NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

In case you have realised being Muslim is exactly seen as a good thing in the US, especially after 9/11. Terms like "ragheads" are fairly common. The difference is I have a thick enough skin to not be bothered by a few words. Perhaps the gays should suck it up and quit whining.

One problem: Gays, supporters, and homophobes ALL use it. It's not the tool of discriminators; rather, the new generation.
Only so far as they've "adopted" derogatory words in the past, such as "queen" or "queer". That doesn't change the fact that the phrase is used by most people as an insult.

Exactly. That's why they use it.
Excuse me?

It seems I will have to wait for your reply to Rhaomi's post, then:
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.

Only so far as they've "adopted" derogatory words in the past, such as "queen" or "queer". That doesn't change the fact that the phrase is used by most people as an insult.

Well, the meaning of "gay" in this case isn't an actual insult.

Not to people, anyway.




Besides from that, I do believe the nice folks of the 1790s left us something to resolve this.

In case you have realised being Muslim is exactly seen as a good thing in the US, especially after 9/11. Terms like "ragheads" are fairly common. The difference is I have a thick enough skin to not be bothered by a few words. Perhaps the gays should suck it up and quit whining.

So, if you had a child at school who was called a "raghead," you'd tell your child just to "suck it up and quit whining"?

You'd fight against any attempt by the school to warn the kid that used the epiteth that he/she shouldn't do that?

Exactly. That's why they use it.
Right. That's why. :rolleyes:

In case you have realised being Muslim is exactly seen as a good thing in the US, especially after 9/11. Terms like "ragheads" are fairly common. The difference is I have a thick enough skin to not be bothered by a few words. Perhaps the gays should suck it up and quit whining.
But you do admit that it is a derogatory remark towards Muslims?

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.

Yes, because only your personal beliefs have any validity whatsoever. :rolleyes:

Insults are not crime?

Um...no, they're not.

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

QFT.

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

If they're weak-minded to begin with.

[/quote]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.[/QUOTE]

I suppose if the one "offended" decides to retaliate physically, then sure.

This isn't getting through to you.

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

QED.

Again, grow some damn skin.

Well, the meaning of "gay" in this case isn't an actual insult.

Not to people, anyway.

The girl says she meant: "That's so stupid, that's so silly, that's so dumb."

Isn't that an actual insult to be equated with being stupid, silly, or dumb?


Besides from that, I do believe the nice folks of the 1790s left us something to resolve this.

I've already addressed this. Even outside school there are limits on the First Amendment. In a school setting, it is perfectly OK to warn a child for using an epiteth.

SNIP

Thank you.

Well, the meaning of "gay" in this case isn't an actual insult.
In this case, the word would be similar to "******". When used in some black communities, it's a term of endearment. If used by a white kid against a black kid, however, it's clearly a racist remark. Same here. Used in the gay community, it could be seen as an adopted term. When used by straight teens to insult something, it's a slur.

Not to people, anyway.
And what is that supposed to mean?

Besides from that, I do believe the nice folks of the 1790s left us something to resolve this.
As others have said, the courts have repeatedly established that schools are not unrestricted free speech areas. Some limitations are allowed to keep order and to promote the well-being of students.

EDIT: I'm growing very tired of your "grow some skin" attitude. Would you advocate allowing students to relentlessly taunt black kids with racist insults? If not, then why should some groups be given more protection by schools than others?

Again, grow some damn skin.

1. Read Chaplinsky. Fighting words aren't free speech.

2. Tell that the the girl that is suing.

(BTW, I'm not LGBT, I'm just a member of the LGBT Army.)

In this case, the word would be similar to "******". When used in some black communities, it's a term of endearment. If used by a white kid against a black kid, however, it's clearly a racist remark. Same here. Used in the gay community, it could be seen as an adopted term. When used by straight teens to insult something, it's a slur.

Substitute "slur" for "joke" and you're closer.


As others have said, the courts have repeatedly established that schools are not unrestricted free speech areas. Some limitations are allowed to keep order and to promote the well-being of students.

Well, this isn't being blurted out during class, so order is kept. And a kid whose well-being is destroyed by being called gay has more important problems to worry about.

Well, the meaning of "gay" in this case isn't an actual insult.

Not to people, anyway.
How can you honestly claim this? There are exactly two ways the word "gay" is used in contemporary speech (i.e. not including the Flintstones theme song):

1) gay = homosexual

2) gay = a generic insult, synonym for whatever you want, e.g. lame, stupid, bad, idiotic, sucky etc.

The latter came into use very recently. Are you really telling me it is a mere coincidence that "gay" became that word instead of, say, "straight"?

And are you really telling me that even though the first definition of "gay" is the most prevalent, known, and accepted one, the fact that the word has been misappropriated to mean the second one does not say anything about how the first one is viewed?

Substitute "slur" for "joke" and you're closer.
It may seem like a joke to you, but not to whatever gay students might be in the student body. Maybe you should develop a sense of empathy.

Well, this isn't being blurted out during class, so order is kept. And a kid whose well-being is destroyed by being called gay has more important problems to worry about.
It's not so much being called "gay" as it is being confronted with an entire student body that openly equates homosexuality with negative things. You don't think that would make for a hostile learning environment?

And are you really telling me that even though the first definition of "gay" is the most prevalent, known, and accepted one, the fact that the word has been misapppropriated to mean the second one does not say anything about how the first one is viewed?

We have something we're gonna do about it?

It's not so much being called "gay" as it is being confronted with an entire student body that openly equates homosexuality with negative things. You don't think that would make for a hostile learning environment?

Nope. BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK GAY IS BAD MOST OF THE TIME. Of course you've got the occasional exception, but to 95%, it is a JOKE.

Here is just part of the relevant holding of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=675), 478 U.S. 675 (1986):

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."

These fundamental values of "habits and manners of civility" essential to a democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these "fundamental values" must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others, and, in the case of a school, the sensibilities of fellow students. The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.

In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate and likewise provides that "[no] person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." The Rules of Debate applicable in the Senate likewise provide that a Senator may be called to order for imputing improper motives to another Senator or for referring offensively to any state. Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?

The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse. A sharply divided Court upheld the right to express an antidraft viewpoint in a public place, albeit in terms highly offensive to most citizens. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), we reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, "the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket [Cohen's jacket said "Fuck the Draft"].

Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools." The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models. The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.

Nope. BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK GAY IS BAD MOST OF THE TIME. Of course you've got the occasional exception, but to 95%, it is a JOKE.
Dude, seriously. There's no wriggle room here. It is completely intellectually dishonest to sit here and say that the phrase is not meant as a slight toward gay people. And if you keep alleging that, then you've pretty much argued yourself into a corner. I mean, really.

We have something we're gonna do about it?
Well, for one we could have started by not spelling "misappropriated" with three "p"s. :p *goes off to edit*

For another, I'm not sure what you're asking me here.

Do I have the solution to homophobia?
Do I not have the solution to homophobia and hence ought not to have an opinion on inherently homophobic speech, either?
Something else?

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

Please don't lecture me on the evolution of the English language.

And you're missing the point. Of course the meanings of words evolve. What we're saying is, this new meaning for "gay" is one that should be discouraged, as it equates gay people with the lame, the uncool, the bad and can go on from there. When one considers the attention paid to the issues surrounding the rights of gay people to be treated equally with heterosexual people, a new, negative meaning is not what's wanted.

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.

Yep. The same word may mean totally different things. It is the school that actually connects the word with homophobia... so if kids in this school are indeed going to use it as a stronger curse now, it WILL have a connection to homosexuals, but only because of this stupid policy.

Yep. The same word may mean totally different things. It is the school that actually connects "******" with racism... so if kids in this school are indeed going to use it as a stronger curse now, it WILL have a connection to blacks, but only because of this stupid policy.

Corrected to show stupidity.

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

So...gay people are stupid, and muslims are smart. That seems to be your point here.

Corrected to show an entirely different situation. :rolleyes: Come on, now. At least try to explain it better.

:rolleyes: Come on, now. At least try to explain it better.

What? Are you too "American" to figure it out?

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.

Sure it does. It doesn't mean you're being a Muslim, it's just slang! C'mon man! That's fair! Be cool! Chill, man!

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

Umm...Just to point this out, I was the starter of this whole Muslim slang stuff.

What? Are you too "American" to figure it out?

Yes. Yes I am.

That, or maybe you need to actually EXPLAIN rather than just make snide remarks.

Minaris: how would you feel about a school that did not punish students for using racist or sexist language? Where a group of white kids could openly call the black minority "niggers" in the hallways and the boys could call the girls "cunts"? Would that be an acceptable situation?

Corrected to show stupidity.

Yes, if I had said something totally else, it might have been stupid.

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

Look at the Conan the Barbarian stories. I giggle because they use "ejaculated" to mean saying something. :D

Look at the Conan the Barbarian stories. I giggle because they use "ejaculated" to mean saying something. :D

See? *chuckle* Same thing.

*Tries not to laugh*

*AHEM!*

But it really is the exact same thing.

Minaris: how would you feel about a school that did not punish students for using racist or sexist language? Where a group of white kids could openly call the black minority "niggers" in the hallways and the boys could call the girls "cunts"? Would that be an acceptable situation?

I would feel that the words are fine, but the attitudes MIGHT need adjustment, depending on the reason why they say it.

And whether or not schools should try to combat racism, which, though most people believe it is a good idea (myself included), there are borders that need attending to there.

See? *chuckle* Same thing.

*Tries not to laugh*

*AHEM!*

But it really is the exact same thing.

Any excuse to say "ejaculated" in an otherwise serious thread.

Maybe I should type "ejaculated" in white...

Yes. Yes I am.

That, or maybe you need to actually EXPLAIN rather than just make snide remarks.

Yes, if I had said something totally else, it might have been stupid.

It has already been explained ad nauseam how the use of the term gay in a derogatory manner is homophobic and insulting.

To say that the thing making the usage homophobic is the school policy is to mistake the cart for the horse. (or more like mistaking the cure for the disease)

Yes, if I had said something totally else, it might have been stupid.

No dude, it was stupid. You have to have a pretty huge degree of willful ingnorance to actually believe that "That's so gay" has no connection to homosexuality. That's a level of self deception that boarders on Navin Johnson believing he was black. To actually believe that the word was pulled out of the air and just happens to also refer to homosexuals...well, frankly I'm not prepared to assume that you're that stupid.

Whether you 'mean' it or not actually only has a limited relevance. If you call peanut butter 'tire' you really can't get that pissed when someone brings you a tire instead of a sandwich.

Sorry Bob, gay means gay. And using it in that context means 1)shaming gayness and 2) associating 'lame' or 'stupid' things with gayness.

There isn't sand deep enough to bury your head in to make me believe that you can't see that but rather that you simply choose not to because it's not your group, so why should you care?

Which really makes you a dick. But hey. I don't mean that in a bad way so you shouldn't get offended, right dick?

Any excuse to say "ejaculated" in an otherwise serious thread.

Maybe I should type "ejaculated" in white...

Maybe. :D

Though I think 25% grey might be better for viewing purposes.

I would feel that the words are fine, but the attitudes MIGHT need adjustment, depending on the reason why they say it.

And whether or not schools should try to combat racism, which, though most people believe it is a good idea (myself included), there are borders that need attending to there.


Go back and read my quotes from Chaplinsky and Bethel v. Fraser

For someone that keeps going on about the First Amendment and "borders" or "lines," you seem to be avoiding the case law on exactly where those borders are.

Go back and read my quotes from Chaplinsky and Bethel v. Fraser

For someone that keeps going on about the First Amendment and "borders" or "lines," you seem to be avoiding the case law on exactly where those borders are.

That's because defining these lines isn't a job one can do while sitting at their computer, eating up a couple minutes.

That's because defining these lines isn't a job one can do while sitting at their computer, eating up a couple minutes.

That hasn't stopped you from spouting off.

It didn't stop me from laying out the 2 most relevant cases (and lines of thought).

This seems to just be a convenient excuse for you not to have to deal with reality.

No dude, it was stupid. You have to have a pretty huge degree of willful ingnorance to actually believe that "That's so gay" has no connection to homosexuality. That's a level of self deception that boarders on Navin Johnson believing he was black. To actually believe that the word was pulled out of the air and just happens to also refer to homosexuals...well, frankly I'm not prepared to assume that you're that stupid.

