, well. Deep breaths, Neesika. ;)

Saying that's so gay in this case makes about much as saying, "That's so frugblod."That would have been a much better response. It simultaneously tells your opponent off, and it confuses them; they wouldn't know whether to be insulted or not.

It's a school. With policies.

You can be pulled into the principals office for making farting noises.

You can be pulled in and reprimanded for zipping your hoody up over your head and walking around like a headless zombie.

You can be disciplined for sticking french fries in your nose and pretending you're Jacque Cousteau.

Fucking deal with it.

This thread was based on bullshit hype, screaming 'hate law', and then became some sort of linguistic battle on the meaning of 'gay'. It's evolved into another pile of bullshit, but bullshit it remains.

I figured that being sent to the principals office stopped after elementary school. My high school sure never sent anyone to see ours except for the hearing in suspension/expulsions. Minor infractions like this certainly never went to his office. Seems rather silly that this case did.

We've had this discussion before and again my mind is boggled by the sheer amount of willful ignorance people are displaying with their "Whaa? Using "this is so gay" as a derogatory catch-all phrase is derogatory towards homosexuals? No wai!!!11! Those two are clearly not related at all! It's a complete coincidence that we use "gay" and not "straight" or "manly" or "strong" or even a non-descript "orange", for that matter!"

I mean, seriously? Seriously? You never knew this "gay" derived from that "gay", clearly spelling out how "highly" society at large thinks of the latter? Suuuuuure. :rolleyes:

We've had this discussion before and again my mind is boggled by the sheer amount of willful ignorance people are displaying with their "Whaa? Using "this is so gay" as a derogatory catch-all phrase is derogatory towards homosexuals? No wai!!!11! Those two are clearly not related at all! It's a complete coincidence that we use "gay" and not "manly" or "strong" or even a non-descript "orange", for that matter!"

I mean, seriously? Seriously? You never knew this "gay" derived from that "gay", clearly spelling out how "highly" society at large thinks of the latter? Suuuuuure. :rolleyes:


Exactly!

But perhaps we are giving these folks a bit too much credit in the mental department. Perhaps they really are that dull if they can't make the connection even after having it explained to them multiple times.

I figured that being sent to the principals office stopped after elementary school. My high school sure never sent anyone to see ours except for the hearing in suspension/expulsions. Minor infractions like this certainly never went to his office. Seems rather silly that this case did.

The policy was a reasonable one adopted on the basis of sound judgment.

But school officials say they took a strict stand against the putdown after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the year before.

"The district has a statutory duty to protect gay students from harassment," the district's lawyers argued in a legal brief. "In furtherance of this goal, prohibition of the phrase 'That's so gay' ... was a reasonable regulation."

Again, the fly in the ointment is that the girl's taunters were not also disciplined.

Exactly!
But perhaps we are giving these folks a bit too much credit in the mental department. Perhaps they really are that dull if they can't make the connection even after having it explained to them multiple times.But then again, what do Mormon parents explain to their kids multiple times?

I figured that being sent to the principals office stopped after elementary school. My high school sure never sent anyone to see ours except for the hearing in suspension/expulsions. Minor infractions like this certainly never went to his office. Seems rather silly that this case did.
School issue.

Not a legal one.

As long as that's clear, then discussing what one would want to happen in one's school district is a fine way to while away the time.

I'm only interested as far as getting an explanation as to why this had to be announced with such mind-numbing hysteria. I question the motives of both the OP and the writer of the article in question.

We've had this discussion before and again my mind is boggled by the sheer amount of willful ignorance people are displaying with their "Whaa? Using "this is so gay" as a derogatory catch-all phrase is derogatory towards homosexuals? No wai!!!11! Those two are clearly not related at all! It's a complete coincidence that we use "gay" and not "manly" or "strong" or even a non-descript "orange", for that matter!"

I mean, seriously? Seriously? You never knew this "gay" derived from that "gay", clearly spelling out how "highly" society at large thinks of the latter? Suuuuuure. :rolleyes:

AMEN.

And? Mormonism does not inherently feature contempt for homosexuals? And on what is that contempt based? Exactly: the Bible, the common basis of all Judaic (as you like to dub them) religions.

