NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried posting this in the Gaia forums, but with little success. (Idiotic mods)

The GSA at my school, along with my International Club have been known for putting up idiotic signs. They put up a new sign yesterday. It reads:


"She's so psycho..."

"They're too ethnic..."

"... from a broken home."
Everyday, biased language in our society causes unintentional damage. Stop using it.


What... The... Fuck?

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.

Psycho is a little out of the way, but crazy is perfectly fine. And the Rutgers basketball team needs to toughen up a bit, yeah.

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive.

You mean like you're being here, with your whiny-ass bitching that somehow someone wants to "take your rights away" by asking you not to use hurtful language?

Bitch, please. :rolleyes:

Doesn't too ethnic sound a wee bit prejudiced? The others (in fact none of them, but looking at their perspective) don't offend me, but it's quite obvious why too ethnic could cause a problem...

Doesn't too ethnic sound a wee bit prejudiced? The others (in fact none of them, but looking at their perspective) don't offend me, but it's quite obvious why too ethnic could cause a problem...

Now if only I knew what the frack it means.

You mean like you're being here, with your whiny-ass bitching that somehow someone wants to "take your rights away" by asking you not to use hurtful language?

Bitch, please. :rolleyes:

And Fass is still an asshole.

Ahh, NSG, what was I doing without you?

By "sensitive" I mean stop complaining that your feelings are getting hurt because of a few "slurs".

What's a GSA? And why should I care what they think?

And Fass is still an asshole.

Don't covet what you can't have.

By "sensitive" I mean stop complaining that your feelings are getting hurt because of a few "slurs".

Yeah, perhaps first you should brush the sand out of your own vagina? "Help, help! They're taking my rights away by asking me not to do something!" Pathetic.

What's a GSA? And why should I care what they think?

I believe this is a GSA, but I could be horribly wrong. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay-straight_alliance)

What's a GSA? And why should I care what they think?

Gay-Straight Alliance. And it's just the fact that they're trying to get us to stop saying things we want just so their feelings don't get hurt.

What's a GSA? And why should I care what they think?

Gay-Straight Alliance. I would have loved to poke fun at the acronym, but, meh.

Apparently if you don't listen to them you're an anti-gay bigot that should rot in hell. At least that's what wiki says.

What... The... Fuck?

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean?

If you are really unable to see how any of that language is hurtful, I pity you.

Your GSA isn't saying any of that language is illegal, they are just suggesting that you avoid language that inadvertently hurts peoples feelings.

And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

You don't seem to understand the First Amendment. First, it only applies against state action.

Second, it doesn't mean that you are free from criticism for using insensitive language. Free speech is a two-way street. You are "free" to be a jerk and others are free to point out you are being a jerk.

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

The one that needs to change is you. You are being "so god damned sensitive" about your freedom of speech that you've failed to consider whether your speech could be improved. It wouldn't harm you one whit to make your language less harmful.

You mean like you're being here, with your whiny-ass bitching that somehow someone wants to "take your rights away" by asking you not to use hurtful language?

Bitch, please. :rolleyes:

Quoted for motherfucking truth.

And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.
how are signs asking people to stop using "hurtful" terms a restriction of the First Amendment? is there some penalty for saying those words/terms? Suspension, failing grade, expulsion?

or are you trying to restrict their First Amendment rights of asking people to stop using 'hurtful' terms.

I'll respect your right and ability to say what you want, but you respect other's right and abilit to react to what you say.

how are signs asking people to stop using "hurtful" terms a restriction of the First Amendment? is there some penalty for saying those words/terms? Suspension, failing grade, expulsion?

or are you trying to restrict their First Amendment rights of asking people to stop using 'hurtful' terms.

I'll respect your right and ability to say what you want, but you respect other's right and abilit to react to what you say.

Exactly. Well said.

Free speech applies to them as well.
They have just as much of a right to say things like that as you do to express your opposing opinion.
And I've seen much worse "pc-ification" that actually warrants a complaint.

Exactly. Well said.

:eek:

I got approval from THE CAT-TRIBE?!?

*faints*

If you are really unable to see how any of that language is hurtful, I pity you.

Your GSA isn't saying any of that language is illegal, they are just suggesting that you avoid language that inadvertently hurts peoples feelings.



You don't seem to understand the First Amendment. First, it only applies against state action.

Second, it doesn't mean that you are free from criticism for using insensitive language. Free speech is a two-way street. You are "free" to be a jerk and others are free to point out you are being a jerk.



The one that needs to change is you. You are being "so god damned sensitive" about your freedom of speech that you've failed to consider whether your speech could be improved. It wouldn't harm you one whit to make your language less harmful.

It's not like I go up to gay people and call them fags and tell them they'll burn in hell. So I call my computer gay if it lags to the extreme. Doesn't make me a bigot.

Ethnic is a real and offensive slur, in the context it was used on the flier. The other two... Frankly, they aren't kind things to say, but they are hardly "slurs". You would think that the GSA would focus on a real case of slurs in social settings, and call out the use of "Gay" as an insult. It is far more insulting than "psycho".

My school's GSA and Multi-Cultural clubs have done similar things in the past. If you don't like the content (and, ocasionally, I find myself disliking it, when they cross the line from dealing with real problems to dealing with imagined ones), ignore it. They just want attention for their causes, and you're providing that attention. It's an effective way of pushing the Overton Window. Sometimes, rolling your eyes and walking away is the best way to deal with them.

So I call my computer gay if it lags to the extreme. Doesn't make me a bigot.

Yes, yes it does. Just like it would make bigots out of people who call their harvesters "niggers" when malfunctioning. Or people who call ATMs that swallow their cards "kikes".

how are signs asking people to stop using "hurtful" terms a restriction of the First Amendment? is there some penalty for saying those words/terms? Suspension, failing grade, expulsion?

or are you trying to restrict their First Amendment rights of asking people to stop using 'hurtful' terms.

I'll respect your right and ability to say what you want, but you respect other's right and abilit to react to what you say.

Well, considerably, they've tried (several times) to get the administration to deliver punishments for people saying any number of "insensitive" words. Besides that, they decide to ostracize anyone who they catch using that kind of language. Not that I care much about being ostracized, especially by those kind of people, but it's a little out of hand when you shun someone just because the word "gay" slips out of their mouth.

Yes, yes it. Just like it would make people who call their computers "niggers" when malfunctioning bigots.

Dude? "******" is widely accepted as an insulting term. "Gay" isn't.

And even then, what if the person grew up just knowing black people to be "niggers", and never knew it as an insulting term? Would you consider them bigots?

Hypocrites FTW.

Ethnic is a real and offensive slur, in the context it was used on the flier. The other two... Frankly, they aren't kind things to say, but they are hardly "slurs". You would think that the GSA would focus on a real case of slurs in social settings, and call out the use of "Gay" as an insult. It is far more insulting than "psycho".

My school's GSA and Multi-Cultural clubs have done similar things in the past. If you don't like the content (and, ocasionally, I find myself disliking it, when they cross the line from dealing with real problems to dealing with imagined ones), ignore it. They just want attention for their causes, and you're providing that attention. It's an effective way of pushing the Overton Window. Sometimes, rolling your eyes and walking away is the best way to deal with them.

Problem is, ethnic is like nappy. I've never heard it used before, and therefore I never knew it as an insulting term. However, when the former was used, it was said to be an insulting term. Therefore I learned it to be an insulting term. Of course, the latter wasn't used in an insulting way, no matter what anyone says, so as far as I can tell, it's still not insulting.

Getting a bit off topic, but I'm still tired. Yeah, it's half past noon. So what?

Dude? "******" is widely accepted as an insulting term. "Gay" isn't.

So, you mean you mean something positive when you call your malfunctioning computer "gay"? Again: bitch, please. You know why you say such mouthbreather things - you associate being gay with something bad, so much so that you use the word to denote bad things. And that makes you a bigot.

And even then, what if the person grew up just knowing black people to be "niggers", and never knew it as an insulting term? Would you consider them bigots?

If they continued to use it even when apprised of its hurtful nature in the usage, sort of like you, yes.

So I call my computer gay if it lags to the extreme. Doesn't make me a bigot.

Sounds like your brain is lagging to the extreme. So people don't like to be insulted, or to have terms that refer to them used as insults. This is nothing new or unusual, so quit whining.

Well, considerably, they've tried (several times) to get the administration to deliver punishments for people saying any number of "insensitive" words. Besides that, they decide to ostracize anyone who they catch using that kind of language. Not that I care much about being ostracized, especially by those kind of people, but it's a little out of hand when you shun someone just because the word "gay" slips out of their mouth.
and it's their right to ostracize anyone for what they say, wear, or even look like.

All that does is make them into what they are fighting... Bigots.

I say, a national movement to return 'Gay' to it's original meaning. that of being happy and care-free. and considering that the GSA is the GAY-Straight Alliance. ostracizing someone who says 'Gay' is rather... hypocritical...

It's not like I go up to gay people and call them fags and tell them they'll burn in hell. So I call my computer gay if it lags to the extreme. Doesn't make me a bigot.

Fass has already pointed out the flaw in your thinking here.

Using a term that refers to homosexuals in a negative context has a negative implication towards that group. That is bigotry, however mild you may wish to protray it.

So, you mean you mean something positive when you call your malfunctioning computer "gay"? Again: bitch, please. You know why you say - you associate being gay with something bad, so much so that you use the word to denote bad things. And that makes you a bigot.



If they continued to use it even when apprised of its hurtful nature in the usage, sort of like you, yes.