Whether you 'mean' it or not actually only has a limited relevance. If you call peanut butter 'tire' you really can't get that pissed when someone brings you a tire instead of a sandwich.

Sorry Bob, gay means gay. And using it in that context means 1)shaming gayness and 2) associating 'lame' or 'stupid' things with gayness.

There isn't sand deep enough to bury your head in to make me believe that you can't see that but rather that you simply choose not to because it's not your group, so why should you care?
Exactly. It's the professed innocence and surprise at being so malignantly "misunderstood" that gets me every time.

That's because defining these lines isn't a job one can do while sitting at their computer, eating up a couple minutes.
Yes... so much simpler to just pull the limits out of your ass rather than do the research, right?

And your apparent reluctance to place limits on racist and sexist speech in schools clearly shows what a bad judge of these situations you are.

Yes... so much simpler to just pull the limits out of your ass rather than do the research, right?

So much simpler since I don't have ALL FREAKIN' WEEK!

And your apparent reluctance to place limits on racist and sexist speech in schools clearly shows what a bad judge of these situations you are.

It's called freedom of speech. What the government says now isn't the absolute correct way to be... especially concerning that patch of desert near those two famous rivers...

Of course that's where to term comes from. Do these kids think about homosexuality when they use it? No, it's just a curse they've learnt from other kids to mean 'lame'.
So you admit that they should stop using it, seeing as it is so derogatory?

I also find it hard to believe that anyone could just "learn" that term without immediately grasping its rather obvious connotations.

No dude, it was stupid. You have to have a pretty huge degree of willful ingnorance to actually believe that "That's so gay" has no connection to homosexuality.

Did I say that? Of course that's where to term comes from. Do these kids think about homosexuality when they use it? No, it's just a curse they've learnt from other kids to mean 'lame'.

Although that's hate speech against the leg-wise handicapped.

I also find it hard to believe that anyone could just "learn" that term without immediately grasping its rather obvious connotations.

Well, it's happening as we speak.

Hahahahaa, that IS the only reasonable conclusion :D
Well spotted.

So much simpler since I don't have ALL FREAKIN' WEEK!

It's called freedom of speech. What the government says now isn't the absolute correct way to be... especially concerning that patch of desert near those two famous rivers...

There you go again. Invoking the First Amendment while saying you're too busy to deal with what freedom of speech actually means.

If you are too busy to defend your position, perhaps you should shut up.

Well, it's happening as we speak.
Just because you claim it's true does not make it so. You're setting yourself up against reality and common sense here, bud.

And again, even if they were ignorant of its connotations, it doesn't give them license to use it.

Of course that's where to term comes from. Do these kids think about homosexuality when they use it? No, it's just a curse they've learnt from other kids to mean 'lame'.

Well, it's happening as we speak.

Well, perhaps someone -- like an educator -- should correct them.

Duh.

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but I wonder why the other children didn't get charged with a hate crime for directly and blatantly insulting the child's Mormon mother.

I guess Hate crimes only apply to minorities we "like".

it's been said plenty of times that those talking shit about the girls religion should have also been reprimanded. I don't think anyone has disagreed either.

Although noone was charged with a hate crime here.

I don't know if anyone's said this yet, but I wonder why the other children didn't get charged with a hate crime for directly and blatantly insulting the child's Mormon mother.

I guess Hate crimes only apply to minorities we "like".

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 disagree. I don't know about you all, but whenever I hear someone being called "gay" it's usually followed by an accusation that the person is a "big homo" or an implication that he "hearts the cock"

Also, I think people should be allowed to say ******, spic, kike, and whatever else they want. Being able to say it doesn't mean it's a safe thing to do though however.

Well, perhaps someone -- like an educator -- should correct them.

Duh.

Indeed. By way of explanation and a bit of scolding. Not by accusing them of, or even suing for, using hate speech.

Indeed. By way of explanation and a bit of scolding. Not by accusing them of, or even suing for, using hate speech.

Perhaps you should be paying more attention.

The girl was not sued for using hate speech. She received merely a warning from the school principal. Her parents are suing the school claiming she shouldn't have even been warned.

The girl violated a school policy (a policy that was perfectly reasonable) and was warned. That should have been the end of it. (Although, as has been said many times, those students that were taunting her about being Mormon should also have been punished.)

You know, she could have achieved a far better benefit if she told that kid "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire life".

In case you have realised being Muslim is exactly seen as a good thing in the US, especially after 9/11. Terms like "ragheads" are fairly common. The difference is I have a thick enough skin to not be bothered by a few words. Perhaps the gays should suck it up and quit whining.
Eugh, this is a bit low blow and not my usual style, but acually Muslims in generally are a bit more angsty, at least in the UK, than other groups.

"Free Speech go to Hell" and "Behead those who insult Islam" are not exactly thick-skinned responses to that Danish cartoon, now, are they?

You know, she could have achieved a far better benefit if she told that kid "that's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire life".

I suggested "Eat shit and die" but yours would work, too. ;)

Perhaps you should be paying more attention.

The girl was not sued for using hate speech. She received merely a warning from the school principal. Her parents are suing the school claiming she shouldn't have even been warned.

Oops. That's why when I double checked if there was actually a lawsuit, I shouldn't have just re-read the OP, but also the article. My bad there.
She did, however, get a warning in her file. It is my understanding after reading related threads that those don't get erased until her school career is over.

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'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...
Agree in general with both of you, especilally regarding language drift (I honestly think now that today's generation simply couldn't read "happy and gay" in any Victorian literature anymore without snickering...:rolleyes:), but I'll err on the side of Rhaomi insofar as arguing that it's petty slander at best. I've known two people (one boy and one girl) my age who were either gay or bisexual, and the "that's so gay" sort of mockery has a definite impact on them. One made even worse when it's usually made in utter ignorance of just how demeaning it actually can be, as is usually the case when it's tweens and younger doing it. In short, this phrase belongs on South Park, and nowhere else IMHO.

You don't find it problematic that the word "gay" is used as an insult at all, even if it is a friendly one?

No, and further, even if it's a hateful one I don't find it problematic. Words aren't problems, except perhaps for people who can't read.

It is ACTIONS that matter. Words, with all their meanings, are essentially meaningless in the grand chaos of things. Simple markings on paper, vocalizations with no more veracity than that of a cat's meow.

People who whine about words do so only because they like to hear themselves speak. Self-righteous, self-centered fools.

But don't be upset. Like I said, words are meaningless.

Any speech can be construed has hate speech. The entire concept is quite insane: how can hating on a specific minority be somehow worse than hating the majority? Wouldn't the second actual be worse because more people could be hurt.

No, and further, even if it's a hateful one I don't find it problematic. Words aren't problems, except perhaps for people who can't read.

It is ACTIONS that matter. Words, with all their meanings, are essentially meaningless in the grand chaos of things. Simple markings on paper, vocalizations with no more veracity than that of a cat's meow.

People who whine about words do so only because they like to hear themselves speak. Self-righteous, self-centered fools.

But don't be upset. Like I said, words are meaningless.

Meaningless words fail me in trying to describe what crap that is. The ACTION of speaking words gives them power to inspire, exalt, inflame and to hurt. Good grief.

Perhaps you should be paying more attention.

The girl was not sued for using hate speech. She received merely a warning from the school principal. Her parents are suing the school claiming she shouldn't have even been warned.

The girl violated a school policy (a policy that was perfectly reasonable) and was warned. That should have been the end of it. (Although, as has been said many times, those students that were taunting her about being Mormon should also have been punished.)

Why was it reasonable? Aren't schools supposed to be a bastion of learning? How can people learn if they only hear government-sanctioned speech?

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe;12382724Don'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.

I prefer "That's so Christian" or "That's so NSG."[/QUOTE]

Don't be retarded. Crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre has actual consequences. It causes panic, potentially harming people, because those people fear for their lives. Hearing "That's so gay!" is not alarming. Nobody is in any danger.

Libel and Slander? It isn't speaking negatively about people that should be illegal, it is LYING that should be illegal. If a doctor is a kook, I should be able to call him a kook. Or gay. Or muslim. Or xian.

So, perhaps I should have said "No utterance or string of characters should be considered a crime." Considered is the key word. See, in my world, the only laws I consider real laws are the ones that actually make sense. Like no murder, theft, rape, abuse, insider trading, etc. Victimless crimes aren't crimes at all, until some jerkoff with too much time on his hands decides he or she is a victim.

Why was it reasonable?
If you read the article, you would know why it was a reasonable policy.

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."

....

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."

Aren't schools supposed to be a bastion of learning? How can people learn if they only hear government-sanctioned speech?

*sigh* I apologize for repeating the quotes below, but they are apt and seem to be being ignored.

Elementary and high schools are not supposed to be bastions of free speech, but as you say of learning. Learning that certain speech is inappropriate and hurtful is an important part of education.

Some language is not protected free speech, even for adults.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. And that the purpose of schools is not just free speech. Here is just part of the relevant holding of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=675), 478 U.S. 675 (1986):

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."

These fundamental values of "habits and manners of civility" essential to a democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these "fundamental values" must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others, and, in the case of a school, the sensibilities of fellow students. The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.

In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate and likewise provides that "[no] person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." The Rules of Debate applicable in the Senate likewise provide that a Senator may be called to order for imputing improper motives to another Senator or for referring offensively to any state. Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?

The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse. A sharply divided Court upheld the right to express an antidraft viewpoint in a public place, albeit in terms highly offensive to most citizens. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), we reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, "the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket [Cohen's jacket said "Fuck the Draft"].

Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools." The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models. The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.

GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY! GAY!

That's so FUCKING gay! If they don't want it, they shouldn't have adopted it. I've had quite enough of gay pride, gay rights, and gayness in general. Just leave the world alone and go transmit HIV amongst yourselves gaily. :mad:

If you read the article, you would know why it was a reasonable policy.





*sigh* I apologize for repeating the quotes below, but they are apt and seem to be being ignored.

Elementary and high schools are not supposed to be bastions of free speech, but as you say of learning. Learning that certain speech is inappropriate and hurtful is an important part of education.

Some language is not protected free speech, even for adults.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. And that the purpose of schools is not just free speech. Here is just part of the relevant holding of Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=478&invol=675), 478 U.S. 675 (1986):

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[Public] education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation."

These fundamental values of "habits and manners of civility" essential to a democratic society must, of course, include tolerance of divergent political and religious views, even when the views expressed may be unpopular. But these "fundamental values" must also take into account consideration of the sensibilities of others, and, in the case of a school, the sensibilities of fellow students. The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society's countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Even the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.

In our Nation's legislative halls, where some of the most vigorous political debates in our society are carried on, there are rules prohibiting the use of expressions offensive to other participants in the debate. The Manual of Parliamentary Practice, drafted by Thomas Jefferson and adopted by the House of Representatives to govern the proceedings in that body, prohibits the use of "impertinent" speech during debate and likewise provides that "[no] person is to use indecent language against the proceedings of the House." The Rules of Debate applicable in the Senate likewise provide that a Senator may be called to order for imputing improper motives to another Senator or for referring offensively to any state. Can it be that what is proscribed in the halls of Congress is beyond the reach of school officials to regulate?

The First Amendment guarantees wide freedom in matters of adult public discourse. A sharply divided Court upheld the right to express an antidraft viewpoint in a public place, albeit in terms highly offensive to most citizens. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). It does not follow, however, that simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school. In New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), we reaffirmed that the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings. As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, "the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker's armband, but not Cohen's jacket [Cohen's jacket said "Fuck the Draft"].

Surely it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse. Indeed, the "fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system" disfavor the use of terms of debate highly offensive or highly threatening to others. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from insisting that certain modes of expression are inappropriate and subject to sanctions. The inculcation of these values is truly the "work of the schools." The determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board.

The process of educating our youth for citizenship in public schools is not confined to books, the curriculum, and the civics class; schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order. Consciously or otherwise, teachers -- and indeed the older students -- demonstrate the appropriate form of civil discourse and political expression by their conduct and deportment in and out of class. Inescapably, like parents, they are role models. The schools, as instruments of the state, may determine that the essential lessons of civil, mature conduct cannot be conveyed in a school that tolerates lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct such as that indulged in by this confused boy.