Then start a thread discussing anti-homosexual sentiments in the Bible, if that's the important point to you. Feel free to discuss the demerits of Mormonism as a means of supporting your earlier point, but the others need another thread. That's my final word on it. Appeal the decision in Moderation if you think it's unsound.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I object to hate crime legislation generally, so I probably would have presented the article somewhat differently.

This article has nothing whatsoever to do with hate crime legislation, so I have trouble making sense of your comment.

I object to hate crime legislation generally, so I probably would have presented the article somewhat differently.

I object to hate crime legislation generally, so I probably would have presented the article somewhat differently.

In that you would not mention it since hate crime legistlation isnt involved?

Then start a thread discussing anti-homosexual sentiments in the Bible, if that's the important point to you. Feel free to discuss the demerits of Mormonism as a means of supporting your earlier point, but the others need another thread. That's my final word on it. Appeal the decision in Moderation if you think it's unsound.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodiaWell, we are looking for the reasons that caused her to make such a remark, aren't we? And I hinted that she made it because she truly hates homosexuals, as she was raised to think thus. I am at the very issue of this thread.

In that you would not mention it since hate crime legistlation isnt involved?

Hahahahaa, that IS the only reasonable conclusion :D

The policy was a reasonable one adopted on the basis of sound judgment.



Again, the fly in the ointment is that the girl's taunters were not also disciplined.

I certainly agree the other kids should have been disciplined as well but I simply don't see this as some kind of harassment towards gays. I could agree that she should have been scolded but anything further seems to be going to far. Especially as she had no intention of insulting homosexuals with her comment but merely trying to get her stupid classmates off her back.

School issue.

Not a legal one.

As long as that's clear, then discussing what one would want to happen in one's school district is a fine way to while away the time.

I'm only interested as far as getting an explanation as to why this had to be announced with such mind-numbing hysteria. I question the motives of both the OP and the writer of the article in question.

I still feel a trip to the principal and a record is going too far but I will accept that if it is the action the school wants to take it is fine, it isn't TOO outrageous after all. I agree as well that this being a story is simply an indication of the media trying to generate controversy where none exists. That and a pair of dumbass parents filing a suit for no reason. Also hardly newsworthy I think, frivolous lawsuits are nothing new after all.

Do they realise the word 'gay' has become so divorced from its two previous original meanings in today's slang that asscosiating its use in the above context to hate speech is absurd.

so im not gay? i am a male who physically, mentally, spiritually even, prefers other males in a non-sexist manner.

im not gay; i.e. happy because i am not a swear word! :headbang:

and as long as this comes up, they can take out the "n-word" when refering to people of African decent. :)

no, im not of African decent, but the history of that word is truly sad.

-Rafe

Hateful speech is not a crime. It's ridiculous to consider it so.

However, that doesn't mean that hateful speech can have no consequences. If she broke school rules, then she deserve the punishment she receives for it.

As I always say, The First Amendment was never meant to be a shield against incoming fists. :)

Hateful speech is not a crime. It's ridiculous to consider it so.Insults are not crime?

However, that doesn't mean that hateful speech can have no consequences. If she broke school rules, then she deserve the punishment she receives for it.Yes.

As I always say, The First Amendment was never meant to be a shield against incoming fists."Gay" is not only used as an insult in the US...

School issue.

Not a legal one.

As long as that's clear, then discussing what one would want to happen in one's school district is a fine way to while away the time.

I'm only interested as far as getting an explanation as to why this had to be announced with such mind-numbing hysteria. I question the motives of both the OP and the writer of the article in question.

Fine. I made the thread title on the spur of the moment and obviously didn't give it any thought. I'll ask the mods to change it.

I wasn't ranting, hysterical, or otherwise irrational. I was mostly curious about people's opinons on the line "When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?" hence the "is this a hate speech issue?" question.

As for the kids who prompted her to retaliate, it doesn't mention in the article if they were punished similarly or not. If they were, good. If not, they deserve to be.

Sorry for the confusing OP. I'll remember to be more clear next time. :)

And what happened to the racist anti-mormon freaks?