Wait, wait, wait. What?

I don't consider homosexual people bad. I never call them gay, in fact. Actually, I consider any homosexual person who calls themselves gay hypocrites. Gay has taken on a negative connotation, and I never use it in relation to homosexual people.

Yes, but they have learned the word themselves as not being insulting. Hell, what if they learned "black" to be insulting? It would be somewhat hard to use "black" instead of "******" since they learned to use "******" instead of "black" if they wanted to be kind to someone.

I say, a national movement to return 'Gay' to it's original meaning. that of being happy and care-free. and considering that the GSA is the GAY-Straight Alliance. ostracizing someone who says 'Gay' is rather... hypocritical...

Wait, it's hypocritical of them to use the term gay as something positive and ask people not to use it as a negative? Ask your parents to buy you a dictionary because it seems like you don't know what hypocrisy means, kid.

Sounds like your brain is lagging to the extreme. So people don't like to be insulted, or to have terms that refer to them used as insults. This is nothing new or unusual, so quit whining.

Yeah, but it still needs to be confronted. Just pointing out how idiotic it's gotten now in days.

Problem is, ethnic is like nappy. I've never heard it used before, and therefore I never knew it as an insulting term. However, when the former was used, it was said to be an insulting term. Therefore I learned it to be an insulting term. Of course, the latter wasn't used in an insulting way, no matter what anyone says, so as far as I can tell, it's still not insulting.


In the context presented, it was a slur, and it is a clear slur. That you have never heard it before merely reaffirms your ignorance. I will acknowledge that they are both uncommon slurs, however.

Still, your GSA and your Multi-Cultural Club both would be serving their cause better by focussing on insults that are more common and even more insidious, like the overuse of "Gay" as a slur, or the increased use of racist terms against Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans.

So, you mean you mean something positive when you call your malfunctioning computer "gay"? Again: bitch, please. You know why you say such mouthbreather things - you associate being gay with something bad, so much so that you use the word to denote bad things. And that makes you a bigot.



If they continued to use it even when apprised of its hurtful nature in the usage, sort of like you, yes.

(Agrees and is in shock at doing this)

Problem is, ethnic is like nappy. I've never heard it used before, and therefore I never knew it as an insulting term. However, when the former was used, it was said to be an insulting term. Therefore I learned it to be an insulting term.

Isn't education wonderful? We can learn new things that make us a better person -- like how not to use insulting language.


Of course, the latter wasn't used in an insulting way, no matter what anyone says, so as far as I can tell, it's still not insulting.?

*sigh*

Of course, you'd insist on going there. The fact of the matter is that "nappy-headed" is a phrase listed in the Oxford English Dictionary as derogatory slang for a black person. End of debate.

Moreover, in context, Imus and his pal said far more than merely the word nappy. The whole exchange was racist and sexist.

I don't consider homosexual people bad. I never call them gay, in fact. Actually, I consider any homosexual person who calls themselves gay hypocrites. Gay has taken on a negative connotation, and I never use it in relation to homosexual people.

Bull-fucking-shit. Bigots like you are trying to make it something negative and people are fighting you at it by pointing out your bigotry. So you whine here, feebly.

Yes, but they have learned the word themselves as not being insulting. Hell, what if they learned "black" to be insulting? It would be somewhat hard to use "black" instead of "******" since they learned to use "******" instead of "black" if they wanted to be kind to someone.

Wait, you're not actually fooling yourself with this tripe, are you?

In the context presented, it was a slur, and it is a clear slur. That you have never heard it before merely reaffirms your ignorance. I will acknowledge that they are both uncommon slurs, however.

Still, your GSA and your Multi-Cultural Club both would be serving their cause better by focussing on insults that are more common and even more insidious, like the overuse of "Gay" as a slur, or the increased use of racist terms against Mexican-Americans and Asian-Americans.

Yeah, and that's the point here:

Why the hell doesn't the GSA focus on things like people calling homosexuals fags, rather than people calling someone "psycho" and labeling it as bigoted language.

shouting fire in a crowded theater

Am I the only one who thinks that particular example is extremely overused?

I say we move to replace it with "shouting 'sarin' in a busy subway".

Bull-fucking-shit. Bigots like you are trying to make it something negative and people are fighting you at it by pointing out your bigotry. So you whine here, feebly.



Wait, you're not actually fooling yourself with this tripe, are you?

Fass, are you saying that I'm a racist? Are you ACTUALLY saying that I'm racist?

And how is that fooling anyone? It's just a theoretical situation.

Yeah, and that's the point here:

Why the hell doesn't the GSA focus on things like people calling homosexuals fags, rather than people calling someone "psycho" and labeling it as bigoted language.


No, it wasn't the point you were making at all. You were whining about how your First Ammedment rights were being taken away because people were calling out Jerks as Jerks. That has nothing to do with my point in any way whatsoever.

Fass, are you saying that I'm a racist? Are you ACTUALLY saying that I'm racist?

Of course he wasn't.

He was calling you a bigot.

Wait, it's hypocritical of them to use the term gay as something positive and ask people not to use it as a negative? Ask your parents to buy you a dictionary because it seems like you don't know what hypocrisy means, kid.

no, it's hypocritical of them to shun people who say 'Gay' when it's in their club/society's name. (reflecting on Neo Naliitr's example of them shunning people when the word 'gay' slips from their lips.) or are you assuming that only GSA members are allowed to say 'Gay' and that eveyone else who uses the word is automatically using it in a 'negative' fashion... I didn't think so.

Fass, are you saying that I'm a racist? Are you ACTUALLY saying that I'm racist?

I'm saying that you're a bigot. It's quite obvious thus far, really. You're a using a word that denotes homosexual people - that homosexual people use to denote themselves - as an insult. That makes you a bigot.

And how is that fooling anyone? It's just a theoretical situation.

More self-delusional denial you'd like to submit?

No, it wasn't the point you were making at all. You were whining about how your First Ammedment rights were being taken away because people were calling out Jerks as Jerks. That has nothing to do with my point in any way whatsoever.

Look, the point I was TRYING to make was that the GSA needs to stop focusing on the little things, and start focusing on actual discrimination against homosexuals, which includes physical harassment, rather than just worrying about people using a long-forgotten term which is a negative connotation towards homosexuals in a way which they don't realize has a negative connotation.

So, you mean you mean something positive when you call your malfunctioning computer "gay"? Again: bitch, please. You know why you say such mouthbreather things...


As I set here bemused by this forum argument, I have to say this: STFU. Considering the sheer number of people born with extremely harsh allergies, we breathe through our mouths because our noses barely function. Clearly you don't mean anything positive by it... if you were to replace "mouthbreather" with any other word used to describe a group of people, it wouldn't make that a positive sentence, so think before you speak.

And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? Not white enough.And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights just so that their feelings won't get hurt?
No, but they are allowed to use their first amendment rights to ask people not to be dicks. Which is what they are doing. "broken home" assumes that an unhappy and abusive marriage is better on a child than a clean split. "Psycho" stigmatizes mental illness.

Frankly, I think you're the one who's being to sensitive here. It's not like they're cramming a sock down your throat or actually penalizing you for saying stupid and hurtful things. They are just trying to point out the ideology inherent in language.

no, it's hypocritical of them to shun people who say 'Gay' when it's in their club/society's name. (reflecting on Neo Naliitr's example of them shunning people when the word 'gay' slips from their lips.) or are you assuming that only GSA members are allowed to say 'Gay' and that eveyone else who uses the word is automatically using it in a 'negative' fashion... I didn't think so.

??? Maybe I didn't read properly, but has anyone actually established that the GSA is against non-members saying the word "gay" at any time?

I'm saying that you're a bigot. It's quite obvious thus far, really. You're a using a word that denotes homosexual people - that homosexual people use to denote themselves - as an insult. That makes you a bigot.

Dude? I may have changed since I've been gone, but I still believe that everyone is equal, and that they should all have equal rights, and that we should be tolerant of all lifestyles, cultures, races, and religions.

Just because I think people need to toughen up when someone uses a "derogatory term" DOES NOT make me a bigot. If I went up to homosexuals and told them to get of my school because they were fags, then yeah, I'd be a bigot. But I would never even think of doing that.

no, it's hypocritical of them to shun people who say 'Gay' when it's in their club/society's name. (reflecting on Neo Naliitr's example of them shunning people when the word 'gay' slips from their lips.) or are you assuming that only GSA members are allowed to say 'Gay' and that eveyone else who uses the word is automatically using it in a 'negative' fashion... I didn't think so.

My guess is that the GSA doesn't, in fact, shun anyone that uses the term "gay," but rather shuns those that use the term in a negative way.

Given that Neo Naliitr cannot appreciate the difference between negative and positive use of the word when it is explained, Neo Naliitr's comment about anytime the word "'gay' slips from their lips" is not particularly credible.

no, it's hypocritical of them to shun people who say 'Gay' when it's in their club/society's name. (reflecting on Neo Naliitr's example of them shunning people when the word 'gay' slips from their lips.)

You actually believe Neo Naliitr's account? How naïve, bordering on the slow... but, then again, we all know it's the Jews fault for not choosing to interact with the Neo-Nazi click when they use Jew as an insult. How silly of them! :rolleyes:

or are you assuming that only GSA members are allowed to say 'Gay' and that eveyone else who uses the word is automatically using it in a 'negative' fashion... I didn't think so.

What are you on about? The poster is asking people not to use it as an insult. Not to stop using it do denote gay people. Are your arguments supposed to be this putrid tonight?