That is so gay! :mad:




I had to, sorry. :p :D

Well, 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.

Prove that she was. Come on. Prove it.

Insults are not crime?

No! Insults are not a crime except here on Nationstates :D

This is so heterosexual, guys.

Oh, wait - that's just as stupid as that Mormon bitch.

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...

HEAR HEAR!!!!!

Why was it reasonable? Aren't schools supposed to be a bastion of learning? How can people learn if they only hear government-sanctioned speech?

College is a place to learn. Jobs are places to learn. Pretty much the whole world is a place to learn.

School is a place to get taught. There's a difference.

Does this mean I have to revert back to saying "That's so ******." ?

HEAR HEAR!!!!!

Here's to thinking that people need to get over themselves!

*clink*

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.

*Applauds*

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.

I call bullshit on that statement.

Well, 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.

The use of the word "gay" that is at issue has nothing to do with her feelings towards homosexuals.

Yes, it is the homophobia of society in general that has turned "gay" into such an all-purpose pejorative, but the fact that it has happened means that it's impossible to blame it on any one person.

Think of it another way. Why is it an insult to call someone a "little girl?" Because of the same patriarchal bias that's built into our society. We don't think that little girls themselves are bad, just that it's something no one wants to be. And somehow, we think it makes sense. Same thing with calling something "gay." Implicit in a patriarchal culture is that the thing everyone wants to be is a grown straight man with no direct superior, or with lots of subordinates. The fact that limited awareness (you know, like teenagers!) use it as an insult is a statement about our culture's level of tolerance, but not any particular person's. Even one who uses "gay" as a pejorative.

The only thing the Mormon is guilty of is a limited vocabulary. The same deficiency that inclines people towards ending their sentences with "...or whatever," or "... ya know what I'm sayin."

Yeah, I'm totally going to start saying that anything which is an emotional overreaction to absolutely nothing is 'so Muslim', a nervousness around gay people is 'so straight', and acting like a macho prick is now 'so Mexican'.

I call bullshit on that statement.

And I call bullshit on your statement. Boy, that really moves debate along. :headbang:

How about answering some of the actual arguments -- like say where I pwned your use of the dictionary.

Yeah, I'm totally going to start saying that anything which is an emotional overreaction to absolutely nothing is 'so Muslim', a nervousness around gay people is 'so straight', and acting like a macho prick is now 'so Mexican'.

And I'm going to start saying that everything I think is bad is "typical of Conservatives."

Oh, wait. I already do that.

I call bullshit on that statement.

Then explain how something that has (relatively) recently been used to describe homosexuals has become a derogatory term. I mean, unless you're suggesting that the people who say 'That's so gay' are secretly emo and hate happiness.

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

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

Nah. If some inbred morons see fit to use that as a comeback, they should just be taunted by people with better quips.

Perhaps you should be paying more attention.

The girl was not sued for using hate speech. She received merely a warning from the school principal. Her parents are suing the school claiming she shouldn't have even been warned.

That's because she shouldn't have been warned.

"... ya know what I'm sayin."

For some reason, people only seem to be saying "know I'm sayin'? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHEFLLUMsdk) , leaving out the what and sometimes the ya(<- Although I wouldn't call THAT guy lacking of vocabulary).

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.
Hear Hear!

I am gay, and I am sorry, but I do not find the use of "this is so gay" offensive. Some people need to grow tougher skin...

That's because she shouldn't have been warned.

Again, way to move the debate along. :rolleyes:

Yes, she should have been warned because she violated school policy by using inappropriate and derogatory language. In a school setting, warning her is perfectly appropriate for breaking school rules.

Again, way to move the debate along. :rolleyes:

Yes, she should have been warned because she violated school policy by using inappropriate and derogatory language. In a school setting, warning her is perfectly appropriate for breaking school rules.

OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!! It was not derogatory. The school took it as such but gee wiz. it was not used in a derogatory manner.

It seems as if she said "That's so gay" in an insult form, as if beign gay was wrong or bad. It doesn't seem as if it should be a hate speech, but she should get some sort of warning for a derogatory comment, no matter how widespread it is used.

what i find mostly ironic about the whole situation is that the other students were taunting her and being disgraceful towards her choice of religion. i don't believe focusing on referring to something as being "gay" should be worse off than those who were down-putting her religion. on the other hand, i do believe that using "gay" as a negative connotation is something that reflects negatively upon the gay culture itself. if this were an issue in my nation, i'd raise educational funds, especially in the vocabulary department, and throw the kids that were asking her stupid ass questions out of my country for not being respectful towards different backgrounds.

Yeah, thats about the gayest thing I've ever heard.





Fascism is defenitly still a problem.

OH FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!! It was not derogatory. The school took it as such but gee wiz. it was not used in a derogatory manner.

Golly gee willikers. Let's keep this at the "is not"/"is too" level of debate. :rolleyes:

It's already been explained numerous times why the usage was derogatory. In fact, I showed that using YOUR dictionary definition. Wanna tell us again in what manner she used the word?

And are you saying she shouldn't have been warned because the school shouldn't have such a policy or because she's some kind of exception to the rules?

Golly gee willikers. Let's keep this at the "is not"/"is too" level of debate. :rolleyes:

It's already been explained numerous times why the usage was derogatory. In fact, I showed that using YOUR dictionary definition. Wanna tell us again in what manner she used the word?

And are you saying she shouldn't have been warned because the school shouldn't have such a policy or because she's some kind of exception to the rules?

Your arguments are so fucking gay they are not really worth rebutting anymore. I applaud the parents to actually stand up to the school's warning but it should not hvae gone to court.

Your arguments are so fucking gay they are not really worth rebutting anymore. I applaud the parents to actually stand up to the school's warning but it should not hvae gone to court.

You haven't bothered to rebut any of my arguments ever. Let alone "anymore."

Nice job of trying to bait me by using the derogatory slur. How very Christian of you.

Your arguments are so fucking gay they are not really worth rebutting anymore. I applaud the parents to actually stand up to the school's warning but it should not hvae gone to court.

I think the use of gay here is the exact reason she got in trouble

I find it hilarious that people equate the word "gay" to "******." (when in fact the equivalent would be faggot, or any other assorted insults)

You'd be the ones probably calling the LGBT homophobic.

I find it hilarious that people equate the word "gay" to "******." (when in fact the equivalent would be faggot, or any other assorted insults)

You'd be the ones probably calling the LGBT homophobic.

Is calling someone a diseased whore worse than calling them a bitch?

Clearly.

So is bitch okay?

So that's the Corny Hammer of Frustration.

Well, to be fair...he was up against Cat.

Poor fool. Didn't have a chance. *removes invisible hat*

Your arguments are so fucking gay they are not really worth rebutting anymore. I applaud the parents to actually stand up to the school's warning but it should not hvae gone to court.

So that's the Corny Hammer of Frustration.

Is calling someone a diseased whore worse than calling them a bitch?

Clearly.

So is bitch okay?

More like:

Is calling someone a fucking idiot worse than calling a stupid head?

Gay obviously isn't that bad of a word if homosexuals themselves use it to refer to themselves.

Is calling someone a diseased whore worse than calling them a bitch?

Clearly.

So is bitch okay?

No. It's not. But it's also not hate speech. Not that I agree that saying "That's so gay" IS hate speech, but bitch clearly is a personal derogatory remark and not a remark about an entire group of people.

Unless she was specifically insulting female dogs. But I doubt it.

whew..need more vodka.

No. It's not. But it's also not hate speech. Not that I agree that saying "That's so gay" IS hate speech, but bitch clearly is a personal derogatory remark and not a remark about an entire group of people.

Unless she was specifically insulting female dogs. But I doubt it.

whew..need more vodka.

Maybe you missed the part of the thread where we debunked the myth that hate speech actually had anything to do with this topic.

Let me rephrase the question.

"Fucking diseased whores, the lot of them."
"Fucking bitches, the lot of them."

Okay, now do we have a comparison? Good.

"Gay" used in this way is less offensive than calling someone a "syphilitic faggot", but that doesn't suddenly mean using gay in this way is okay. Nor would anyone who argues that gay in this sense is insulting go on to say that LGBT is also insulting.

More like:

Is calling someone a fucking idiot worse than calling a stupid head?

Gay obviously isn't that bad of a word if homosexuals themselves use it to refer to themselves.

You've obviously overlooked the difference between using a label and using a label in a derogatory manner.

Using "gay" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. is insulting. Period.

More like:

Is calling someone a fucking idiot worse than calling a stupid head?

Gay obviously isn't that bad of a word if homosexuals themselves use it to refer to themselves.
Riiiiiiight.

Is that the argument you use so you can call people niggers?

So that's the Corny Hammer of Frustration.
Feel his mighty wrath!

http://www.myfootshop.com/xq/ASP/Method.Condition/Value.Lister%20Corn/qx/images/medical/Surgery/hammer_toe_surgery5_mod.jpg

Well, to be fair...he was up against Cat.

Poor fool. Didn't have a chance. *removes invisible hat*

I'm still too new here to be familiar with all of the personas here and their capabilities. But from what I've seen, yes, Cat generally tears people new ones.

Using "gay" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. is insulting. Period.


So if I decided to use "straight" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. would that mean I'm insulting towards heterosexuals?

Ok, now I'm confused. Though that may have something to do with Green Apple Smirnoff.

So the point is that even though one is a relatively "nicer" insult, they're both equally bad and offensive? But how is that relevant to the conversation?

You know what...I'm sorry, I got you mixed up with New Genoa who originally made this argument:

I find it hilarious that people equate the word "gay" to "******." (when in fact the equivalent would be faggot, or any other assorted insults)

You'd be the ones probably calling the LGBT homophobic.

More like:

Is calling someone a fucking idiot worse than calling a stupid head?

Gay obviously isn't that bad of a word if homosexuals themselves use it to refer to themselves.

Who is saying something and the tone mean everything, without intent they are just words, but with intent they can be incredibly insulting and harmful (note I am not saying I support "pc") Just that saying just because one person uses a word in a non insulting manner means that someone else could not insult you with it in a different manner .

I'm still too new here to be familiar with all of the personas here and their capabilities. But from what I've seen, yes, Cat generally tears people new ones.

Cat tears no one anything new, unless it be an arsehole of logic. And if that's a new arsehole, it's long overdue anyway.

Maybe you missed the part of the thread where we debunked the myth that hate speech actually had anything to do with this topic.

Let me rephrase the question.

"Fucking diseased whores, the lot of them."
"Fucking bitches, the lot of them."

Okay, now do we have a comparison? Good.

"Gay" used in this way is less offensive than calling someone a "syphilitic faggot", but that doesn't suddenly mean using gay in this way is okay. Nor would anyone who argues that gay in this sense is insulting go on to say that LGBT is also insulting.

Ok, now I'm confused. Though that may have something to do with Green Apple Smirnoff.

So the point is that even though one is a relatively "nicer" insult, they're both equally bad and offensive? But how is that relevant to the conversation?

So if I decided to use "straight" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. would that mean I'm insulting towards heterosexuals?

If it catches on and takes that popular meaning, sure.

"Breeder" seems to be getting more offensive over time, for example.

If it catches on and takes that popular meaning, sure.

"Breeder" seems to be getting more offensive over time, for example.

I find the term "breeder" to be the funniest slur ever. Do I cry injustice? Hell no...I just shrug it off as another word.

Side note: I wonder how many homosexuals (not really using NS as the norm since we have a whole slew of "extremist" political beliefs) are actually really offended by the term?

You're not very bright are you?

You're the one using the old argument that, 'if THEY can use that word for themselves, then so can I, and it isn't ever insulting'.

And shut up ******.

I think the use of gay here is the exact reason she got in trouble

And I wasn't using it as a derogatory comment either. that is why I support the student over the gay school board.

So that's the Corny Hammer of Frustration.

Actually no Deus Malum. Frustration sets in when they actually resort to attacks and I hammer them with them instead of responding to the "facts" that they posted.

So if I decided to use "straight" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. would that mean I'm insulting towards heterosexuals?

Not to me.