And why the fuck do we have a spellchecker now?

Wrong. Before "gay" meant "homosexual" it meant "happy." Saying "That's so happy" is not hate speach. Try again.

Quit being an asshat. Asshat.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388702/

I'm not exactly sure what to think of this yet. Is this a hate speech issue?

Nope. This is proof that life was better in the '90s.

And why the fuck do we have a spellchecker now? We dio have a spell chercker now?


Edit: So, I don't know what you have, but I don't. QED.

This is so retarded.

That girl should have known better. If you are going to use a word with a negative spin when that word also describes a group of people, make damn sure that group of people cannot defend themselves.

Like Mormons, for example?

http://www.orlyowl.com/upload/files/nigga_please.jpg

*runs*

This is so retarded.

That girl should have known better. If you are going to use a word with a negative spin when that word also describes a group of people, make damn sure that group of people cannot defend themselves.

Like Mormons, for example?Read his (her?) post again. Pay attention to the first line.

This is so retarded.

That girl should have known better. If you are going to use a word with a negative spin when that word also describes a group of people, make damn sure that group of people cannot defend themselves.

:p

Insults are not crime?

Nope.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'RE WORDS! WE'RE PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! THEY'RE JUST WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. But I'm getting a tad tired of the authoritarians and their PC-based steps to totalitarian regime...

This is stupid, one may even say, a little gay. Its not hate speech to say "thats so gay".

Is it hate speech to say "that's so muslim" to mean something's stupid?

This was an overreaction, to be sure. But it's still hateful.

Read his (her?) post again. Pay attention to the first line.

I was. It's just a point: as far as I can tell, the anti-mormon kids didn't get in trouble at all.

This is stupid, one may even say, a little gay. Its not hate speech to say "thats so gay".

Is it hate speech to say "that's so muslim" to mean something's stupid?Excellent example.

His.

Yes, the first line. Most important.

People need to understand that words are not able to be offensive. It is the intent that is offensive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is looking for a reason to whine, looking for a reason to control speech.

Excellent example.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

I was just trying to use another example to point out that even though the school greatly overreacted, it was still a hateful thing to say.

:p
The irony! So delicious! :D

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell.

I was just trying to use another example to point out that even though the school greatly overreacted, it was still a hateful thing to say.
Oh, no, sorry, not sarcastic at all. I do think it's an excellent example.

Oh, no, sorry, not sarcastic at all. I do think it's an excellent example.

Ah. It's hard to tell on this site some of the time. Jolly good then.

I've actually considered that if someone calls me gay, I'll call them straight. I would like to see them stop and scratch their heads.

This is stupid, one may even say, a little gay. Its not hate speech to say "thats so gay".
Such a towelheaded* thing to say. What are you going to do next, bow down to Mecca?** That was such a silly comment, it almost makes me want to read the Koran*** just to get the thought of it out of my mind.

* slang for foolish
** slang metaphor for doing something incredibly stupid
*** slang hyperbolically negative statement

Of course, what I just said is in no way offensive, or hate speech. It's just slang, after all. Totally divorced from the original meaning. Coincidental, really, that it happens to refer to a group of people.

Is it hate speech to say "that's so muslim" to mean something's stupid?
.

no, because that doesn't make sense. Thats like saying "its so easy a doctor could do it" to paraphrase a gieco commerical.

Such a towelheaded* thing to say. What are you going to do next, bow down to Mecca?** That was such a silly comment, it almost makes me want to read the Koran*** just to get the thought of it out of my mind.

* slang for foolish
** slang metaphor for doing something incredibly stupid
*** slang hyperbolically negative statement

Of course, what I just said is in no way offensive, or hate speech. It's just slang, after all. Totally divorced from the original meaning. Coincidental, really, that it happens to refer to a group of people.

Nicely done.

no, because that doesn't make sense. Thats like saying "its so easy a doctor could do it" to paraphrase a gieco commerical.

So, "that's so ..." doesn't make sense unless it ends with a negative term, which "Muslim" isn't but "gay" is? Did you want a little more rope, or will that much suffice?

no, because that doesn't make sense. Thats like saying "its so easy a doctor could do it" to paraphrase a gieco commerical.