Look, the point I was TRYING to make was that the GSA needs to stop focusing on the little things, and start focusing on actual discrimination against homosexuals, which includes physical harassment, rather than just worrying about people using a long-forgotten term which is a negative connotation towards homosexuals in a way which they don't realize has a negative connotation.

and how would they do that?

set up patrols to stop any physical harassement? how often is the physical harassement when compared to mental/emotional ones.

asking people to refrain from using harmful words is a step in removing the harassment, both physical and otherwise.

if the terms are being used today, then they are not long forgotten, but ingrained into their thinking. and one way to alter someone's thoughts is to alter how they use words.

No, but they are allowed to use their first amendment rights to ask people not to be dicks. Which is what they are doing. "broken home" assumes that an unhappy and abusive marriage is better on a child than a clean split. "Psycho" stigmatizes mental illness.

Frankly, I think you're the one who's being to sensitive here. It's not like they're cramming a sock down your throat or actually penalizing you for saying stupid and hurtful things. They are just trying to point out the ideology inherent in language.

Didn't I say they were trying to get the school administration to deliver (harsh) punishments to those who say anything the GSA deems to be intolerant? And that they now ostracize any who do, since the administration is (thankfully) smarter than to do that kind of crap?

and how would they do that?

set up patrols to stop any physical harassement? how often is the physical harassement when compared to mental/emotional ones.

asking people to refrain from using harmful words is a step in removing the harassment, both physical and otherwise.

if the terms are being used today, then they are not long forgotten, but ingrained into their thinking. and one way to alter someone's thoughts is to alter how they use words.

Tell me... Would you rather expend a lot of energy in a short amount of time in order to get rid of a problem quickly, or expend a less amount of energy over an extended amount of time to get rid of the problem over a long time?

it's hypocritical of them to shun people who say 'Gay' when it's in their club/society's name. You damned well know that the word 'gay' can be used in different contexts. "Man- that sucks. Its totally gay" is understandably offensive. It's like you're expecting the Jewish club not to be offended by "Man, stop being such a Jew and give me some of that brownie."

BUT THEY CALL THEMSELVES JEWZ! Y R TEY SO OFFENDED!!1!!!1!
:rolleyes:

You actually believe Neo Naliitr's account? How naïve, bordering on the slow... but, then again, we all know it's the Jews fault for not choosing to interact with the Neo-Nazi click when they use Jew as an insult. How silly of them! :rolleyes:



What are you on about? The poster is asking people not to use it as an insult. Not to stop using it do denote gay people. Are your arguments supposed to be this putrid tonight?

You're saying I'm lying now? Great.

And the poster said to not use it. They never said to stop using it as an insult.

Look, the point I was TRYING to make was that the GSA needs to stop focusing on the little things, and start focusing on actual discrimination against homosexuals, which includes physical harassment, rather than just worrying about people using a long-forgotten term which is a negative connotation towards homosexuals in a way which they don't realize has a negative connotation.

a long-forgotten term which is a negative connotation towards homosexuals in a way which they don't realize has a negative connotation?

WTF are you talking about?

As to what the GSA should focus on, I bet the language education you are objecting to is just a part of what your local GSA does. As has already been noted, this helps to shift the Overton Window -- not to mention the straight-foward effect of reducing hurtful language.

My guess is that the GSA doesn't, in fact, shun anyone that uses the term "gay," but rather shuns those that use the term in a negative way.

Given that Neo Naliitr cannot appreciate the difference between negative and positive use of the word when it is explained, Neo Naliitr's comment about anytime the word "'gay' slips from their lips" is not particularly credible.which is why I concentrated on the example only.

You actually believe Neo Naliitr's account? How naïve, bordering on the slow... but, then again, we all know it's the Jews fault for not choosing to interact with the Neo-Nazi click when they use Jew as an insult. How silly of them! :rolleyes:



What are you on about? The poster is asking people not to use it as an insult. Not to stop using it do denote gay people. Are your arguments supposed to be this putrid tonight?

no, I'm saying that their reaction in his example, not the action of asking people to stop, but their shunning others, is rather harsh and if taken to the extreme, hypocritical. nowhere do I dictate what they have to do.

also, my stance is still that they do have the right to ask people to stop using those words in a negative way. as long as they don't force people to stop using those words in a negative way.

Didn't I say they were trying to get the school administration to deliver (harsh) punishments to those who say anything the GSA deems to be intolerant? Are they? Well thats another question. Though I believe that schools should teach kids not to be bigots, punishment does not address the issue.

Dude? I may have changed since I've been gone, but I still believe that everyone is equal, and that they should all have equal rights, and that we should be tolerant of all lifestyles, cultures, races, and religions.

I don't believe you, because your insistence on clinging to bigoted and hurtful ways of using words speaks volumes more than your ironically torpid little assurances of your imaginary open-mindedness.

Just because I think people need to toughen up when someone uses a "derogatory term" DOES NOT make me a bigot. If I went up to homosexuals and told them to get of my school because they were fags, then yeah, I'd be a bigot. But I would never even think of doing that.

No, you'll just continue to use a word that denotes them as an insult even when they tell you that they aren't OK with it and that it's a really douchy thing to do. How magnanimous of you! Why anyone hasn't given you the award for the humanitarian of the year verily boggles the mind.

Tell me... Would you rather expend a lot of energy in a short amount of time in order to get rid of a problem quickly, or expend a less amount of energy over an extended amount of time to get rid of the problem over a long time?

How would you stop it quickly?

As to what the GSA should focus on, I bet the language education you are objecting to is just a part of what your local GSA does. As has already been noted, this helps to shift the Overton Window -- not to mention the straight-foward effect of reducing hurtful language.
as George Carlin said, we think in our language. alter how we use it, and you alter how we think. Reduce the hateful uses of words and you will find less people thinking that way... well in theory at least.

a long-forgotten term which is a negative connotation towards homosexuals in a way which they don't realize has a negative connotation?

WTF are you talking about?

As to what the GSA should focus on, I bet the language education you are objecting to is just a part of what your local GSA does. As has already been noted, this helps to shift the Overton Window -- not to mention the straight-foward effect of reducing hurtful language.

But wouldn't the GSA be much better served by focusing on the physical harm, rather than the verbal harm? And even then, when they get rid of the physical harm and concentrate on the verbal harm, wouldn't they be much better suited to get their message across if they weren't hypocrites?

no, I'm saying that their reaction in his example, not the action of asking people to stop, but their shunning others, is rather harsh and if taken to the extreme, hypocritical. nowhere do I dictate what they have to do.

And you still seem to find Neo Naliitr's claims credible? Odd.

also, my stance is still that they do have the right to ask people to stop using those words in a negative way. as long as they don't force people to stop using those words in a negative way.

So, what, a Jewish kid should be blamed for avoiding interaction with a swastika-wearing skinhead?

I don't believe you, because your insistence on clinging to bigoted and hurtful ways of using words speaks volumes more than your ironically torpid little assurances of your imaginary open-mindedness.



No, you'll just continue to use a word that denotes them as an insult even when they tell you that they aren't OK with it and that it's a really douchy thing to do. How magnanimous of you! Why anyone hasn't given you the award for the humanitarian of the year verily boggles the mind.

Fass, you do NOT tell me what I am. I know that I believe in equality for all, and tolerance for different lifestyles, races, religions, etc. Just because I think people should stop being so sensitive doesn't make me a bigot of any kind. I do NOT harass homosexuals. I do NOT harass emos. I do NOT harass Catholics. I do NOT harass blacks.

I am not a bigot. You calling me one is just a huge flame.

I say it because I'm used to it not being a negative connotation. Just because someone tells me it's hurtful to them doesn't mean I should stop using it.

Let's set up an example: A group of people say that the word "cheese" is hurtful to them. Should we all stop using the word "cheese" just because it's hurtful to them?

Didn't I say they were trying to get the school administration to deliver (harsh) punishments to those who say anything the GSA deems to be intolerant? And that they now ostracize any who do, since the administration is (thankfully) smarter than to do that kind of crap?

Ostracization is a form of expression. It's part of that freedom of speech you started off rambling about. Learn to use more sensitive language -- hell, act like you give a damn whether you language is hurtful or not -- and you won't be ostracized.

As for seeking the school administration to impose punishments on intolerant language, that is a significantly different topic. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily a violation of your First Amendment rights. 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.

Frankly, the GSA has found a good way to stop 'physical harm.' If you stop using 'gay' to mean 'stupid,' then maybe the gay kids will stop kicking your ass after school:p

And you still seem to find Neo Naliitr's claims credible? Odd.if YOU think so... :rolleyes:

So, what, a Jewish kid should be blamed for avoiding interaction with a swastika-wearing skinhead?

why this fascination with Jews and Skinheads?

and you seem awfully... tenacious today Fass... something bothering you?

And you still seem to find Neo Naliitr's claims credible? Odd.

I can't believe you're calling me a liar, Fass. Do you call the stories of everyone who doesn't agree with you lies, too, just so that you can discredit them and win your argument through ad hominem?

Ostracization is a form of expression. It's part of that freedom of speech you started off rambling about. Learn to use more sensitive language -- hell, act like you give a damn whether you language is hurtful or not -- and you won't be ostracized.

As for seeking the school administration to impose punishments on intolerant language, that is a significantly different topic. Nonetheless, it is not necessarily a violation of your First Amendment rights. 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.


I don't give a shit if I'm ostracized. I think it's just ridiculous that they do so just because someone let the word "gay" slip out.