Oh, dear god. "Gay" is hate speech? What god damn word doesn't offend people? The word God might offend atheists and Muslims (who call God Allah). Chestnut is a compound word formed from two very sexist words. Words like "history" offend overly politically correct femenazis. Can, If, Is, Are, etc. offend people who hate questions. Can and But offend people sensetive about their asses. Every god damn word offends at least ONE person. Are we going to make ourselves mute to avoid offending people or are we going to suck it up and realize that words are words and 'tards are 'tards. A punch hurts. A bullet can kill when fired. I have never been injured by a word. Have any of you?

I've been called many racial slurs. Honky. Cracker. Ni***r. That last one really doesn't make any sense, but I've been called it. I've been called a faggot. I've been called a bitch. I've been called a retard. I've been called every colorful word under the rainbow. None of them hurt me. Now, if I was a Carebear, I might have died from slur-overdose by now. But I'm not a Carebear and each slur went in one ear and out the other. Bullies love inflicting pain. They prey on the weak and defenceless. Think talking is going to make a bully stop? Hell no. I would know. What you have to do is react differently. If they tease you, suck it up and ignore them. If they try to fight you, fight back. Fight dirty if you have to. If they have a gun, oh well. Like doing anything short of either being lucky or killing the dick is going to save you. Bullies thrive of attacking the weak. If you show strength, they'll pick on someone else. They don't want to seem weak. They want to seem strong.

You're the one using the old argument that, 'if THEY can use that word for themselves, then so can I, and it isn't ever insulting'.

And shut up ******.

So you don't refer to your gay friends as gay because it might be offensive?

Oh, do you think the word "cocksucker" is offensive to gays as well?
What about "motherfucker" to people into incest?

What about using the term "that's so retarded" instead of "that's so gay." Is that offensive to the mentally disabled?

So you don't refer to your gay friends as gay because it might be offensive?

You're deliberately missing the point. Again.


You've obviously overlooked the difference between using a label and using a label in a derogatory manner.

Using "gay" as the equivalent of stupid, silly, dumb, lame, etc. is insulting. Period.

You're all forgetting one key thing, 'Thats so gay' of old hat. The new phrase should be 'Thats so Sydney'.

What about using the term "that's so retarded" instead of "that's so gay." Is that offensive to the mentally disabled?

Yes.

Duh.

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

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

:rolleyes: More public school PC idiocy.

Yet another reason to privatize the educational system.

:rolleyes: More public school PC idiocy.

Yet another reason to privatize the educational system.

Jesus Christ.

The fucking PARENTS are the ones to blame here.

Try reading the article.

:fluffle:

Ugh.

I'm disappointed in you.

:rolleyes: More public school PC idiocy.

Yet another reason to privatize the educational system.

:fluffle:

Ugh.

I'm disappointed in you.

That implies he was impressive at some point. I am skeptical as to this presupposition.

That implies he was impressive at some point. I am skeptical as to this presupposition.

Yeah, true. I just give him a bit of credit after the aboriginal property discussion.

That implies he was impressive at some point. I am skeptical as to this presupposition.Thank you for pointing that out.

That implies he was impressive at some point. I am skeptical as to this presupposition.
Here's an idea. I think you're contemptible and beneath my notice. You think the same of me. How about we just ignore each other in future?

Hate to say it, but political correctness and flawed understandings of personal liberties and rights has spawned a new mindset among the culture.

We're taught to be offended.

You know, come to think of it, the real distinction between a hate crime and an opinion is if I distribute the sentiment or belief equally.

So I'm not racist: I hate everyone and their retarded "gay," if you will, cultures and traditions.

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

We'll come round and criticise your curtains!!!:D

Anyone here ever honestly been discriminated against?

Or at least "discriminated" against?

Anyone here ever honestly been discriminated against?

Or at least "discriminated" against?

Would being stabbed in the back and sending me to the hospital for being bi and having the guts to walk home with an openly gay friend of mine count?

Thats the second time I had been sent to the hospital because of bigoted trash like that

Anyone here ever honestly been discriminated against?

Or at least "discriminated" against?

Honestly? No. But then again people generally don't hate indians much, unless they mistake us for Arabs (also known as teh 3b1| |\/|uslims [ok, I'm too drunk to figure out how to do that in 1337]), but that's a fairly rare occasion.

I do always make a point to shave immediately before flying though, just cause.

Honestly? No. But then again people generally don't hate indians much, unless they mistake us for Arabs (also known as teh 3b1| |\/|uslims [ok, I'm too drunk to figure out how to do that in 1337]), but that's a fairly rare occasion.

I do always make a point to shave immediately before flying though, just cause.

Yeah, i look to much like a member of the Hitler Jugend to be discriminated against minority-wise.

the joys of supremacy;)

We'll come round and criticise your curtains!!!:D
Pnah, I'm already well aware that my curtains look like something someone would steal out of a hospital dumpster. Primarily because I did, in fact, steal my curtains from a hospital dumpster, and once you get past the stains and broken hypodermic needles, they look alright. To blind people.

guys in the USA the 1st amendment right is upheld in school to make it a safe learning enviroment therefore what the principal did is right... just maybe a little over the edge now that its in school.

Meh, I'm sick of all this seriousness. Let's just watch a little video. Just a little something from SNL.

http://www.badtree.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Ambiguously_Gay_Duo_-_Third_Leg_of_Justice.htm

Yeah, i look to much like a member of the Hitler Jugend to be discriminated against minority-wise.

the joys of supremacy;)
Heh, both my brother and I lived in a Mediterranean country where most people were rather tan, so we kinda stood out most of the time. A bit of discrimination for looking like "English dogs", and for an imperfect command over the native language, but if anything it taught me not to take bigots seriously.

Im half tempted to launch a tirade just to see how many racial slurs I can fit into a single sentence. Not a run-on mind you a real sentence. Yes I am an advocate of freespeech. First that Jundo, Jumbo whatever the fuck he's called rifle guy gettin his life destroyed by the NRA (which I have lost all respect in now) and now this. Ayayayayay.....

Kiss My Ass political correctness-persons. Lol.

Thank you for pointing that out.
Hey, some people like me, some hate me, most don't care. Not sure where you fit in (but I'm sure it's in one of the last two categories). I'm indifferent.

When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?


To me, that's the most frightening thing in the OP. For any speech, no matter how insulting, to be "stamped out" means only one thing to me: thought control.

I may disagree with a person over what he hates. But he has the right to hate it. And to say so.

To me, that's the most frightening thing in the OP. For any speech, no matter how insulting, to be "stamped out" means only one thing to me: thought control.

I may disagree with a person over what he hates. But he has the right to hate it. And to say so.
For the last time:

This story is not about hate crime legislation. No one was talking about banning the phrase. All that happened is that the school enforced its non-discrimination policies in order to maintain discipline. The girl who used the phrase was not punished, merely reprimanded. That's it. No thought police -- just a school trying to discourage the use of homophobic language by the student body.

For the last time:

This story is not about hate crime legislation. No one was talking about banning the phrase. All that happened is that the school enforced its non-discrimination policies in order to maintain discipline. The girl who used the phrase was not punished, merely reprimanded. That's it. No thought police -- just a school trying to discourage the use of homophobic language by the student body.

Except that this :

When do playground insults used every day all over America cross the line into hate speech that must be stamped out?

IS PART OF THE OP.

I am commenting on part of the BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS that made this entire situation POSSIBLE. And I will NOT be silent about a PERTINENT ASPECT OF THE SITUATION.

If you wish to disgree with me that this is relevant, go right ahead. Telling me to shut up about it has never worked before and sure as HELL isn't going to work now!:upyours:

Except that this :

IS PART OF THE OP.

I am commenting on part of the BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS that made this entire situation POSSIBLE. And I will NOT be silent about a PERTINENT ASPECT OF THE SITUATION.

If you wish to disgree with me that this is relevant, go right ahead. Telling me to shut up about it has never worked before and sure as HELL isn't going to work now!:upyours:
So the OP mischaracterized the debate. Fine, his bad. I'm clarifying it now. Too many people have already gone apeshit over some supposed hate speech legislation or restriction of rights that never really happened, and only assume so because they read the OP only and not the article it discusses. I'm trying to make sure that this mistake does not happen again.

Also, I don't think that the "fuck you" smilie has ever helped anyone win any sort of debate. Ever. Strange that more people don't realize this.

Also, I don't think that the "fuck you" smilie has ever helped anyone win any sort of debate. Ever. Strange that more people don't realize this.

The "Up Yours" has nothing to do with winning a debate in this case. But it characterised perfectly how I felt about you at the time.

Eugh, this is a bit low blow and not my usual style, but acually Muslims in generally are a bit more angsty, at least in the UK, than other groups.

"Free Speech go to Hell" and "Behead those who insult Islam" are not exactly thick-skinned responses to that Danish cartoon, now, are they?

no they aren't. I'm not going to defend extremists who just happen to share my faith. The reactions to the cartoons and the pope's comments were imo, overreactions. Just as I feel gays overact to people using "thats so gay" or some variant. Everyone need to grow some skin and we'd be better off.

I meant to post on this thread yesterday, but Jolt was acting up and I had to run. Now the thread's up to 400 posts, and to be frank, I don't really feel like wading through all that. So apologies in advance if someone else has already made/refuted/lampooned/or beat to death the following points.

I had a young woman in my choir at the Catholic university I profess at use that very phrase to describe something at the outset of last year (my first year). My immediate response, given that I'd just come to Bismarck from Seattle, home of Captial Hill, the gayest part of the Pacific Northwest, and home to many of my friends, was "why would you say that?"

The room got very quiet and I could feel my eyes boring into hers as I waited for a response. She was clearly caught off guard, and so I continued. "You clearly mean by that statement to characterize something of which you disapprove as being substandard, inferior, stupid or in some way undesireable, and you therefore equate gays with those qualities, whether you mean to or not. If you mean to, you've probably come by your antihomo feelings naturally, through your parents, your church and your peers, and that's understandable. However, if you're just parroting something you've heard without even a slight inclination to question the phrase you've taken to freely uttering, well, that's just intellectually irresponsible. I won't have that phrase spoken in my classroom."

The young woman was so taken aback by my reaction that she began crying and left the room.

I felt horrible.

The next class meeting, I fully apologized to her in front of the class (you should always do that in the same place the offense was generated...I believe that it's a bit cowardly to apologize in private for something you've done publicly). However, I went on to say that saying "that's so Black" or "that's so Christian" or "that's so insert-stereotype-here" would never cross their minds, and they'd more than likely never say anything like that out loud.

Look at the word some kids use to describe things that are run-down, substandard or dilapidated in some way: "ghetto". Unless you understnad that word, I think you've only got suspect reasons for using it.

IN NO WAY am I in favor of censorship. IN NO WAY do I believe saying "that's so gay" should be included in hate speech categories. However, I think we need, as a people, to encourage ourselves and our children to take a CONSCIOUS, HONEST look at the language we choose. Language gives us away, both in how carefully we choose it AND how carelessly.

The whole notion of "hate speech" needs a hard look, too. Political Correctness of BOTH the Left and Right varieties is flat-out dangerous to freedom...and it always starts with language.

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.

Gay like two boys fucking or gay like an old fashioned Christmas?

Does anyone get uptight about the phrase "Rule of Thumb" anymore?

If someone uses the word "Bastard" as an insult does anyone intepret it to mean the user hates children born to unmarried mothers?

Just wondering...

freedom of speech is freedom of speech to me.

I dont like making words or phrases criminal.

But-we should all think before we speak and be more responsible with what we say. You know when you're about to say something that will be percieved as ugly or demeaning.

I meant to post on this thread yesterday, but Jolt was acting up and I had to run. Now the thread's up to 400 posts, and to be frank, I don't really feel like wading through all that. So apologies in advance if someone else has already made/refuted/lampooned/or beat to death the following points.

I had a young woman in my choir at the Catholic university I profess at use that very phrase to describe something at the outset of last year (my first year). My immediate response, given that I'd just come to Bismarck from Seattle, home of Captial Hill, the gayest part of the Pacific Northwest, and home to many of my friends, was "why would you say that?"