I hope you really didn't mean to imply that "that is so gay" makes sense because gays are stupid.

no, because that doesn't make sense. Thats like saying "its so easy a doctor could do it" to paraphrase a gieco commerical.



it makes as much sense as using "gay" to mean "stupid"


that's my mother calling, I'll put her on speakerphone.

no, because that doesn't make sense. Thats like saying "its so easy a doctor could do it" to paraphrase a gieco commerical.
Ah. So you're saying that it makes sense to imply that gay people are stupid.

If I recall, the full commercial went something like this:

Caveman: The commercial offends me. It says, "So easy a caveman could do it."
Therapist: What's offensive about that?
Caveman: Well, how would you feel if it said, "Geico, so easy a therapist could do it"?
Therapist: Well, that commercial wouldn't make sense to me.
Caveman: Why not?
Therapist: Because therapists are...
Caveman: What? Smart?

So basically, you're the therapist in this situation. Thinking it's perfectly OK to say the caveman's stupid, but scoffing at having the same terminology turned against you.

This was an overreaction, to be sure. But it's still hateful.
I was. It's just a point: as far as I can tell, the anti-mormon kids didn't get in trouble at all.
I disagree. I don't think that it is hateful. Even though it is likely that the Mormon girl was raised to "hate" gays, it is unlikely that the term was being used as a slight to gays. For example, a grown male friend asks how his clothes look on him. "Dude, you're gay." might be the reply. So, calling someone gay is more of a friendly insult than a hateful one. Now, if someone were to call an actual gay person "A stupid, gay, motherfucker!" that would be another story entirely. In this case, the person obviously hates the gay person, and the fact that the person is gay is likely a contributing factor for the hate.

Yet, no form of speech should ever be a crime. No string of symbols should ever warrant punishment.

"That's so Muslim." I think I'll start using that one, thanks!

I disagree. I don't think that it is hateful. Even though it is likely that the Mormon girl was raised to "hate" gays, it is unlikely that the term was being used as a slight to gays. For example, a grown male friend asks how his clothes look on him. "Dude, you're gay." might be the reply. So, calling someone gay is more of a friendly insult than a hateful one. Now, if someone were to call an actual gay person "A stupid, gay, motherfucker!" that would be another story entirely. In this case, the person obviously hates the gay person, and the fact that the person is gay is likely a contributing factor for the hate.

Yet, no form of speech should ever be a crime. No string of symbols should ever warrant punishment.

"That's so Muslim." I think I'll start using that one, thanks!

That's mighty white of you.

A sensitivity issue? My God All this political correctness crap with its 'issues'. You didn't get all this crap in the old days. Back then people got on with it. In the past people had proper diseases - people suffered from plagues and agues, not 'syndromes' and 'dissorders' - it used to be "Bring out your dead" not "bring out your wheezy". The whole world has gone soft and I blame the traitorous puritan imigrants and their inexplicable raise to power.

your right, now lets all go play a good old fashion game of smear the queer. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

For example, a grown male friend asks how his clothes look on him. "Dude, you're gay." might be the reply. So, calling someone gay is more of a friendly insult than a hateful one.
You don't find it problematic that the word "gay" is used as an insult at all, even if it is a friendly one?

So, "that's so ..." doesn't make sense unless it ends with a negative term, which "Muslim" isn't but "gay" is? Did you want a little more rope, or will that much suffice?:p

If I had to wager a guess, I'd say he'll end up having to look for one very tall tree.

I disagree. I don't think that it is hateful. Even though it is likely that the Mormon girl was raised to "hate" gays, it is unlikely that the term was being used as a slight to gays. For example, a grown male friend asks how his clothes look on him. "Dude, you're gay." might be the reply. So, calling someone gay is more of a friendly insult than a hateful one. Now, if someone were to call an actual gay person "A stupid, gay, motherfucker!" that would be another story entirely. In this case, the person obviously hates the gay person, and the fact that the person is gay is likely a contributing factor for the hate.

"Friendly" or not, it is an insult. And why is it an insult?