And by punishment, I mean if I called someone crazy, I'd get detention. Don't you think that's a LITTLE extreme?

But wouldn't the GSA be much better served by focusing on the physical harm, rather than the verbal harm?

Who are you to decide what harm to themselves a group should seek to stop? Perhaps they can be allowed to decide that for themselves?

And even then, when they get rid of the physical harm and concentrate on the verbal harm, wouldn't they be much better suited to get their message across if they weren't hypocrites?

I've already responded to your shallow accusation of hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to be against the negative use of a word and not against the positive use of the same word.

Who are you to decide what harm to themselves a group should seek to stop? Perhaps they can be allowed to decide that for themselves?.

Frankly, I think it's just stupid that they try to stop the emotional "harm" that comes from verbal "abuse" of them rather than try to stop the physical harm that comes from physical abuse. The latter is obviously much worse than the former.

I don't give a shit if I'm ostracized. I think it's just ridiculous that they do so just because someone let the word "gay" slip out.

What is ridiculous is your continued insistence that it up to you to decide what is offensive language to others? If you know certain language is considered hurtful, why don't you not use it?

And how does the word "gay" just "slip out" of your mouth? Do you have this problem with "******" or "jew"? If not, why not? Think about it.

And by punishment, I mean if I called someone crazy, I'd get detention. Don't you think that's a LITTLE extreme?

If that actually happened, it might be extreme and it might not, depending on the circumstances. Are you aware in advance that calling someone "crazy" is hurtful and verboten? Do you do it anyway? What punishment would be appropriate.

Frankly, I think it's just stupid that they try to stop the emotional "harm" that comes from verbal "abuse" of them rather than try to stop the physical harm that comes from physical abuse. The latter is obviously much worse than the former.

Stopping emotional and physical abuse are not mutually exclusive.

What is just stupid is someone who claims the right to continue emotional abuse on the grounds that it is not physical abuse.

Let's set up an example: A group of people say that the word "cheese" is hurtful to them. Should we all stop using the word "cheese" just because it's hurtful to them?
Speaking of logical fallacies...:rolleyes:
People find a word hurtful because of the historical context of the word's usage. People don't find words 'offensive' because they just feel like it or are 'whiny.' The fact that you do not realize where the usage comes from does not mean that a word is inoffensive. This is a common misconception for those who come from a position of privilege though.

If the Jews were commonly boiled to death in giant cheese melts during the Spanish inquisition, then perhaps I'd find the word 'cheese' offensive in certain contexts.

Fass, you do NOT tell me what I am.

I tells you like I sees you, kid.

I know that I believe in equality for all, and tolerance for different lifestyles, races, religions, etc. Just because I think people should stop being so sensitive doesn't make me a bigot of any kind. I do NOT harass homosexuals. I do NOT harass emos. I do NOT harass Catholics. I do NOT harass blacks.

You just call them fags, niggers, guidos and whatnot. How very nice of you - it really makes your claims of tolerance oh, so believable.

I am not a bigot. You calling me one is just a huge flame.

What happened to toughening up? Oh, yeah, your dissimulation happened, that's what.

I say it because I'm used to it not being a negative connotation. Just because someone tells me it's hurtful to them doesn't mean I should stop using it.

And it doesn't mean that you get to bitch credibly when the consequence of you continuing to use it - despite knowing full well how it is perceived by others - is that people tell you how it is perceived. Quack like a duck in a bush, don't be duplicitously surprised when you have a hound after you.

I've already responded to your shallow accusation of hypocrisy. It isn't hypocrisy to be against the negative use of a word and not against the positive use of the same word.

this brings up an interesting question...

what denotes a negative use of the word. ok, for most cases it's easy. but take the word "******" if one African-American calls another a "******" like say...

"Hey my nigga, how ya doing!"

is that the same as if a Caucasian person says the same phrase to an African American?

if the GSA, which identifies itself as Gay within their title, is positive. Will someone saying "oh, just to let you know, he's Gay" be considered positive or negative if the actual viewpoint of the speaker is not known?

If you hear a Guy tell a girl "Don't bother with him, he's gay." (in reference that she is expessing an interest in asking him out) is that a positive or negative use of the word?

What is ridiculous is your continued insistence that it up to you to decide what is offensive language to others? If you know certain language is considered hurtful, why don't you not use it?

And how does the word "gay" just "slip out" of your mouth? Do you have this problem with "******" or "jew"? If not, why not? Think about it.



If that actually happened, it might be extreme and it might not, depending on the circumstances. Are you aware in advance that calling someone "crazy" is hurtful and verboten? Do you do it anyway? What punishment would be appropriate.

I use it because I don't consider it hurtful to them. I don't think they should be allowed to tell me what is I need to consider hurtful language.

It slips out of your mouth because you've gotten used to using it. You just say it without thinking. And frankly, if people don't have the word "******" or "Jew" as a negative connotation in their mind, and they use it, I don't care. They don't think it's an negative connotation. I'm fine with it, since they're not using it as an insult. Now, if you used Jew as an insult, it's wrong, since it's "Jew" is a direct term towards the Jewish people. If you used "******" as an insulting term, but not towards a person, but just towards something like a lagging computer, it should be fine, as long as you don't relate it to black people.

And yeah, I know that calling someone crazy is considered making fun of someone, but god damn. You shouldn't get detention just because you barely make fun of someone. If you went up to a homosexual person, then started throwing "fag" or "dyke" around, then yeah, you should get some kind of punishment. But somethings are just too extreme.

if YOU think so... :rolleyes:

Here's a tip: not everything people on the Internet say is true, especially not when they dispense highly dubious subjective claims which cannot be corroborated in any way designed to somehow prop up their already weak argument.

why this fascination with Jews and Skinheads?

Because I know you can't defend against it, like you attempt to abuses against gay people because you like to pretend the latter are different from the former. No, the fags should embrace their tormentors!

and you seem awfully... tenacious today Fass... something bothering you?

None of your beeswax.

I am not a bigot. You calling me one is just a huge flame.

No, you just refer to your malfunctioning computer using a term that means "homosexual". In the context that you use it, it is clearly not exactly the most approving term.

Unless, of course, you think your malfunctioning computer is incredibly happy. Which, really, makes almost as much sense as your computer being attracted to members of the same sex.

You just call them fags, niggers, guidos and whatnot. How very nice of you - it really makes your claims of tolerance oh, so believable.



What happened toughing up? Oh, yeah, your dissimulation happened, that's what.

Oh bullshit. I do NOT call them those words. Just because I call a computer gay for lagging does NOT mean I do those kind of things.

And there's a difference between someone hurting your feelings by saying a computer that is lagging is gay and someone calling you a bigot.

Because I know you can't defend against it, like you attempt to abuses against gay people because you like to pretend the latter are different from the former. No, the fags should embrace their tormentors!actually, I'm ignoring it because it has nothing to do with the topic on hand. but if you think that it's a reflection of 'can't' well, that's not my problem.

None of your beeswax.then I suggest you take a step back and take a couple of breaths before you say or do something that someone really takes offense at.

No, you just refer to your malfunctioning computer using a term that means "homosexual". In the context that you use it, it is clearly not exactly the most approving term.
Yes, using the word 'gay' to mean 'worthless' is rather bigoted. If the shoe fits...

No, you just refer to your malfunctioning computer using a term that means "homosexual". In the context that you use it, it is clearly not exactly the most approving term.

Unless, of course, you think your malfunctioning computer is incredibly happy. Which, really, makes almost as much sense as your computer being attracted to members of the same sex.

I don't use the term "gay" to mean homosexual. I use it to mean happy-go lucky. I.E. When my computer is lagging, it's happy-go lucky.

I don't use the term "gay" to mean homosexual. I use it to mean happy-go lucky. I.E. When my computer is lagging, it's happy-go lucky.
:rolleyes: Looks like you've just lost your last ounce of credibility, Sparky. When I call you a liar, I am comparing you to a string instrument. I just have bad spelling.

Yes, using the word 'gay' to mean 'worthless' is rather bigoted. If the shoe fits...

I use it to mean happy-go lucky. For example, if my cat decides to jump off of the two story roof, I'll call her gay. If some idiot comes running through my school naked, I'll call them gay.

Why? Because I use the term gay using the proper meaning.

:rolleyes: Looks like you've just lost your last ounce of credibility, Sparky. When I call you a liar, I am comparing you to a string instrument. I just have bad spelling.

Wait, what?

I use it to mean happy-go lucky. For example, if my cat decides to jump off of the two story roof, I'll call her gay. If some idiot comes running through my school naked, I'll call them gay.

Why? Because I use the term gay using the proper meaning.

You're computer is just "happy-go-lucky" when it's lagging and you call it "gay"?

I use it to mean happy-go lucky. For example, if my cat decides to jump off of the two story roof, I'll call her gay. If some idiot comes running through my school naked, I'll call them gay.

Why? Because I use the term gay using the proper meaning.

Now you're just being sarcastic.

You're computer is just "happy-go-lucky" when it's lagging and you call it "gay"?

Yeah, because gay means happy-go-lucky.

Wait, what?Words mean things. get used to it. No one here buys your 'happy go lucky' shit. Seriously man. You mght as well call me a fag and then say that you meant that I was like a British cigarette. You are a
http://www.mishkanministries.org/images/lyre.jpg
And a bigot too it seems.
Now stop playing.

I use it because I don't consider it hurtful to them. I don't think they should be allowed to tell me what is I need to consider hurtful language.