The room got very quiet and I could feel my eyes boring into hers as I waited for a response. She was clearly caught off guard, and so I continued. "You clearly mean by that statement to characterize something of which you disapprove as being substandard, inferior, stupid or in some way undesireable, and you therefore equate gays with those qualities, whether you mean to or not. If you mean to, you've probably come by your antihomo feelings naturally, through your parents, your church and your peers, and that's understandable. However, if you're just parroting something you've heard without even a slight inclination to question the phrase you've taken to freely uttering, well, that's just intellectually irresponsible. I won't have that phrase spoken in my classroom."

The young woman was so taken aback by my reaction that she began crying and left the room.

I felt horrible.

The next class meeting, I fully apologized to her in front of the class (you should always do that in the same place the offense was generated...I believe that it's a bit cowardly to apologize in private for something you've done publicly). However, I went on to say that saying "that's so Black" or "that's so Christian" or "that's so insert-stereotype-here" would never cross their minds, and they'd more than likely never say anything like that out loud.

Look at the word some kids use to describe things that are run-down, substandard or dilapidated in some way: "ghetto". Unless you understnad that word, I think you've only got suspect reasons for using it.

IN NO WAY am I in favor of censorship. IN NO WAY do I believe saying "that's so gay" should be included in hate speech categories. However, I think we need, as a people, to encourage ourselves and our children to take a CONSCIOUS, HONEST look at the language we choose. Language gives us away, both in how carefully we choose it AND how carelessly.

The whole notion of "hate speech" needs a hard look, too. Political Correctness of BOTH the Left and Right varieties is flat-out dangerous to freedom...and it always starts with language.

QTF ... very well said.

But-we should all think before we speak and be more responsible with what we say. You know when you're about to say something that will be percieved as ugly or demeaning.

And on the flip side, everyone needs to grow some fucking skin.

Does anyone get uptight about the phrase "Rule of Thumb" anymore?

If someone uses the word "Bastard" as an insult does anyone intepret it to mean the user hates children born to unmarried mothers?

Just wondering...

good point about the word bastard. in a group of school children the percentage of children born to unwed mothers exceeds percentage of children who identify as homosexual. so using the word "bastard" offends more people with its "hate speech" quality. not to mention that bastard is usually being used to refer to a specific person rather than a statement.

we need even more lawsuits to cover this!

Well, once Newspeak is implemented, we'll only be able to use two or three words, none of which will really mean anything.

Conversations will sound like monotone grunting, and no one will be offended.

That will be doubleplusgood!

Does anyone get uptight about the phrase "Rule of Thumb" anymore?

If someone uses the word "Bastard" as an insult does anyone intepret it to mean the user hates children born to unmarried mothers?

Just wondering...

Of course not, but you have to pair that fact with the fact that the situations which generated your examples' former stigma are now gone. Nobody condones beating wives anymore (out loud, anyway), regardless of whether or not the stick used to do so was wider than the husband's thumb.

Parenting has become so far removed from the importance of lineage that created the shame of being a bastard child, that the word is used as an insult now -- or so it seems -- merely because it sounds offensive. It is a harsh sounding word.

However, is there still considerable shame, stigma and potential danger attached to being an admitted homosexual (especially a gay male)? Undoubtedly. And until that unfortunate prejudice evaporates into the mists of time, the language needs to be considered, thought about, examined and for now, discouraged. I'm not holding my breath.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN, however, that we need a law. A law is, I believe, the LAST thing we need.

good point about the word bastard. in a group of school children the percentage of children born to unwed mothers exceeds percentage of children who identify as homosexual. so using the word "bastard" offends more people with its "hate speech" quality. not to mention that bastard is usually being used to refer to a specific person rather than a statement.

we need even more lawsuits to cover this!

Reductio ad absurdum. Please see my post regarding that word.

Well, once Newspeak is implemented, we'll only be able to use two or three words, none of which will really mean anything.

Conversations will sound like monotone grunting, and no one will be offended.

And on the flip side, everyone needs to grow some fucking skin.

That is certainly true, as well.

Well, once Newspeak is implemented, we'll only be able to use two or three words, none of which will really mean anything.

Conversations will sound like monotone grunting, and no one will be offended.

I don't know about you, but some of the people I interact with on a daily basis communicate in monotone grunting NOW.

No one has the single brain cell required to recognize that when the word gay is used derogatively, it isn’t directed at homosexuals. At least when it’s preceded by fucking or really.

“Dude that’s really gay man.” = “That sucks ‘man’.”

“Wow you’re fucking gay.” = “You made a poor life decision, and I most certainly disagree with it, but still respect you as a friend.”

“Hey faggot!” = “Hey man whom I resent because I am insecure with my own sexuality!”

Modern Linguistics 101

"Don't call me a faggot, not unless you are a friend."

--Joe Jackson, "Real Men" from Night and Day

No one has the single brain cell required to recognize that when the word gay is used derogatively, it isn’t directed at homosexuals. At least when it’s preceded by fucking or really.

“Dude that’s really gay man.” = “That sucks ‘man’.”

“Wow you’re fucking gay.” = “You made a poor life decision, and I most certainly disagree with it, but still respect you as a friend.”

“Hey faggot!” = “Hey man whom I resent because I am insecure with my own sexuality!”

Modern Linguistics 101

I don't know about you, but some of the people I interact with on a daily basis communicate in monotone grunting NOW.

Yes, it's well on the way. Just watch TV, or go to a mall and listen to kids talk, and you'll know what I mean.

Also, the trend will be to communicate with machines rather than other people. So no nasty ideas will get spread. You know, the idea that if someone doesn't hear an idea, they won't get an idea.

I predict that will fail, since someone obviously comes up with ideas. But you know, so many people believe that ideas come from organizations, and not from the brains of individuals.

Better to be safe, and convert it all to grunting.

That's incredibly petty and pathetic of the school. 'Gay' is just a term kids use. I don't think it should be the place of schools to try their hand at politically correct social engineering, they should just teach the subjects. I'm not keen on compensation culture, but I hope that girl's parents take the school to the cleaners, it would teach them a lesson.

'Gay' is just a term kids use.
Gee, I wonder how that came to be. You know what? We should go to Oxford or Harvard and procure the finest professor of etymology they have so we can delve into the mysterious and subtleties of the origin of this term. I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to imagine why teenagers would use a word like "gay" to describe something negative. It's just so random...

Gee, I wonder how that came to be. You know what? We should go to Oxford or Harvard and procure the finest professor of etymology they have so we can delve into the mysterious and subtleties of the origin of this term. I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to imagine why teenagers would use a word like "gay" to describe something negative. It's just so random...
No need to have a snobbish attitude about it. It's obvious where the origins of the word are from, but I still think the whole thing was the school making a fuss about absolutely nothing.

No need to have a snobbish attitude about it. It's obvious where the origins of the word are from, but I still think the whole thing was the school making a fuss about absolutely nothing.

The school has a right to its policies. This thread and its original poster are suggesting that "gay" as a non-anti-homo pejorative is "now hate speech". The fact is that it IS NOT hate speech, and I believe it shouldn't be. What I do believe is that the language we allow says a lot about ourselves, and we should pay closer attention to it. That's why the school has such a policy, and I'm glad it does. Once more, you wouldn't allow "that's so black" or "that's so Asian" as slams about things that were just considered stupid or undesireable -- so why allow "that's so gay"?

I'm sure that if the parents ('cause I guarantee you the kid won't) feel like making a federal case out of it, they will. "Nobody tells MY kid what she can or cannot say". Yeah. Except you, the church, etc., etc. The school is trying to weed out potentially divisive behavior. Admittedly, it is like using a chainsaw to slice a torte, but any effort is better than silent acceptance of thoughtless ideas represented by thoughtless use of language.

No need to have a snobbish attitude about it. It's obvious where the origins of the word are from, but I still think the whole thing was the school making a fuss about absolutely nothing.
It's not "absolutely nothing", and people need to understand that. Imagine what it would be like to be a high school student who is gay, and to constantly hear other students use the word "gay" as a pejorative. Hearing a word that describes yourself used as a put-down. It'd be like having your first name turned into a commonplace insult. Should that kind of thing really be tolerated in a school environment? Don't you think that would have a serious negative effect on gay students?

Besides, the only people "making a fuss about it" are the parents. The school merely reprimanded the girl, just as they would have reprimanded her for swearing or using an ethnic slur. The parents are the ones starting a lawsuit over it.

No need to have a snobbish attitude about it. It's obvious where the origins of the word are from, but I still think the whole thing was the school making a fuss about absolutely nothing.

I still want to know why this girl making a statement that had no intent to offend homosexuals to begin with gets a punishment but those kids insulting her religious background get no punishment at all. Hypocrisy anyone?

I still want to know why this girl making a statement that had no intent to offend homosexuals to begin with gets a punishment but those kids insulting her religious background get no punishment at all. Hypocrisy anyone?Well, despising that particular religious background is justified.

I still want to know why this girl making a statement that had no intent to offend homosexuals to begin with gets a punishment but those kids insulting her religious background get no punishment at all. Hypocrisy anyone?

Yes, thanks, just a little. :D

Sure, it's hypocrisy. Everyone involved should have gotten a notation in their Permanent File. I do think this thread's moved away from the actual incident, though, and into whether "gay" in "That's so gay" is an reference to actual homosexuals or just a cool word that sounds good when you want to put something down.

Gee, I wonder how that came to be. You know what? We should go to Oxford or Harvard and procure the finest professor of etymology they have so we can delve into the mysterious and subtleties of the origin of this term. I don't know about you, but I can't even begin to imagine why teenagers would use a word like "gay" to describe something negative. It's just so random...

Because homosexuals appropriated the term, and wanted people to stop calling them "faggot".

So everyone started calling the homosexuals "gay".

Turns out, it's the attitude, not the word, that is the problem. You could change the terms every day until the end of the Universe, and it won't change the attitude.

Suing people won't change it either. People with that sort of attitude will just keep quiet - and keep on hating.

And this is a fine example of how: Government Cannot Legislate Morality.

People will think whatever they want to think, no matter how much money is spent on social education or how many laws are passed saying how illegal it is to say a word.

It's why we still have Nazis, Holocaust deniers, NAMBLA, and yes, people who hate gays.

Well, despising that particular religious background is justified.

It is comments like this that lead to PC nutcases forcing their will on us with the results shown in this incident at the school.

Because homosexuals appropriated the term, and wanted people to stop calling them "faggot".

So everyone started calling the homosexuals "gay".

Turns out, it's the attitude, not the word, that is the problem. You could change the terms every day until the end of the Universe, and it won't change the attitude.

Suing people won't change it either. People with that sort of attitude will just keep quiet - and keep on hating.

And this is a fine example of how: Government Cannot Legislate Morality.

People will think whatever they want to think, no matter how much money is spent on social education or how many laws are passed saying how illegal it is to say a word.

It's why we still have Nazis, Holocaust deniers, NAMBLA, and yes, people who hate gays.
No argument there. I'm not saying that the government should ban the phrase or classify it as hate speech.

What I am saying is that the school was completely justified in reprimanding the girl, and should be able to ban the use of the phrase at school just like any other offensive remark. I think that allowing students to say it unhindered while banning other offensive words is an implicit acceptance of homophobia, almost like saying that insulting gay students is alright. That kind of atmosphere needs to be discouraged, especially in the schools, so that gay students can have a healthier and less openly hostile learning environment.

It is comments like this that lead to PC nutcases forcing their will on us with the results shown in this incident at the school.Get real. While being gay is not necessarily bad, being Mormon always is. There is absolutely no need to display respect for teachings that someone pulled out of his butt. Or do you really think, Joseph Smith translated some ancient texts nobody has ever seen so far? Please. PC to protect dumb folks?

Get real. While being gay is not necessarily bad, being Mormon always is. There is absolutely no need to display respect for teachings that someone pulled out of his butt.

I believe that the "official" explanation is that someone used stone spectacles to read ancient tablets that he dug up in New York, not "pulled out of his butt".

Being Mormon is not necessarily "bad" any more than being "gay".

Logically, it's far more likely that someone "gay" is going to pull something out of their butt.