Eliza Byard, deputy executive director of the New York-based Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said nearly nine out of 10 gay students her organization surveyed in 2005 reported hearing "That's so gay" or "You're so gay" frequently.

"It bothers them a lot," Byard said. "As odd or funny as the phrase sounds, imagine what it feels like to be in a setting where you consistently hear it used to describe something undesirable or stupid, and it also refers to you."

She said it is OK to discipline students for using the phrase after efforts have been made to educate them.

"The job of a school is to deal proactively and consistently with all forms of bullying, name-calling and harassment," she said.


Yet, no form of speech should ever be a crime. No string of symbols should ever warrant punishment.

Don't be an idiot. There have always been some limitations on freedom of speech. You can't cry "fire" in a crowded theatre. You can't commit libel or slander. Etc...

Moreover, this is in a school setting. We are not talking about making anything a crime. Merely regulating what is appropriate conduct in school.

"That's so Muslim." I think I'll start using that one, thanks!

I prefer "That's so Christian" or "That's so NSG."

Nope.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'RE WORDS! WE'RE PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! THEY'RE JUST WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. But I'm getting a tad tired of the authoritarians and their PC-based steps to totalitarian regime...
Words are not THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! Words can mess up kids. Words can even lead to war.
Creating an atmosphere of hate by using the word "gay" as an insult is an offense that can easily lead to worse crimes.

Words are not THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! Words can mess up kids.

Do words cause direct physical injury like a knife? Do they steal?

No? Thought so.

Words can even lead to war.

Since when were citizens in charge of wars? :confused:

Creating an atmosphere of hate by using the word "gay" as an insult is an offense that can easily lead to worse crimes.

There is a difference between words and crime. We have a nice line right past speech (or used to. Now with PC, who knows how bad they've screwed it up?); cross and get punished. Don't cross and you'll be fine.

Words are not THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! Words can mess up kids. Words can even lead to war.
Creating an atmosphere of hate by using the word "gay" as an insult is an offense that can easily lead to worse crimes.
I don't understand why people insist on being so thick and insensitive. Junior high and high school is bad enough as it is -- add in being one of few homosexual students and toss in a school-sanctioned (i.e. unpunished) atmosphere of homophobia and implied hatred and you have a recipe for some serious psychological damage.

This is one of a few situations where I think that wailing, "Think of the children!" is appropriate.

Nope.

Why?

BECAUSE THEY'RE WORDS! WE'RE PUNISHING SOMEONE FOR THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! THEY'RE JUST WORDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry. But I'm getting a tad tired of the authoritarians and their PC-based steps to totalitarian regime...

Words are not THINGS THAT DON'T DO ANYTHING! Words can mess up kids. Words can even lead to war.
Creating an atmosphere of hate by using the word "gay" as an insult is an offense that can easily lead to worse crimes.

Both of you should calm down.

We're not talking about a crime. An insult isn't a crime.

We're talking about what is appropriate behavior in school and using insulting language is inappropriate. No more, no less.

We certainly aren't talking about creating an authoritarian or totalitarian regime.

BTW:

Dr. Wilson: "Even I don't like you! "
Dr. Gregory House: "Words can hurt you know."

Both of you should calm down.

We're not talking about a crime. An insult isn't a crime.

We're talking about what is appropriate behavior in school and using insulting language is inappropriate. No more, no less.

We certainly aren't talking about creating an authoritarian or totalitarian regime.

Well, why should school be more constricting than real life? What makes students in need of extra control?

Both of you should calm down.

We're not talking about a crime. An insult isn't a crime.

We're talking about what is appropriate behavior in school and using insulting language is inappropriate. No more, no less.

We certainly aren't talking about creating an authoritarian or totalitarian regime.

What? I just spent the last hour polishing my jack-boots! :p *wanders off muttering*

What? I just spent the last hour polishing my jack-boots! :p *wanders off muttering*

No, no, you can stay. We might need you. I prepared too...

Do words cause direct physical injury like a knife? Do they steal?