This is where you are being a jerk. I tell you not to call me "X" because it hurts my feelings and you insist on calling me "X" and claiming it isn't hurtful. That makes you an ass.

It slips out of your mouth because you've gotten used to using it. You just say it without thinking.

Precisely. This is why the GSA is trying to educate you to think before you use hurtful language.

And frankly, if people don't have the word "******" or "Jew" as a negative connotation in their mind, and they use it, I don't care. They don't think it's an negative connotation. I'm fine with it, since they're not using it as an insult.

Do you see how ridiculous your position has become? You are now defending the use of the term "******" and saying it doesn't have a negative connotation. :headbang:

Now, if you used Jew as an insult, it's wrong, since it's "Jew" is a direct term towards the Jewish people.

And it is also insulting if I use I phrase like "he jewed me down."

If you used "******" as an insulting term, but not towards a person, but just towards something like a lagging computer, it should be fine, as long as you don't relate it to black people.

*sigh*

All I can think of is Mr. Welch: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? "


And yeah, I know that calling someone crazy is considered making fun of someone, but god damn. You shouldn't get detention just because you barely make fun of someone. If you went up to a homosexual person, then started throwing "fag" or "dyke" around, then yeah, you should get some kind of punishment. But somethings are just too extreme.

And who decides where the line is between things that should be punished and things that are "just too extreme"? Society.

And socieity is influenced by what it views as acceptable, which is in term influenced by the kind of advocacy that the GSA is engaged in. So what they are doing makes perfect sense.

Regardless, you have no free speech right to use epiteths -- even outside a school setting:

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) (emphasis added):

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.

actually, I'm ignoring it because it has nothing to do with the topic on hand. but if you think that it's a reflection of 'can't' well, that's not my problem.

I'll have to bitch, please you, too. You're "ignoring" it because you've realised how silly it is to blame a gay kid for choosing to avoid the people who torment him, and now you're exceedingly weakly trying to attack the manner in which you were made to realise it instead of admitting you picked the wrong horsie to wager on, put rotted eggs in your basket, farmed the wrong clam, collected the poisonous mushrooms and so on and so forth.

then I suggest you take a step back and take a couple of breaths before you say or do something that someone really takes offense at.

And I suggest you take that nose of yours and march it straight to your own affairs.

I don't use the term "gay" to mean homosexual. I use it to mean happy-go lucky. I.E. When my computer is lagging, it's happy-go lucky.

oh, bull-fucking-shit.

I use it because I don't consider it hurtful to them. I don't think they should be allowed to tell me what is I need to consider hurtful language.

It slips out of your mouth because you've gotten used to using it. You just say it without thinking. And frankly, if people don't have the word "******" or "Jew" as a negative connotation in their mind, and they use it, I don't care. They don't think it's an negative connotation. I'm fine with it, since they're not using it as an insult. Now, if you used Jew as an insult, it's wrong, since it's "Jew" is a direct term towards the Jewish people. If you used "******" as an insulting term, but not towards a person, but just towards something like a lagging computer, it should be fine, as long as you don't relate it to black people.

And yeah, I know that calling someone crazy is considered making fun of someone, but god damn. You shouldn't get detention just because you barely make fun of someone. If you went up to a homosexual person, then started throwing "fag" or "dyke" around, then yeah, you should get some kind of punishment. But somethings are just too extreme.

Alright, so there's nothing wrong with calling your computer gay because it really isn't, and then

I don't use the term "gay" to mean homosexual. I use it to mean happy-go lucky. I.E. When my computer is lagging, it's happy-go lucky.



You're rather consistent.

And who decides where the line is between things that should be punished and things that are "just too extreme"? Society.

And socieity is influenced by what it views as acceptable, which is in term influenced by the kind of advocacy that the GSA is engaged in. So what they are doing makes perfect sense.

Regardless, you have no free speech right to use epiteths -- even outside a school setting:

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) (emphasis added):

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.

Well then, why don't we have the prisons filled to the brim with people who use epithets? Actually, who determines what is an epithet or not?

Alright, so there's nothing wrong with calling your computer gay because it really isn't, and then





You're rather consistent.

I consider happy-go-lucky and insult. So what?

Yeah, because gay means happy-go-lucky.

Even though gay has taken on a negative connotation you use it to mean "happy-go-lucky", despite knowing it has a negative connotation?

I don't use the term "gay" to mean homosexual. I use it to mean happy-go lucky. I.E. When my computer is lagging, it's happy-go lucky.

And you had the audacity to suggest to me I take anything you say with credence? Hah!

I'll have to bitch, please you, too. You're "ignoring" it because you've realised how silly it is to blame a gay kid for choosing to avoid the people who torment him, and now you're exceedingly weakly trying to attack the manner in which you were made to realise it instead of admitting you picked the wrong horsie to wager on, put rotted eggs in your basket, farmed the wrong clam, collected the poisonous mushrooms and so on and so forth. bitch away if you want... it's nice to know that you are getting your excercise by jumping to conclusions.

LOL. right fass, considering the "horsie" i'm wagering on is the one you're riding, the eggs came from your farm, and the mushrooms were already in your salad... nice

And I suggest you take that nose of yours and march it straight to your own affairs.
considering it's affecting how you are interacting with me and others. My nose didn't move an inch into your affair, but what ever affair is bugging you is definatly being shoved into us.

Words mean things. get used to it. No one here buys your 'happy go lucky' shit. Seriously man. You mght as well call me a fag and then say that you meant that I was like a British cigarette. You are a
http://www.mishkanministries.org/images/lyre.jpg
And a bigot too it seems.
Now stop playing.

I'm a lyre? Ok...

And what if a person was meaning you were like a cigarette? What if they only grew up knowing that fag means cigarette? They never learned that fag is an insulting term for homosexual people. Then they come to the states, and call someone a fag because they're "smokin' hot". What do you know. They're suddenly a bigot asshole who wants to put homosexual people down.

And once again, I do not believe in putting down homosexual people. I support equal homosexual rights, along with homosexual marriage.

Even though gay has taken on a negative connotation you use it to mean "happy-go-lucky", despite knowing it has a negative connotation?

Yeah, because I don't care what other people think gay means. I say it as I think it means.

And you had the audacity to suggest to me I take anything you say with credence? Hah!

Why are you just calling me a liar? You're not even providing any argument rather than just calling me a liar. Complete ad hominem.

Yeah, because I don't care what other people think gay means. I say it as I think it means.

Then I'm going to call you a dick.

Because as far as I'm concerned it means "forum poster", and has no negative connotations.

Why are you just calling me a liar? You're not even providing any argument rather than just calling me a liar. Complete ad hominem.

Because what you're saying is so ludicrous, as you try and dig your way out of a hole, that it couldn't be anything other than a lie?

Well then, why don't we have the prisons filled to the brim with people who use epithets? Actually, who determines what is an epithet or not?How do you determine that someone is flaming you here? What if someone on these forums were to call you (and I am not calling you this- just hypothetically putting it out there for the sake of example) "a spoiled, smarmy, self-obsessed, arrogant and dull witted little brat?" How would you know that this was meant as a torrent of abuse and not a term of endearment? How would the mods know what sort of action to take?

Perhaps the abuser (or admirer as the case may be) would get a warning and an explanation so that the next time s/he used such language, s/he could be expected to be aware of it's meaning. And then... well... you know what happens after a warning.

And what if a person was meaning you were like a cigarette? What if they only grew up knowing that fag means cigarette?
Then they get an explanation. Now they know. Now you know. And if you don't stop, then you KNOW what you are saying. Language is a means of communication. If you are aware of your words' meaning to other people (this is what matters most in a mode of communication), it does not matter what you think you meant. Once you know what words mean you are responsible for their meaning. Now don't be a Dick. Nixon.

Because what you're saying is so ludicrous, as you try and dig your way out of a hole, that it couldn't be anything other than a lie?
Actually, it's not a lie, really. What it is is doublethink, fine-tuned to artistic perfection. He believes that because he does not find it offensive, it is not offensive. What is true for him is truth, singly and inerringly.

My dad taught me this old saying: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. In school, they perverted it to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will break my heart". How stupid. You know why bigots use terms like "******" and "fag"? Because they know their "victims" will let it hurt them. They use those words because they hurt. Why do words hurt us? Because we let them.

In elementary, middle, and high schools, who are known to be picked on? The school boxing champ? The captain of the sports team? The guy with huge muscles and a black belt? How about the weak and defenceless. Maybe not the wheelchair kids and kindergarteners. Too easy. Bullies pick on the weak because it makes the bullies feel stronger. It's easy. It's empowering. And now schools are training kids to be weaker because they're scared of lawsuits. Bullies bully for power, just like bigots attack for power. Maybe I'm not as hurt by words because I have an asshole brother who taught me every name in the book by screaming them in my face. It was like boot camp, except with more yelling, fewer people, and you don't get to use a gun. Years of "faggot", "******", and getting attacked for such offences as getting in the way, being born, and eating something he wanted to eat have taught me that words are a weak, pathetic weapon. Why get hurt by a weak, pathetic weapon. I mean, if words hurt you that much, then a spitball crashing into your skull at an amazing 3 miles per hour should surely kill you.

Sensetivity is overrated. It's time we stopped trying to stop the words and started making ourselves stronger. You don't stop insults by letting the insulter know that they hurt you. Acknowledging their success only encouraes them to do it again.

Actually, it's not a lie, really. What it is is doublethink, fine-tuned to artistic perfection. He believes that because he does not find it offensive, it is not offensive. What is true for him is truth, singly and inerringly.