Get real. While being gay is not necessarily bad, being Mormon always is. There is absolutely no need to display respect for teachings that someone pulled out of his butt. Or do you really think, Joseph Smith translated some ancient texts nobody has ever seen so far? Please. PC to protect dumb folks?
...that being said, the students mocking the girl should have been reprimanded, as well -- perhaps even punished. They may have a right to free speech (if you can call immature and meanspirited harassment "free speech"), but during school hours her right to go to classes and learn is much more important.

I believe that the "official" explanation is that someone used stone spectacles to read ancient tablets that he dug up in New York, not "pulled out of his butt".Show me the tablets. I'll translate them myself. I'm in the product data exchange business, I'm used to getting information out of weird stuff. Show me the tablets.

Being Mormon is not necessarily "bad" any more than being "gay".Being Mormon makes people dumb and obedient, Being gay doesn't.

Logically, it's far more likely that someone "gay" is going to pull something out of their butt.Too funny.

Reductio ad absurdum. Please see my post regarding that word.

i think your post makes shx's point. for those kids calling something "gay" is no more about homosexuality than calling another kid a "bastard" means that they know the circumstances of the child's birth. bastard is an excellent example of the changing meaning of words. as is "gay".

i think your post makes shx's point. for those kids calling something "gay" is no more about homosexuality than calling another kid a "bastard" means that they know the circumstances of the child's birth. bastard is an excellent example of the changing meaning of words. as is "gay".when has bastard lost it's meaning? and it's still used as an insult, isn't it? or does it signify love and understanding now?

No argument there. I'm not saying that the government should ban the phrase or classify it as hate speech.

What I am saying is that the school was completely justified in reprimanding the girl, and should be able to ban the use of the phrase at school just like any other offensive remark. I think that allowing students to say it unhindered while banning other offensive words is an implicit acceptance of homophobia, almost like saying that insulting gay students is alright. That kind of atmosphere needs to be discouraged, especially in the schools, so that gay students can have a healthier and less openly hostile learning environment.

I suppose in order to have a friendly atmosphere we shouldn't be allowed to say phrases like "I was gypped" since I'm sure it is a negative reference to gypsies. I'm sure that when someone says it they are meaning just that. That gypsies will swindle you. Yes, it is all clear now...

I suppose in order to have a friendly atmosphere we shouldn't be allowed to say phrases like "I was gypped" since I'm sure it is a negative reference to gypsies. I'm sure that when someone says it they are meaning just that. That gypsies will swindle you. Yes, it is all clear now...


how likely is it that there will be gypsies in a US school vs. the liklihood that there will be gays in one?

check and mate

i think your post makes shx's point. for those kids calling something "gay" is no more about homosexuality than calling another kid a "bastard" means that they know the circumstances of the child's birth. bastard is an excellent example of the changing meaning of words. as is "gay".
Wrong. Intangelon's point was that those words cannot really be considered insulting to their original victims anymore because the social situation has changed, and a word that once referred to a shameful quality is now a generic insult.

This does not apply to homosexuality. Across the country, there is still widespread discrimination against gays. Why do you think the Republicans love to bash them so often? It scores political points with a very large demographic. Homosexuality is still in many places socially unacceptable.

This attitude easily carries over to the schools. Many students are exposed to a family, faith, and culture that tells them that homosexuality is undesirable. They're petty, and insecure in their own sexuality, so to reaffirm their "straightness" and distance themselves from an "undesirable" minority they use the word describing that minority as an insult. That insult may be used to describe things that have nothing to do with the original minority, but the word itself is still grounded in intolerance and bigotry. It's in the same category as "******-rig", "jew down", or "Indian giver". It's meaning may have been broadened, but it is still very offensive.

how likely is it that there will be gypsies in a US school vs. the liklihood that there will be gays in one?

check and mate

Even if there is one, you have to agree that both statements are offensive.

If you're going to protect one group, you have to protect them all.

how likely is it that there will be gypsies in a US school vs. the liklihood that there will be gays in one?

check and mate

So the argument is that it is wrong to use "insulting" language when those minorities are in the school but if they aren't around, insult away?

So the argument is that it is wrong to use "insulting" language when those minorities are in the school but if they aren't around, insult away?

Unless the minority in question is currently a politically popular minority.

I mean, how many Gypsy voters are there?

So the argument is that it is wrong to use "insulting" language when those minorities are in the school but if they aren't around, insult away?


no my points has been given over and over in this thread and echoed by many others, and latecomers to the conversation keep coming in with the same tired, old, easily-smackdownable arguments so I decided to have some fun with yours.

Should people have thicker skins? yes

should schools try to keep the hostility at a minimum by stopping kids from insulting each other? yes

Is the phrase "that's/you're so gay" insulting to homosexuals when "gay" = "stupid"? yes (if you say no you are either too ignorant to ever get it or just trolling)

should there be hate speech laws? no

should there be lawsuits when someones feelings are hurt? no

i think your post makes shx's point. for those kids calling something "gay" is no more about homosexuality than calling another kid a "bastard" means that they know the circumstances of the child's birth. bastard is an excellent example of the changing meaning of words. as is "gay".

There is sooo much willfull ignorance in this thread it is astounding.

Gay in reference to homosexuals is still in use. As is often ironically pointed out by some of the defenders in here, homosexuals refer to themselves as gay and in fact call it the gay community.

And then you all erect some sort of fuzzy haze to somehow disconnect that if there is a community out there that calls itself gay they might object to that word being used as a derogative.

Oh right, you try to kid yourself into thinking using 'gay' as a derogative somehow isn't connected with 'gay' in reference to homosexuality-you just don't want to be called gay, unless you're gay, in which case what you're doing is lame because that's how you're using the word. But gay people shouldn't be offended by that, oh no...

Look, you could think that you're refering to potatoes when you say gay, but it's still refering to homosexuals and its usage implies, whether you want it to or not, shaming gayness and associating gayness with things that are 'lame' or 'stupid.' There's no two ways about it.

Wrong. Intangelon's point was that those words cannot really be considered insulting to their original victims anymore because the social situation has changed, and a word that once referred to a shameful quality is now a generic insult.

This does not apply to homosexuality. Across the country, there is still widespread discrimination against gays. Why do you think the Republicans love to bash them so often? It scores political points with a very large demographic. Homosexuality is still in many places socially unacceptable.

This attitude easily carries over to the schools. Many students are exposed to a family, faith, and culture that tells them that homosexuality is undesirable. They're petty, and insecure in their own sexuality, so to reaffirm their "straightness" and distance themselves from an "undesirable" minority they use the word describing that minority as an insult. That insult may be used to describe things that have nothing to do with the original minority, but the word itself is still grounded in intolerance and bigotry. It's in the same category as "******-rig", "jew down", or "Indian giver". It's meaning may have been broadened, but it is still very offensive.

the meanings of words and phrases change. gay hasnt meant homosexual for very long. now its migrated so that the phrase "thats so gay" is interchangeable with "thats so lame". thats what language DOES. no one is implying anything about the sexuality of whatever is "so gay". the meaning has migrated just as the meaning of dozens of other words have.

gay kids have much more to worry about than their word being taken over by another meaning.

Is the phrase "that's/you're so gay" insulting to homosexuals when "gay" = "stupid"? yes (if you say no you are either too ignorant to ever get it or just trolling)


Exactly.

I'm frankly amazed at some of the people arguing otherwise here.

the meanings of words and phrases change. gay hasnt meant homosexual for very long. now its migrated so that the phrase "thats so gay" is interchangeable with "thats so lame". thats what language DOES. no one is implying anything about the sexuality of whatever is "so gay". the meaning has migrated just as the meaning of dozens of other words have. I don't where you live, but elsewhere in the world, gay means homosexual, and it is used to signify persons or things that are "not right". And it has that meaning because of the overall negative attitude of societies towards homosexuality. You know pretty well that your meaning-changing-argument doesn't hold water. Gay is used as an insult exactly because homosexuals are widely seen as unworthy.

the meanings of words and phrases change. gay hasnt meant homosexual for very long. now its migrated so that the phrase "thats so gay" is interchangeable with "thats so lame". thats what language DOES. no one is implying anything about the sexuality of whatever is "so gay". the meaning has migrated just as the meaning of dozens of other words have.

gay kids have much more to worry about than their word being taken over by another meaning.

What? You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

the meanings of words and phrases change. gay hasnt meant homosexual for very long. now its migrated so that the phrase "thats so gay" is interchangeable with "thats so lame". thats what language DOES. no one is implying anything about the sexuality of whatever is "so gay". the meaning has migrated just as the meaning of dozens of other words have.

gay kids have much more to worry about than their word being taken over by another meaning.
Alright, now listen carefully: Why has the meaning changed? Why does the word "gay" now both refer to homosexuals and to undesirable things? Because homophobia is rampant in schools, and insecure students use the word "gay" in a negative way to make themselves look "cool" and to distance themselves from homosexuality. It's like group bullying -- one group mocks and puts down another, smaller group to make themselves look and feel better. This attitude has become so pervasive in high school and youth culture in general that "gay" is now a common insult. But the fact that the meaning has changed is irrelevant -- the problem is why the meaning has changed, and what how schools should deal with the people that try to pervert the word into an epithet.

no my points has been given over and over in this thread and echoed by many others, and latecomers to the conversation keep coming in with the same tired, old, easily-smackdownable arguments so I decided to have some fun with yours.

Should people have thicker skins? yes

should schools try to keep the hostility at a minimum by stopping kids from insulting each other? yes

Is the phrase "that's/you're so gay" insulting to homosexuals when "gay" = "stupid"? yes (if you say no you are either too ignorant to ever get it or just trolling)

should there be hate speech laws? no

should there be lawsuits when someones feelings are hurt? no

I would agree with all of these except on a point in the "that's so gay" being insulting part. It is more ignorance of people than any conscious attempt to insult homosexuals. People say "that's so gay" a lot and mostly they don't have gays on their minds at all. It is just like my "I've been gypped" example, people say it and they are hardly thinking of gypsies when they say it. If anything we need to educate people as to what various phrases can also mean so there are no misunderstandings. I do agree though that it is insulting to gays, yes, even if the insult was unintended. Though I still think the school went to far.

I also want to enforce a standard of not insulting religion while we are at it since people seem to ignore the fact that those classmates insulted this girl for being Mormon and the school said nothing. There should be just as much outrage for that on this thread as her comment has received.

I would agree with all of these except on a point in the "that's so gay" being insulting part. It is more ignorance of people than any conscious attempt to insult homosexuals. People say "that's so gay" a lot and mostly they don't have gays on their minds at all. It is just like my "I've been gypped" example, people say it and they are hardly thinking of gypsies when they say it.
That's different, though. There's no widespread anti-gypsy sentiment in schools or in society in general. In fact, I don't think gypsies have much of a presence in the United States at all. Now, I'm not saying that they're such a small minority that it's OK to insult them with words like that -- I'm saying that usage of the word truly is out of ignorance and not meant to denigrate gypsies. There is no hated gypsy minority that high school students feel a need to insult in order to make themselves look better.

If anything we need to educate people as to what various phrases can also mean so there are no misunderstandings. I do agree though that it is insulting to gays, yes, even if the insult was unintended. Though I still think the school went to far.\
They reprimanded her. The only way they could have gone any less would have been by doing nothing at all, and to do that would be to allow homophobia to fester in that school. The article stated that the school had encountered homophobic problems in the past (students paying others to beat up gay students) and had every right to discourage derogatory language like that.

I also want to enforce a standard of not insulting religion while we are at it since people seem to ignore the fact that those classmates insulted this girl for being Mormon and the school said nothing.
Agreed.

Alright, now listen carefully: Why has the meaning changed? Why does the word "gay" now both refer to homosexuals and to undesirable things? Because homophobia is rampant in schools, and insecure students use the word "gay" in a negative way to make themselves look "cool" and to distance themselves from homosexuality. It's like group bullying -- one group mocks and puts down another, smaller group to make themselves look and feel better. This attitude has become so pervasive in high school and youth culture in general that "gay" is now a common insult. But the fact that the meaning has changed is irrelevant -- the problem is why the meaning has changed, and what how schools should deal with the people that try to pervert the word into an epithet.

See my previous post. You can't solve this sort of problem.