No? Thought so.
Like it or not, a school is not a complete free-speech zone. The teachers may restrict student behavior in order to promote a healthy learning environment and to protect the well-being of other students. Banning or punishing insulting and hateful phrases such as "That's so gay" is a perfectly legitimate example of this.

Since when were citizens in charge of wars? :confused:
Don't be stupid and obscure the issue with literalism (MTAE did that a lot, and look at how he ended up...). They're obviously saying that words can have serious impact on people.

I hope you really didn't mean to imply that "that is so gay" makes sense because gays are stupid.

What I'm saying is that the expression "that's gay" or "you're being gay" doesn't mean you're being a homosexual, rather it has become to be known in the US and other places as a cultural term among the youth to mean your being lame, uncool, etc. Its not a swipe at homosexuals, merely slang like "cool" or "sick"

Thats why a phrase like "stop being so Muslim" makes absolutely no sense.

Well, why should school be more constricting than real life? What makes students in need of extra control?
Because children are much more psychologically fragile and impressionable than mature adults. Duh.

Well, why should school be more constricting than real life? What makes students in need of extra control?

They are students. Duh.

Moreover, we aren't talking about any punishment here other than a warning, not exactly "steps to totalitarian regime"

No, no, you can stay. We might need you. I prepared too...

Gee, thanks.

By the way, school should be more restrictive than "Real Life" because kids aren't mature enough to act responsibly on their own. They need to be taught that you can't just go around calling people names without consequences, just as they need to be taught algebra and biology and how to form a more perfect English sentence. That's why we don't let them take the car when they want to go to the mall when they're 12, why we have laws that say you can't drive until you're at least a certain age. Of course, given the behavior of some adults, it makes one wonder just how effective it is, but that's for another thread.

Like it or not, a school is not a complete free-speech zone. The teachers may restrict student behavior in order to promote a healthy learning environment and to protect the well-being of other students. Banning or punishing insulting and hateful phrases such as "That's so gay" is a perfectly legitimate example of this.

Actually, students DO have 1st Amendment protections (which means, of course, not interrupting a lesson, but not restricting words).

And we're talking about WORDS. Sonic disturbances in the wind. What makes one wave legal and the other heresy?


Don't be stupid and obscure the issue with literalism (MTAE did that a lot, and look at how he ended up...). They're obviously saying that words can have serious impact on people.

Why not? When laws are made, the literal consequences must be taken into account.

I have a friend who's a lesbian. Whenever I want to wind her up about something she's doing I say: "Ugh, that's really straight."

What I'm saying is that the expression "that's gay" or "you're being gay" doesn't mean you're being a homosexual, rather it has become to be known in the US and other places as a cultural term among the youth to mean your being lame, uncool, etc. Its not a swipe at homosexuals, merely slang like "cool" or "sick"

Thats why a phrase like "stop being so Muslim" makes absolutely no sense.

This isn't getting through to you.

Equating being gay with "being lame, uncool, etc" is insulting to homosexuals.

QED.

What I'm saying is that the expression "that's gay" or "you're being gay" doesn't mean you're being a homosexual, rather it has become to be known in the US and other places as a cultural term among the youth to mean your being lame, uncool, etc. Its not a swipe at homosexuals, merely slang like "cool" or "sick"

Thats why a phrase like "stop being so Muslim" makes absolutely no sense.
How many times must it be said? The core problem here is exactly what you described:

People use the word "gay" to describe something lame or uncool. That means that they are equating being gay with being lame or uncool. That is derogatory towards gay people. It's almost mathematical in its simplicity:

If "gay" = "undesirable", then "gay people" = "undesirable people"

Is it really so hard to understand? How would you feel if the Muslim slang I made up earlier came into common usage?

What I'm saying is that the expression "that's gay" or "you're being gay" doesn't mean you're being a homosexual, rather it has become to be known in the US and other places as a cultural term among the youth to mean your being lame, uncool, etc. Its not a swipe at homosexuals, merely slang like "cool" or "sick"

Thats why a phrase like "stop being so Muslim" makes absolutely no sense.

Are you really that naive or just pretending? Words don't become synonyms for "lame" or "uncool" without taking on the negative meanings. I mean, really.

This isn't getting through to you.