Well, no, I don't believe that he things "gay" means "happy-go-lucky", and that is what he is meaning to call his computer when he calls it "gay".

So I believe it is a lie created to try and rescue himself.

Then I'm going to call you a dick.

Because as far as I'm concerned it means "forum poster", and has no negative connotations.

Go ahead.

Because what you're saying is so ludicrous, as you try and dig your way out of a hole, that it couldn't be anything other than a lie?

So what, whenever someone counters a personal attack against them, it's a lie?

Then they get an explanation. Now they know. Now you know. And if you don't stop, then you KNOW what you are saying. Language is a means of communication. If you are aware of your words' meaning to other people (this is what matters most in a mode of communication), it does not matter what you think you meant. Once you know what words mean you are responsible for their meaning. Now don't be a Dick. Nixon.Here's an example of how this works. For the longest time, I thought that 'limp wirsted' just meant weak or unwilling to fight. It was not until I referred to the NYC Teachers' Union as 'limp-wristed' and got a very dirty look that I learned that it was a derogatory term referring to homosexuals. After this was explained to me I apologized and never made the mistake again. This isn't too difficult a concept for you to grasp I hope:rolleyes:

How do you determine that someone is flaming you here? What if someone on these forums were to call you (and I am not calling you this- just hypothetically putting it out there for the sake of example) "a spoiled, smarmy, self-obsessed, arrogant and dull witted little brat?" How would you know that this was meant as a torrent of abuse and not a term of endearment? How would the mods know what sort of action to take?

Perhaps the abuser (or admirer as the case may be) would get a warning and an explanation so that the next time s/he used such language, s/he could be expected to be aware of it's meaning. And then... well... you know what happens after a warning.

I understand what it is on the forums, but why the hell should it be the same in real life?

Well, no, I don't believe that he things "gay" means "happy-go-lucky", and that is what he is meaning to call his computer when he calls it "gay".

So I believe it is a lie created to try and rescue himself.
It looks like a lie to us because it appears to be a deliberate attempt to deceive. The thing is, it looks like he has genuinely convinced himself in the span of this discussion that that is what he has always meant by it, and in doing so has demonstrated himself to be one of the most experienced practitioners of doublethink I, for one, have ever met (as dubious a distinction as that is).

Actually, it's not a lie, really. What it is is doublethink, fine-tuned to artistic perfection. He believes that because he does not find it offensive, it is not offensive. What is true for him is truth, singly and inerringly.

I never said that. I said that I should be allowed to think something isn't offensive.

Go ahead.

What, so you can report him to the mods? This is turning into flamebait.

Here's an example of how this works. For the longest time, I thought that 'limp wirsted' just meant weak or unwilling to fight. It was not until I referred to the NYC Teachers' Union as 'limp-wristed' and got a very dirty look that I learned that it was a derogatory term referring to homosexuals. After this was explained to me I apologized and never made the mistake again. This isn't too difficult a concept for you to grasp I hope:rolleyes:

You should've continued to use limp wristed. Just because some people think it's a derogatory term for homosexuals doesn't mean you should think it is.

I never said that. I said that I should be allowed to think something isn't offensive.

Well this kinda goes with the swasticas on flags. Like if you claim it's a "good luck" swastica, it's still bound to offend people.

What, so you can report him to the mods? This is turning into flamebait.

What? I never said that. I never even had the idea to report him to the mods. If he thinks dick means forum poster, he can call me a dick.

I never said that. I said that I should be allowed to think something isn't offensive.
That is a paraphrase. To arbitrarily assign offense to a phrase is equivilent to saying a phrase is only as offensive as it is to yourself.

That is a paraphrase. To arbitrarily assign offense to a phrase is equivilent to saying a phrase is only as offensive as it is to yourself.

Once again: What if a group of people said "cheese" was offensive to them? Should we stop saying "cheese"?

You should've continued to use limp wristed. Just because some people think it's a derogatory term for homosexuals doesn't mean you should think it is.:rolleyes: What is it about the concept of language as a mode of communication that you don't understand? Since you do not agree that words mean things, then I am afraid you are not worth talking to.

Neo Naliitr, until your the one being harassed using language that is inappropreate, don't start with the bitching. If an organization wants to spare people emotional harassment then I say they should go for it.

Neo Naliitr, until your the one being harassed using language that is inappropreate, don't start with the bitching. If an organization wants to spare people emotional harassment then I say they should go for it.

What, you don't think I don't face discrimination because of my asexuality? Oh yeah, it does happen. People are confused when the find out I'm asexual. Most call me a freak. I face discrimination, but I toughen up and don't let it affect me.

What, you don't think I don't face discrimination because of my asexuality? Oh yeah, it does happen. People are confused when the find out I'm asexual. Most call me a freak. I face discrimination, but I toughen up and don't let it affect me.

So you don't have any reproductive organs? Or are you talking out your ass?

So you don't have any reproductive organs? Or are you talking out your ass?

That's not what asexuality means in reference to people. It means lack of sexual attraction towards anyone, not lack of sexual organs.

That's not what asexuality means in reference to people. It means lack of sexual attraction towards anyone, not lack of sexual organs.

Thanks, Chandy.

Once again: What if a group of people said "cheese" was offensive to them? Should we stop saying "cheese"?
If it's collectively agreed that these people have a legitimate reason to find the word "cheese" offensive then I for one would certainly stop using it, and would wonder what on earth your reasons would be if you chose not to stop doing so.

-snip-

You're back?

Joy.

Thanks, Chandy.

Of course.:)

Just don't take it to mean that I agree with anything you've said in this thread. But I see misconceptions about asexuality too much to resist trying to clear them up when I can.

Once again: What if a group of people said "cheese" was offensive to them? Should we stop saying "cheese"?

should we stop the group from asking people to stop saying cheese?

Should we consider that group asking people to stop saying cheese an attempt by that group to restrict the first Amendment?

If it's collectively agreed that these people have a legitimate reason to find the word "cheese" offensive then I for one would certainly stop using it, and would wonder what on earth your reasons would be if you chose not to stop doing so.

And how many people have to agree before it's collectively agreed?

That's not what asexuality means in reference to people. It means lack of sexual attraction towards anyone, not lack of sexual organs.

You sure about that?

a·sex·u·al /eɪˈsɛkʃuəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-sek-shoo-uhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. Biology. a. having no sex or sexual organs.
b. independent of sexual processes, esp. not involving the union of male and female germ cells.

2. free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.

You sure about that?

And you accuse me of being a bigot. Get it straight: Asexual, in reference to people, mean we have no sexual attraction towards anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual

And you accuse me of being a bigot. Get it straight: Asexual, in reference to people, mean we have no sexual attraction towards anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual

First off. I never said "your a bigot". If I thought you were, I would say it out loud cause thats how I am.

And did you read what I quoted? Thats the official online dictionary for Websters' definition for Asexual.

You sure about that?

Asexual: A person who does not experience sexual attraction. (http://www.asexuality.org/home/)

Bogaert's study, which found that about 1% of adults are asexual. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_3_41/ai_n6274004)

First off. I never said "your a bigot". If I thought you were, I would say it out loud cause thats how I am.

And did you read what I quoted? Thats the official online dictionary for Websters' definition for Asexual.

And outdated definition, which doesn't take into fact the fact that there are "asexual" people out there. I can't believe you're actually telling me my sexuality doesn't exist.

You would think that the GSA would focus on a real case of slurs in social settings, and call out the use of "Gay" as an insult. It is far more insulting than "psycho".


Speaking as someone who has a mental disorder and who has worked with support groups and advocacy groups for the mentally ill, I find both terms pretty darn offensive.

Honestly, I get so tired of the whining from "anti-PC" people like the OP about the terrible suffering and indignation they undergo when someone points out to them that using bigoted speech makes them sound like bigots. Life must be so hard for those poor things, who just want to defend their all-important, God-given right to call people fags and niggers without anyone objecting! :rolleyes:

Speaking as someone who has a mental disorder and who has worked with support groups and advocacy groups for the mentally ill, I find both terms pretty darn offensive.

Honestly, I get so tired of the whining from "anti-PC" people like the OP about the terrible suffering and indignation they undergo when someone points out to them that using bigoted speech makes them sound like bigots. Life must be so hard for those poor things, who just want to defend their all-important, God-given right to call people fags and niggers without anyone objecting! :rolleyes:

It's not that. It's when I'm not allowed to call an "African American" black because it's somehow racist and discriminatory.

And outdated definition, which doesn't take into fact the fact that there are "asexual" people out there. I can't believe you're actually telling me my sexuality doesn't exist.

That's how I feel, but unfortunately I've been told something similar by a friend who I thought would accept it. Instead he seemed insistent in his belief that all humans must feel sexual attraction. It seems like he's gradually become a bit more accepting of it, and I've told a few other people who have accepted it (including my psychology teacher, to whom I sent the study I linked to in my earlier post, who seemed to accept that it was an orientation but thought that I'm too young to know that- never mind that if heterosexuals show interest in people of the opposite sex, even when they're several years younger than I am now.)

What, you don't think I don't face discrimination because of my asexuality? Oh yeah, it does happen. People are confused when the find out I'm asexual. Most call me a freak. I face discrimination, but I toughen up and don't let it affect me.

You're not asexual. You've said many times that you're sexually attracted to females. You just got annoyed because you couldn't get a girlfriend.

To others, I'm serious. I remember him back from his first incarnation, when he was always going on about what I mentioned.

You're not asexual. You've said many times that you're sexually attracted to females. You just got annoyed because you couldn't get a girlfriend.