I would agree with all of these except on a point in the "that's so gay" being insulting part. It is more ignorance of people than any conscious attempt to insult homosexuals. People say "that's so gay" a lot and mostly they don't have gays on their minds at all. It is just like my "I've been gypped" example, people say it and they are hardly thinking of gypsies when they say it. If anything we need to educate people as to what various phrases can also mean so there are no misunderstandings. I do agree though that it is insulting to gays, yes, even if the insult was unintended. Though I still think the school went to far.

I also want to enforce a standard of not insulting religion while we are at it since people seem to ignore the fact that those classmates insulted this girl for being Mormon and the school said nothing. There should be just as much outrage for that on this thread as her comment has received.

Well I can see how you would think that since you mistakingly think that "gay" no longer means "homosexual". Though I have a tremendously hard time believing that.

Many of us have already said that people will use the phrase without thinking, but it is still the equivalent of saying "that is so christian" or "that is so black" to mean "that is stupid/lame".

I have to believe that you are merely in the mood to argue and can't truely believe that using the word "gay" interchangably with "stupid" wouldnt be insulting to homosexuals. TO say it's no longer in use reeks of trolliness. There is a directory printed here in Las Vegas called The Gay And Lesbian Yellow Pages.

See my previous post. You can't solve this sort of problem.
Of course not. You can't control people's thoughts and opinions. But you can restrict the expression of those thoughts and opinions in school in order to make it easier for gay students to work unmolested and unharassed.

You can't take a racist student and make them not racist. But you can restrict them from using racist language in school and punish them if they harass black students. Why is it so objectionable to offer the same protection to gay students, who are arguably more hated and more harassed by the student body?

See my previous post. You can't solve this sort of problem.

You know what, dude? You can't stop teens from violence either, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't break up a fight when I see it.

Well I can see how you would think that since you mistakingly think that "gay" no longer means "homosexual". Though I have a tremendously hard time believing that.

Many of us have already said that people will use the phrase without thinking, but it is still the equivalent of saying "that is so christian" or "that is so black" to mean "that is stupid/lame".

I have to believe that you are merely in the mood to argue and can't truely believe that using the word "gay" interchangably with "stupid" wouldnt be insulting to homosexuals. TO say it's no longer in use reeks of trolliness. There is a directory printed here in Las Vegas called The Gay And Lesbian Yellow Pages.

I'm sure that after a while, gays will insist that a new word be used to describe them.

And, in short order, that will become a slur as well.

You can't change the way people think.

I'm sure that after a while, gays will insist that a new word be used to describe them.

And, in short order, that will become a slur as well.

You can't change the way people think.
I'm sure people will invent new racist and sexist slurs too. And I'm sure that those new slurs will likely be banned in schools across the country.

What is so bad about giving the same basic protections to gay students that we give to every other minority?

Well I can see how you would think that since you mistakingly think that "gay" no longer means "homosexual". Though I have a tremendously hard time believing that.

Many of us have already said that people will use the phrase without thinking, but it is still the equivalent of saying "that is so christian" or "that is so black" to mean "that is stupid/lame".

I have to believe that you are merely in the mood to argue and can't truely believe that using the word "gay" interchangably with "stupid" wouldnt be insulting to homosexuals. TO say it's no longer in use reeks of trolliness. There is a directory printed here in Las Vegas called The Gay And Lesbian Yellow Pages.

I said plainly that it is insulting but that people blurt it out without thinking, no malice intended. It is still wrong but I am not going to jump on such people for not thinking. Telling them "hey, don't say that its insulting to homosexuals" should be enough without any reprimands needed.

I must say though, your accusing me of trolling for not agreeing with the herd (wrong in this case) is hardly going to get me to change my mind on a topic. Though it is mildly irritating.

I'm sure people will invent new racist and sexist slurs too. And I'm sure that those new slurs will likely be banned in schools across the country.

What is so bad about giving the same basic protections to gay students that we give to every other minority?

I'm not saying not to protect people.

It would be better to teach people to be nice to each other than it is to ban specific words.

And once we get into the game of only protecting identified groups, then it's open season on anyone who doesn't fit the identified groups.

Telling them "hey, don't say that its insulting to homosexuals" should be enough without any reprimands needed.
What's the difference? Isn't a reprimand just a more formal way of saying "Hey, don't do that, that's bad"? It's not like she was punished.

I'm not saying not to protect people.

It would be better to teach people to be nice to each other than it is to ban specific words.

People will think whatever they want to think, no matter how much money is spent on social education or how many laws are passed saying how illegal it is to say a word.
So... we can't teach people to be sensitive... we can't restrict offensive language... I'm assuming you don't think the girl should have been reprimanded... so... what? Just do nothing? Let homophobic harassment run rampant and not do anything to stop it?

And once we get into the game of only protecting identified groups, then it's open season on anyone who doesn't fit the identified groups.
You don't have to protect identified groups. Just disallow offensive language, period. No swearing. No harassment. No racist, sexist, or religious slurs. Simple. And again, I'm talking about in a school environment only.

I said plainly that it is insulting but that people blurt it out without thinking, no malice intended. It is still wrong but I am not going to jump on such people for not thinking. Telling them "hey, don't say that its insulting to homosexuals" should be enough without any reprimands needed.

I must say though, your accusing me of trolling for not agreeing with the herd (wrong in this case) is hardly going to get me to change my mind on a topic. Though it is mildly irritating.

How is it mildly offensive if "gay" doesn't mean "homosexual" anymore? I'm pretty sure thats what you said is it not?

And also what Rhaomi said.

What's the difference? Isn't a reprimand just a more formal way of saying "Hey, don't do that, that's bad"? It's not like she was punished.

I was under the idea that she got a mention of the incident left in her record. That is more serious then a mere tonguelash.

So... we can't teach people to be sensitive... we can't restrict offensive language... I'm assuming you don't think the girl should have been reprimanded... so... what? Just do nothing? Let homophobic harassment run rampant and not do anything to stop it?


Gee, I didn't say that.

You don't have to protect identified groups. Just disallow offensive language, period. No swearing. No harassment. No racist, sexist, or religious slurs. Simple. And again, I'm talking about in a school environment only.

I think that's all covered by "you need to be nice to other people". My kids understand that, without all the other claptrap.

They seem to live it, too. They don't harass anyone.

Like I said in a previous post in this thread, it doesn't matter what words you ban. You can even come up with a new term for gay people. Let's say you appropriate the word, "great". In a few days, that will also be a slur.

Why? Because there are always hateful people, even if you ban the words.

All that hate is still in our culture because so many people just hate gays - no matter what you call them. And it's impossible to change the minds of adults, and nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 5.

And the state doesn't raise your children before then.

Gee, I didn't say that.



I think that's all covered by "you need to be nice to other people". My kids understand that, without all the other claptrap.

They seem to live it, too. They don't harass anyone.

Like I said in a previous post in this thread, it doesn't matter what words you ban. You can even come up with a new term for gay people. Let's say you appropriate the word, "great". In a few days, that will also be a slur.

Why? Because there are always hateful people, even if you ban the words.

All that hate is still in our culture because so many people just hate gays - no matter what you call them. And it's impossible to change the minds of adults, and nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 5.

And the state doesn't raise your children before then.


Then what is your point? There has already been agreement with you that you can't control peoples minds.

Nobody is even suggesting that we try to control peoples minds.

Then what is your point? There has already been agreement with you that you can't control peoples minds.

Nobody is even suggesting that we try to control peoples minds.

Rhaomi wants it to stop - it appears that Rhaomi believes that someday, if we just add enough restrictions, people will someday treat gays with a modicum of respect.

I find this highly improbable, if that is the technique intended to bring about change.

Gee, I didn't say that.
People will think whatever they want to think, no matter how much money is spent on social education
That's what it sounded like. If you can't ban slurs or educate people, then what is the alternative?

I think that's all covered by "you need to be nice to other people". My kids understand that, without all the other claptrap.

They seem to live it, too. They don't harass anyone.
That's admirable, then. Sad that more kids aren't raised like that.

Like I said in a previous post in this thread, it doesn't matter what words you ban. You can even come up with a new term for gay people. Let's say you appropriate the word, "great". In a few days, that will also be a slur.

Why? Because there are always hateful people, even if you ban the words.

All that hate is still in our culture because so many people just hate gays - no matter what you call them. And it's impossible to change the minds of adults, and nearly impossible for anyone over the age of 5.

And the state doesn't raise your children before then.
I know I already said this, but I'll repeat it: I admit that you cannot change people's opinions. Banning slurs will not eliminate bigotry. But you can restrict how people express their opinions. All I'm advocating is the restriction of offensive speech during school, so that minorities such as gays can work and learn without worrying about being constantly offended and insulted. If homophobes want to hate gays, fine. But they shouldn't be able to throw about offensive and homophobic statements such as "that's so gay" during school hours. And if they do so, they should be reprimanded.

Rhaomi wants it to stop - it appears that Rhaomi believes that someday, if we just add enough restrictions, people will someday treat gays with a modicum of respect.

I find this highly improbable, if that is the technique intended to bring about change.

I never saw him make that argument. I saw him saying that while in school, there shoudl be restrictions. Not that it will fix the worlds problems and end bigotry.

I know I already said this, but I'll repeat it: I admit that you cannot change people's opinions. Banning slurs will not eliminate bigotry. But you can restrict how people express their opinions. All I'm advocating is the restriction of offensive speech during school, so that minorities such as gays can work and learn without worrying about being constantly offended and insulted. If homophobes want to hate gays, fine. But they shouldn't be able to throw about offensive and homophobic statements such as "that's so gay" during school hours. And if they do so, they should be reprimanded.

Just so you know, large numbers of the classmates will silently and secretly hate you for being different. Sure, the environment will sound nice, but it won't be.

That's why I'd rather educate them to be nice when they're young, and not have to make extremely specific directives to my children.

Just so you know, large numbers of the classmates will silently and secretly hate you for being different. Sure, the environment will sound nice, but it won't be.

That's why I'd rather educate them to be nice when they're young, and not have to make extremely specific directives to my children.


Yes, but since we can't tell people how to raise their kids, all we can do is try to make the environment less hostile. Isn't that better than the alternative for the minorities that encounter so much prejudice? I don't get where your objection lies in wantign to restrict agression towards minorities in schools. If you don't have an objection to that then I think either you are missing the point or I am.

Just so you know, large numbers of the classmates will silently and secretly hate you for being different. Sure, the environment will sound nice, but it won't be.

That's why I'd rather educate them to be nice when they're young, and not have to make extremely specific directives to my children.
Sounds great to me. Although I get the feeling that if such a "tolerance" class were ever organized, many parents would refuse to have their children attend.

Wait. I'm not getting the feeling of it -- I'm recalling it (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/16666964.htm).

How is it mildly offensive if "gay" doesn't mean "homosexual" anymore? I'm pretty sure thats what you said is it not?

And also what Rhaomi said.

I don't recall the "mildly" part, I'm sure for those who would be offended to begin with, whether there was intent to insult or not, would find it just as offensive.

But for the person who says it with no foul intent is someone who I am not going to criticize too severely. If they are corrected again and again but keep it up that would change but until then... I see a difference, ok? Since there is no proof the girl intended to insult homosexuals I'm not going to look down on her as much as I would a true bigot.

Yes, but since we can't tell people how to raise their kids, all we can do is try to make the environment less hostile. Isn't that better than the alternative for the minorities that encounter so much prejudice? I don't get where your objection lies in wantign to restrict agression towards minorities in schools. If you don't have an objection to that then I think either you are missing the point or I am.

I think you're missing my point.

I don't want anyone to be disrespectful or hostile towards anyone at school - and I don't care even if the alleged victim is in a MAJORITY. And I don't care what words were used.

It's completely possible to harangue and humiliate someone without using ANY slurs at all - using completely OK words - and without raising your voice.

It is possible to harm people without hitting them - scare them without yelling - insult them without slurs.

All that your proposed restrictions would do is make that the way to hurt people.

I'm saying that parents and teachers need to protect EVERYONE from a more generalized harm - and that they need to teach EVERYONE to be nice. Not run the school from some specialized script thought up by politicians.

I think you're missing my point.

I don't want anyone to be disrespectful or hostile towards anyone at school - and I don't care even if the alleged victim is in a MAJORITY. And I don't care what words were used.