Equating being gay with "being lame, uncool, etc" is insulting to homosexuals.

QED.

A long time ago, gay meant "happy, colorful, flamboyant". Then it turned into "homosexual". And, in the context of schools, it is turning into "stupid".

Just like "retarded" once meant "stopped".



The homosexuality isn't being equated; rather, the sound formation is.

And, in the context of schools, it is turning into "stupid".
Such is the problem. It is turning into an insult because homophobes are using negatively it to distance themselves from homosexuality, and slurring gay people in the process. It's ridiculously obvious.

What I'm saying is that the expression "that's gay" or "you're being gay" doesn't mean you're being a homosexual, rather it has become to be known in the US and other places as a cultural term among the youth to mean your being lame, uncool, etc. Its not a swipe at homosexuals, merely slang like "cool" or "sick"

Thats why a phrase like "stop being so Muslim" makes absolutely no sense.

Like Cat-Tribe said, you are missing the point of the debate. Nobody claims that when someone says "that's gay" he says "you are gay".

The problem is in using "gay" as a synonym for "lame", "uncool", "stupid" etc. Hence, there is no difference whatsoever in the degree to which "that's gay" or "that's Muslim" "make sense". Neither does.

Like Cat-Tribe said, you are missing the point of the debate. Nobody claims that when someone says "that's gay" he says "you are gay".

The problem is in using "gay" as a synonym for "lame", "uncool", "stupid" etc. Hence, there is no difference whatsoever in the degree to which "that's gay" or "that's Muslim" "make sense". Neither does.

So? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they think of it the same way.

Actually, students DO have 1st Amendment protections (which means, of course, not interrupting a lesson, but not restricting words).

And we're talking about WORDS. Sonic disturbances in the wind. What makes one wave legal and the other heresy?

Why not? When laws are made, the literal consequences must be taken into account.

Spoken like someone with no understanding of the First Amendment.

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=315&invol=568), 315 U.S. 568, 571-72 (1942):

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309.

Now add that the First Amendment still applies, but is more limited, in a school setting.

Such is the problem. It is turning into an insult because homophobes are using negatively it to distance themselves from homosexuality, and slurring gay people in the process. It's ridiculously obvious.

One problem: Gays, supporters, and homophobes ALL use it. It's not the tool of discriminators; rather, the new generation.

So? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they think of it the same way.
I'm not following.

A long time ago, gay meant "happy, colorful, flamboyant". Then it turned into "homosexual". And, in the context of schools, it is turning into "stupid".

Just like "retarded" once meant "stopped".



The homosexuality isn't being equated; rather, the sound formation is.

"Retarded" means "delayed," but whatever. And no, I don't think the process went like this ...

Schoolkid #1: "We need a good term meaning 'stupid' ... I'm tired of saying 'That's so lame' all the time."

Schoolkid #2: "I know, but what can we use?"

Schoolkid #1: "I don't know, I mean, it should be short, you know and easy to say."

Schoolkid #2: "Yeah, yeah ... hmmm ... lame, fame ... no ... blame? 'That's so blame?'"

Schoolkid #1: "Nah ... how about ... 'That's so game'?"

Schoolkid #2: "Oooh, close, close ... I know! 'That's so gay'!"

Schoolkid #1: "You got it! I like the sound, it's short ... you dah man!"

Schoolkid #2: "Why, thank you. Of course, we'll have to be careful and make sure people don't think we're dissing actual gay people, 'cuz, you know, that's not what we're about."

Schoolkid #1: "Oh, absolutely."
No, I don't think that's how it happened.

So? Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean they think of it the same way.
OK, then reason with us. Explain. How does it make sense to use the word gay to describe something in a negative way?

And if there is no logical way to explain the shift, then we must look to the obvious answers: homophobia. Intolerance. Discrimination. Hate. Even if it's all unspoken, implied, or subconscious.

"Retarded" means "delayed," but whatever. And no, I don't think the process went like this ...


No, I don't think that's how it happened.

not exactly, but words to evolve over time. Just look at Beowulf (written in Old English) and even Shakespeare.

I'm not following.

Exactly. That's why they use it.