To others, I'm serious. I remember him back from his first incarnation, when he was always going on about what I mentioned.

What the bloody hell? When was that?

Oh, that's right. Before I realized I was asexual.

And how many people have to agree before it's collectively agreed?
It's not a specific number - collective agreement is a social abstraction. I don't know how familiar you are with the ideas of community, but essentially a value, point or definition has become convention when the community as a whole prominently accepts it; that is, the voices that state acceptance of it are the ones that most evidently draw our attention.

What the bloody hell? When was that?

Oh, that's right. Before I realized I was asexual.

Sexuality does not work like that. You don't realize one day. You know. From around five or six years of age, you know. Hell, when you declared yourself asexual, you admitted that you were still sexually attracted to women, you just didn't want to be.

Sexuality does not work like that. You don't realize one day. You know. From around five or six years of age, you know. Hell, when you declared yourself asexual, you admitted that you were still sexually attracted to women, you just didn't want to be.

Hey, Chandelier. When did you realize you were asexual?

Look, I was blinded by the media to think that everyone had to be sexually attracted to something, anything. I didn't realize that it was making me think I had to be sexually attracted. It wasn't until I realized that the media did that that I realized that I wasn't actually sexually attracted towards anything. It was just my subconscious wanting to make sure I was accepted in society. It's the same thing with homosexuals in earlier days. Society told them that you could only be attracted to the opposite sex, so they were only "attracted" to the opposite sex, until eventually they realized that they weren't.

And I didn't say I was still sexually attracted to women. That's a load of bull.

Hey, Chandelier. When did you realize you were asexual?

Look, I was blinded by the media to think that everyone had to be sexually attracted to something, anything. I didn't realize that it was making me think I had to be sexually attracted. It wasn't until I realized that the media did that that I realized that I wasn't actually sexually attracted towards anything. It was just my subconscious wanting to make sure I was accepted in society. It's the same thing with homosexuals in earlier days. Society told them that you could only be attracted to the opposite sex, so they were only "attracted" to the opposite sex, until eventually they realized that they weren't.

And I didn't say I was still sexually attracted to women. That's a load of bull.

I'm not Chanders, but I'll attempt to answer for her. Apparently, from what I know, she was never attracted sexually to anyone. She never "came out".

Sexuality does not work like that. You don't realize one day. You know. From around five or six years of age, you know. Doesn't necessarily work that way either. I know a guy who had been gay all of his life and then became attracted to women in his middle age. I myself didn't experience a strong attraction to men until I was 15 or 16.

I'm not Chanders, but I'll attempt to answer for her. Apparently, from what I know, she was never attracted sexually to anyone. She never "came out".

Neither was I. I only thought I was.

And outdated definition, which doesn't take into fact the fact that there are "asexual" people out there. I can't believe you're actually telling me my sexuality doesn't exist.

Gee, looky who is suddenly demanding sensitivity in language.

Boys and girls, can you say "hypocrite"?

Gee, looky who is suddenly demanding sensitivity in language.

Boys and girls, can you say "hypocrite"?

There's a difference between denying the existence of asexuals and using "gay" as a derogatory term.

Sexuality does not work like that. You don't realize one day. You know. From around five or six years of age, you know. Hell, when you declared yourself asexual, you admitted that you were still sexually attracted to women, you just didn't want to be.

Well, it might be a bit different with asexuality, mostly because it isn't that well known. I didn't have a label for it until I was 16. Plus, it can be kind of hard to sense that you're the same when you don't understand that anyone else is feeling something that you aren't. But I could kind of tell that I was different in that way by fourth grade though, even though I had no label for it...although I vaguely remember trying to come up with a term to describe the way I felt back a while ago, probably in middle school...I thought of asexual, antisexual, and nonsexual, not sure if they were labels that I could actually use, and then I forgot about it until I found the AVEN website and realized that asexual was the label that fit.

I imagine it would also be more difficult to figure it out if one had romantic attraction, as many asexuals do. I feel neither, so it's less hazy for me, I guess. In that case it would be a realization that other people have a sexual component to their attraction that they don't feel, which can take a while to figure out since most people seem to consider romantic and sexual attraction as inseparable.

Neither was I. I only thought I was.

As in, she didn't think she was, apparently.

There's a difference between denying the existence of asexuals and using "gay" as a derogatory term.
Nobody's explicitly denying asexuals exist. What is being questioned is the meaning of the word "Asexual". I for one agree with your definition, but it is also nonetheless true that you're applying a double standard with regards to the meanings of Asexuality and Gay.

Nobody's explicitly denying asexuals exist. What is being questioned is the meaning of the word "Asexual". I for one agree with your definition, but it is also nonetheless true that you're applying a double standard with regards to the meanings of Asexuality and Gay.

Once again, I do not use gay to refer to homosexual people. I only use homosexual to refer to homosexual people. If someone came up with something like "gay" for asexuals, and it was a word that has already been used, then I would deny it meant asexual, but rather what the word originally meant.

If someone came up with something like "gay" for asexuals, and it was a word that has already been used, then I would deny it meant asexual, but rather what the word originally meant.

Isn't that what you were just arguing against?

Nobody's explicitly denying asexuals exist. What is being questioned is the meaning of the word "Asexual". I for one agree with your definition, but it is also nonetheless true that you're applying a double standard with regards to the meanings of Asexuality and Gay.

Oh, and Shazbotdom has been denying the existence of asexuals.

Once again, I do not use gay to refer to homosexual people. I only use homosexual to refer to homosexual people. If someone came up with something like "gay" for asexuals, and it was a word that has already been used, then I would deny it meant asexual, but rather what the word originally meant.
And, once again, I am pointing out that you're engaging in a doublethink by refusing to admit that other people might think that the word "Asexual" does not refer to the state of not being sexually attracted to either gender while at the same time holding firmly to a fixed and different interpretation of the word "Gay".

You may choose to define what your words mean, but unless you are willing to compromise and reach an agreement with others you will be misinterpreted. That is the basis of communication - the establishment of protocol.

And, once again, I am pointing out that you're engaging in a doublethink by refusing to admit that other people might think that the word "Asexual" does not refer to the state of not being sexually attracted to either gender while at the same time holding firmly to a fixed and different interpretation of the word "Gay".

You may choose to define what your words mean, but unless you are willing to compromise and reach an agreement with others you will be misinterpreted. That is the basis of communication - the establishment of protocol.

I never said that asexual, as an absolute, meant not sexually attracted to another person. I said that, in reference to sexuality of a person, I and many others believe it means no sexual attraction what so ever.

As in, she didn't think she was, apparently.

No, I never thought that I was sexually attracted to anyone. There was a time that I thought I had a crush on someone, but it was in a little kid way. I don't even know if I felt the same way as other people who have crushes, and I can't even recall exactly what it felt like, as it was a long time ago.

I have had "crushes" on various fictional characters, but that wouldn't get in the way of being asexual, anyway. As I said, plenty of asexuals are even romantically attracted to people. But when I think of the list of characters I've had crushes on...I don't think it really is any threat to my label as aromantic. Jar Jar Binks in fourth grade, Thrust (from Transformers: Armada) in middle school, most notably the Phantom of the Opera (in the novel, not in the movie until after I developed my crush, or rather obsession with, the Leroux version of him), and General Grievous.

I never said that asexual, as an absolute, meant not sexually attracted to another person. I said that, in reference to sexuality of a person, I and many others believe it means no sexual attraction what so ever.

You said:

"If someone came up with something like "gay" for asexuals, and it was a word that has already been used, then I would deny it meant asexual, but rather what the word originally meant."

Can I ask if your definition of the word asexual has been in existence longer than the definition you dislike?

I never said that asexual, as an absolute, meant not sexually attracted to another person. I said that, in reference to sexuality of a person, I and many others believe it means no sexual attraction what so ever.
Fine, but my point stands; other people should be entirely at liberty to state that you are not "Asexual" if they hold that word to mean something else. In denying them that, you are asserting that it is true both to you and to them that Asexuality does apply to yourself, thereby demanding that there must be some sort of universal definition for the term.

Can I ask if your definition of the word asexual has been in existence longer than the definition you dislike?

It hasn't, but that doesn't make it invalid. That's what I think he needs to realize. That just because he claims that he only uses "gay" to refer to "happy" doesn't mean that it doesn't mean "homosexual" in common usage, just as when other people use "asexual" to mean "without sexual organs", it doesn't mean that asexual doesn't also mean "without sexual attraction". Both definitions of each word are valid, but they just refer to different things.

That's why I usually try to avoid using the term asexual when I'm telling people about it in real life, unless I know that they're generally accepting people. Because amoeba jokes can get pretty tiring...but that's what "asexual" is commonly taken to mean, and that's why groups like AVEN are working towards visibility. Like with the t-shirt slogan "Asexuality: It's Not Just for Amoebas Anymore", and by appearing on various television shows (certain members appeared on the Montel show earlier this year).

To be fair, it's not really their fault they don't know about it. After all, It's not their fault that our plan to acheive world domination by December of 2004 has fallen behind...:p (http://asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=5037&highlight=stewart)"Since asexuals are unencumbered by having or thinking about sex, they currently plan on achieving “A” rights by next week and complete world domination by December.":p

It hasn't, but that doesn't make it invalid. That's what I think he needs to realize. That just because he claims that he only uses "gay" to refer to "happy" doesn't mean that it doesn't mean "homosexual" in common usage, just as when other people use "asexual" to mean "without sexual organs", it doesn't mean that asexual doesn't also mean "without sexual attraction". Both definitions of each word are valid, but they just refer to different things.