It's completely possible to harangue and humiliate someone without using ANY slurs at all - using completely OK words - and without raising your voice.

It is possible to harm people without hitting them - scare them without yelling - insult them without slurs.

All that your proposed restrictions would do is make that the way to hurt people.

I'm saying that parents and teachers need to protect EVERYONE from a more generalized harm - and that they need to teach EVERYONE to be nice. Not run the school from some specialized script thought up by politicians.

Sounds nice - how's that gunna work?

I don't recall the "mildly" part, I'm sure for those who would be offended to begin with, whether there was intent to insult or not, would find it just as offensive.

But for the person who says it with no foul intent is someone who I am not going to criticize too severely. If they are corrected again and again but keep it up that would change but until then... I see a difference, ok? Since there is no proof the girl intended to insult homosexuals I'm not going to look down on her as much as I would a true bigot.

I wouldnt criticize the girl too severly either (and I don't think she was though. I don't understant why it needs to go on a permanent record, but I don't think it's going to hurt her). I think that telling her to be more conscious of the words she uses was fine. It probably would have blown over without a hitch had the parents not filed a lawsuit over it.

Would we really tolerate a phrase such as "That's so ******?" But that's different, right? Wrong. For those willing to think about it, gay most certainly does not mean "happy" in the context. I understand the concern that this is a widespread and often petty phrase in the grand scheme. But again, so was "******" in the not so distant past. Perhaps the reason it is so widespread is that, until now, few people have even been willing to expose themselves to the kind of crap society on the whole dishes out when someone gives voice to stop it. The step may be small, but it has to come from somewhere.Yay, a thinking person's first post. :)

It works at my house, and it's not rocket science.


That's nice too, but how is it going to work in a larger organization like school?

Would we really tolerate a phrase such as "That's so ******?" But that's different, right? Wrong. For those willing to think about it, gay most certainly does not mean "happy" in the context. I understand the concern that this is a widespread and often petty phrase in the grand scheme. But again, so was "******" in the not so distant past. Perhaps the reason it is so widespread is that, until now, few people have even been willing to expose themselves to the kind of crap society on the whole dishes out when someone gives voice to stop it. The step may be small, but it has to come from somewhere.

Sounds nice - how's that gunna work?

It works at my house, and it's not rocket science.

might i point out that one of the definitions for gay is happy. therefor the prosecution of the person should have been shut down instantly for they could not know how she was useing it perhaps she meant happy bout whatever they were throwin rice for. or the question "imageing haveing 10 mothers" perhaps she was simply stateing she would be happy. the statement is truely controversial but i dont see it as a crime. ;)

Would we really tolerate a phrase such as "That's so ******?" But that's different, right? Wrong. For those willing to think about it, gay most certainly does not mean "happy" in the context. I understand the concern that this is a widespread and often petty phrase in the grand scheme. But again, so was "******" in the not so distant past. Perhaps the reason it is so widespread is that, until now, few people have even been willing to expose themselves to the kind of crap society on the whole dishes out when someone gives voice to stop it. The step may be small, but it has to come from somewhere.

as i highschooler i must point out that i have nothing against gays (one of my friends is a bisectual) anyways. we use the term "gay" as a means of saying bad, not good, unfair, stupid. if any of those qualify as hateing (perhaps slightly dislikeing or imensly dislikeing but not to the point of im gonna kill the person im saying this to) then your sadly mistaken. what could be considered hatefull would be the word "fag" although a faggit is a bundle of sticks people use it in a horid context. please dont compare the word "gay to the word "******" ever again. it is a very inacurate comparison

That's nice too, but how is it going to work in a larger organization like school?

You're saying that a teacher requires a specific list of victim groups, and a specific list of banned words, in order for anything to work?

Are you hiring daft teachers who have no common sense, no ability to think on their feet, no ability to lead children, and no heartfelt compassion for kids?

my last point for now is look at online games. they block words and so what do gamers do? alas they make new words! like the words noob froob pwned choob and any other version of the like. all restricting this would do would cause a whole new line of curses for them to use. please dont expand there vocabulary that way lol.

You're saying that a teacher requires a specific list of victim groups, and a specific list of banned words, in order for anything to work?

I never once said that.


Are you hiring daft teachers who have no common sense, no ability to think on their feet, no ability to lead children, and no heartfelt compassion for kids?



I was asking how you think a school should handle cases like this because I am curious and open minded to new ideas. If I think that your system was fair and workable I would totally back you. If it's having the teachers and other school staff keep an eye out for agressive behavior and do their best to keep the peace, that's all I am advocating for as well. They should also teach students coping mechanisms for bullying and whatnot. Teach kids to have a thicker skin while simultaneously keeping the peace. If different teachers have different ideas as to how to deal with it then I say let those teachers deal with it in their way. I am all for more control by school staff.

If you think it's okay for kids to go around harassing each other with slurs then I disagree.

Or do you have no idea how you would do it? You make it sound so simple and nice but I haven't seen any solutions from you... only criticizms of everyone else who wants to maintain a less hostile environment by talkign to the kids who create such an environment.

You're saying that a teacher requires a specific list of victim groups, and a specific list of banned words, in order for anything to work?

Are you hiring daft teachers who have no common sense, no ability to think on their feet, no ability to lead children, and no heartfelt compassion for kids?

You're creating a false scenario. The teacher used common sense to know that using 'gay' as a derogatory was offensive and repremanded the kid (I don't know what the teacher did to the students who were making the Mormon comments, but the same seems in order). It is you who are creating this other fictional world of lists and protected groups, etc. We don't need a list to see that using the name of a large group of people as a derogatory is offensive.

I'm 20. I graduated High School in 2005. I heard the same things go on. Not a single time did I hear the word "gay" or "fag" used in any way as a positive adjective. Now say you were gay; for the four years you were in High School, how do you react when a word used to describe you is thrown about like that every day? I know how I did. I was just a little bit angry, but thank goodness I didn't start associating myself as "bad", "not good," "unfair," or "stupid." One might think that this at least plays a small part in why homosexual teen suicide rates highest in teen groups.
Words don't have to kill. They can just taint your entire impression about someone before you even know a thing about them. Studies on this are well-established in the realm of Psychology. The word "gay," that to a kid has a connotation of "stupid," "wrong," and "not good" can go a long way to cause individuals to even automatically assign characteristics to them before you even say hello.

this is so gods damn cute!

how the straight people are debating wither "that's so gay" is demeaning or not, with out having the neurons to ask those the phrase applies to.

philosophical rambeling, i imagine all of you holding glasses of scotch, wearing polo shirts and cardagains, petting pomerainians; yet calling ME weird!

hahah! i just remembered, there are still *heterosexual* people out there who think homosexuallity is a "choice". :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :( :( :(

did anyone other then the minority, like one of you in the majority, ever think to just simply leave us the frack alone?

we were happy until you assumed you were better then us. the more you try to "help" us, the worse off we are.

GOAway.

-Rafe, who just realized a signature quote when he sees one.

There is a new spelling of it by the way; ive seen it in skater magazines, and local/regional newspapers even. *in the USA, southern California*.

the spelling is phonetic; ghey or ghay.



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

Really, the teacher should have told the girl and the kids who were teasing her for her religion to all shut up and do their work and maybe give a little speach about not hating on mormans and gays. This kind of disipline is going to be seen as unjust if the girl doesn't realize how ignorant she was being. Tell her why its wrong, tell her not to do it again. Then if that fails punish her for it.
Hooray for common sense!

Really, the teacher should have told the girl and the kids who were teasing her for her religion to all shut up and do their work and maybe give a little speach about not hating on mormans and gays. This kind of disipline is going to be seen as unjust if the girl doesn't realize how ignorant she was being. Tell her why its wrong, tell her not to do it again. Then if that fails punish her for it.

Alright, I think something needs to be understood regarding public property such as state schools. They belong, indirectly, to the people financing them - the taxpayer. If the parents of students in a particular school qua taxpayers want certain words disallowed on their property, they have the right. However, in practice it's rather difficult to enforce such decisions, so the school administration should do so instead. By going to a school you must accept its code of conduct and rules. The school administration, as overseers of the school, therefore have all the right to ban certain words on property they are caring for (a principal-agent relationship). If the majority of owners, ie the taxpayers, take issue with this, then they have the right to push for change.

This is NOT a violation of the freedom of speech. It is accepting the rules of the property-owner (or the agent, in this case). Do I find this stupid? Yes. Is it a violation of freedom of speech? No.

Well, despising that particular religious background is justified.
Ah, so bigotry (so long as you approve of it) is justifiable. Give me a fucking break... :rolleyes:

Really, the teacher should have told the girl and the kids who were teasing her for her religion to all shut up and do their work and maybe give a little speach about not hating on mormans and gays. This kind of disipline is going to be seen as unjust if the girl doesn't realize how ignorant she was being. Tell her why its wrong, tell her not to do it again. Then if that fails punish her for it.
Precisely.

This is NOT a violation of the freedom of speech. It is accepting the rules of the property-owner (or the agent, in this case). Do I find this stupid? Yes. Is it a violation of freedom of speech? No.


I think its more teaching kids how to behave and to speak "civily" to eachother rather than enforcing rules because the taxpayers say so. You could easily get fired for using bad language or making negative comments at a job. The school needs to do what its supposed to and prepare them for the future.

I think its more teaching kids how to behave and to speak "civily" to eachother rather than enforcing rules because the taxpayers say so.
My point is that the school as the agent of the taxpayers has the power to do what it did, without this constituting a violation of the freedom of speech. Why it did it is a wholly different matter.

You could easily get fired for using bad language or making negative comments at a job. The school needs to do what its supposed to and prepare them for the future.
Indeed.

man I said that in front of a gay guy. He didn't pop me in the mouth... saying this is gay is not hate speech it's just regular speech. Otherwise better put me and like 90% of my buddies in jail. That's how we do er out west.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that life is a hate crime.

I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that life is a hate crime.
Heh, it's usually characterised as an STD by cynics...

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.?

Legally? Yes.

Legally? Yes.

As long as you're willing to get beat up, yes.

Ah, so bigotry (so long as you approve of it) is justifiable. Give me a fucking break... To say that Mormonism is crap and to despise those who do not have the intelligence to discard that crap is not bigotry, it is reason. If you really think that all ideologies and their respective followers deserve equal respect, think again. I know it is considered politically correct to protect all kinds of nonsense and use soft language so that people do not get "offended", but really some folks need a kick in the butt to wake up now and start using their heads not only for protecting their necks from rain. Humanity has enough problems even without the religious filth.
And if a Mormon really dares to call anything or anyone "gay" to express contempt then that is really somewhat ironic. Rather folks should say "that's so mormon" if they want to point out that something is completely and utterly idiotic.

As long as you're willing to get beat up, yes.

Well, that's their problem, isn't it?

This "case" is not about hate crime or hate speech. No one was charged with any crime and hate speech isn't even a crime in the U.S. No laws have been passed banning any phrases in this case.

No one is claiming that gays are entitled to special rights or that a thought police would eliminate homophobia.

This "case" is simply about what a school may do to maintain a good learning environment, protect all students, and inculcate the habits and manners of civility essential to a democratic society.

That anyone could argue that students have the right to use derogatory slurs and epiteths without so much as a warning is absurd.

Does anyone really doubt that school has a right to deal proactively with all forms of bullying, name-calling and harassment?

The school perhaps could have dealt with the issue less severely than an official warning -- but that is a pretty minimal discipline.

The biggest issue in this case shouldn't be what happened to the girl -- she got treated appropriately -- but what didn't appear to happen to her taunters -- they should have been disciplined.



*(To paraphrase the Rime of the Ancient Mariner)

and not a stop to think
Is it okay to groan at this? >.<

Is it okay to groan at this? >.<

Nope. I'll sue for harassment if you don't laugh.

Nope. I'll sue for harassment if you don't laugh.
Oh, I laughed. A groany sort of laugh, but a laugh.

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?

No, it makes it assault.

1. Lots of gay people use it.
2. If you plan on comparing it to the n-word, I'll stop you right here. Their development histories are totally different. The n-word has never had a double meaning, whereas gay is ambiguous term (and the homosexual context is not even the original context).