That's why I usually try to avoid using the term asexual when I'm telling people about it in real life, unless I know that they're generally accepting people. Because amoeba jokes can get pretty tiring...but that's what "asexual" is commonly taken to mean, and that's why groups like AVEN are working towards visibility. Like with the t-shirt slogan "Asexuality: It's Not Just for Amoebas Anymore", and by appearing on various television shows (certain members appeared on the Montel show earlier this year).

To be fair, it's not really their fault they don't know about it. After all, It's not their fault that our plan to acheive world domination by December of 2004 has fallen behind...:p (http://asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=5037&highlight=stewart)"Since asexuals are unencumbered by having or thinking about sex, they currently plan on achieving “A” rights by next week and complete world domination by December.":p

Asexuals: While you're flirting, they're conquering.

Asexuals: While you're flirting, they're conquering.

Indeed.:p

Asexuals: While you're fapping, they're conquering.

Fixed!

Fixed!

I suppose both would be true statements.:p

Fixed!

Yes well, I guess fapping is an alternative to flirting. :p

I suppose both would be true statements.:p

Yeah. :D

Yes well, I guess fapping is an alternative to flirting. :p

My preferred alternative.

I tried posting this in the Gaia forums, but with little success. (Idiotic mods)

The GSA at my school, along with my International Club have been known for putting up idiotic signs. They put up a new sign yesterday. It reads:




What... The... Fuck?

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.

The insensitivity thing doesn't bother me nearly as much as the bastardization of language.

Words mean things. People keep using words incorrectly and then we end up with an entire population that has know idea what the fuck it's saying nor how to understand what it's hearing.

Yes, when a person says that something is "too ethnic," they are probably saying it out of cultural ethnocentrism and intolerance. But the reason that they pick that phrase is because they're idiots. I am equally annoyed when minorities refer to themselves as "ethnic." Everyone is ethnic. We all come from a culture. Even if we have lost touch with it, we have joined a new one. Even if we haven't named it. White people are not unethnic. They have an ethnicity. English, Scotish, Irish, Swiss, German, French... They are all ethnicities.

People keep using these phrases, and now people don't bat an eye when George W. Bush claims that he was not wrong when he predicted we would be welcome in Iraq, because "we were welcomed, it just wasn't a peaceful welcome." What the Fuck is belligerent welcome? Shouting "Come over here and say that muthafucka!?"

"Ironic," does not mean "noteworthy."
"Ethnic," does not mean "black."
"Welcome," does not mean "car bombed."
"Sorry," does not mean "shut up you annoying bitch."
"Patriotism," does not mean having faith that your leader is right when he says things that are absurd.
"Cowardly," does not apply to any action in which one gives their life for their beliefs.

I've seen a lot of T-shirts that say "this is America, speak f*cking English."
I'd like to make one that says, "You were born in America. Learn f*cking English."

Yes, yes it does. Just like it would make bigots out of people who call their harvesters "niggers" when malfunctioning. Or people who call ATMs that swallow their cards "kikes".
Nothing wrong with a little postmodern, ironic racism.

What the fuck is so horrible about saying someone's from a broken home? People aren't exactly using that as an insult.

Wait, wait, wait. What?

I don't consider homosexual people bad. I never call them gay, in fact. Actually, I consider any homosexual person who calls themselves gay hypocrites.

Wow, an individual is no longer allowed to determine what they call themselves. How tolerant.

I, personally, refuse to call myself "bisexual". I'm "bi". None of this boohoohoo-bi-is-not-an-acceptable-word shit. I don't mind if other people call me bisexual, but if someone attempts to correct me when I say "bi" I'll get annoyed.

I tend to respond to bigotry with bigotry exaggerated to the point of humor. One time this girl was ranting about how stupid guys were or something, and I'm just like "It's okay to be inherently inferior."

I got something thrown at me, but everyone else laughed.

Also anyone who calls me a faggot or something I respond by calling them a breeder. Just to see what they do.

more like over sensitivity in society.

I tried posting this in the Gaia forums, but with little success. (Idiotic mods)

The GSA at my school, along with my International Club have been known for putting up idiotic signs. They put up a new sign yesterday. It reads:




What... The... Fuck?

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.

I agree wholeheartedly! People, especially the so-called "poor, oppressed, downtrodden minorities", are so (insert your 10 or 12 most favorite profane adjectives here) hyper-sensitive, and there are so many different groups of them, that nobody can say much of anything anymore without "offending" some of them.

THE FOLLOWING IS ADDRESSED TO ANYBODY WHO IS NOT A WHITE HETEROSEXUAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MALE:

WE WHITE HETEROSEXUAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN MALES ARE FED UP WITH HAVING TO "TIP-TOE" THROUGH THE "MINORITY GROUPS". THERE ARE MORE MINORITY GROUPS, AND THEY ARE MORE EASILY OFFENDED, THAN IS REASONABLE FOR US TO TRY NOT TO OFFEND ANY OF YOU. GET OVER YOURSELVES AND GIVE US A BREAK. STOP BLAMING US FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS. AND GET RID OF THIS DOUBLE STANDARD OF ALLOWING YOUR OWN AND EACH OTHER'S KIND TO SAY WHATEVER ABOUT US, BUT NOT ALLOWING IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WE ARE FED UP AND WILL NOT PUT UP WITH IT ANYMORE. IF YOU DISH IT OUT, BE WILLING TO TAKE IT.

AND FOR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS:

YOUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. TOO MANY OF YOU ARE COMING IN AND ENCUMBERING, TO AN UNREASONABLE AND FISCALLY UNFEASIBLE DEGREE, OUR WELFARE SYSTEMS. IF YOU WISH TO BECOME A UNITED STATES CITIZEN, PLEASE GO THROUGH THE PROPER LEGAL CHANNELS, OTHERWISE STAY HOME. AND IF YOU COME HERE, PLEASE LEARN THE LANGUAGE.

as George Carlin said, we think in our language. alter how we use it, and you alter how we think. Reduce the hateful uses of words and you will find less people thinking that way... well in theory at least.

To be honest, it's a lot like Newspeak-Reduce the ease of saying, basically, "Fuck Big Brother", and less people will. "Fuck Big Brother" is a much simpler then "Big Brother is doubleplusungood".

Not that I'm criticizing it, but we should be honest about what it is. I do that with pretty much everything. I realize meat I'm eating was once alive until it was brutally hacked up and shoved into a processor. But I still think it's delicious.

I'm a lyre? Ok...

And what if a person was meaning you were like a cigarette? What if they only grew up knowing that fag means cigarette? They never learned that fag is an insulting term for homosexual people. Then they come to the states, and call someone a fag because they're "smokin' hot". What do you know. They're suddenly a bigot asshole who wants to put homosexual people down.

And once again, I do not believe in putting down homosexual people. I support equal homosexual rights, along with homosexual marriage.

Say gay. Please. For chrissake, it's annoying. It's GAY MARRIAGE. It's GAY RIGHTS. People are GAY. GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY.

Gee, looky who is suddenly demanding sensitivity in language.

Boys and girls, can you say "hypocrite"?

Hypocrite? He's not asking us not to use it as a slur. He's asking us to acknowledge that his sexuality exists. People acknowledge gay people exist. He'd like the same courtesy. Now why don't you get off your high horse before the massive weight of your ignorance crushes it?

We no longer have discussions on NSG. "Debates" basically consist of "Mine's bigger!" "No, mine's bigger!" except no entertainment when people actually attempt to resolve the argument.

You mean like you're being here, with your whiny-ass bitching that somehow someone wants to "take your rights away" by asking you not to use hurtful language?

Bitch, please. :rolleyes:

They DO want to take away our rights; first they ASK us not to use "hurtful" or "offensive" language; next it's SOCIAL LEGISLATION to that effect (where it's technically legal but not socially acceptable); then it will be LEGAL legislation to that effect via some "loophole" they will try to create in the by-laws of the USA to circumvent the 1st Amendment.

Doesn't too ethnic sound a wee bit prejudiced? The others (in fact none of them, but looking at their perspective) don't offend me, but it's quite obvious why too ethnic could cause a problem...

Not as prejudiced as saying, for example, "too black" or "too Asian".

Yeah, perhaps first you should brush the sand out of your own vagina? "Help, help! They're taking my rights away by asking me not to do something!" Pathetic.

It's NOT pathetic; see my reply to Fassigen above.

how are signs asking people to stop using "hurtful" terms a restriction of the First Amendment? is there some penalty for saying those words/terms? Suspension, failing grade, expulsion?

or are you trying to restrict their First Amendment rights of asking people to stop using 'hurtful' terms.

I'll respect your right and ability to say what you want, but you respect other's right and abilit to react to what you say.

"Signs asking people to stop using "hurtful" terms", in and of themselves, are NOT a restriction of the First Amendment; they're just the first step toward legislating it into law, which WOULD be a restriction of the First Amendment (1A).

It's not "asking people to stop using 'hurtful' terms" that I have a problem with; it's that they want to carry it further and make it a LAW and circumvent 1A.

I respect other's right and ability to react to what I say, as long as that doesn't extend to making it a crime for me to say it, i.e. circumventing 1A.

Say gay. Please. For chrissake, it's annoying. It's GAY MARRIAGE. It's GAY RIGHTS. People are GAY. GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY GAY.

I do not wish to say "gay". Please allow me my right to say "homosexual", or, if I wish, something more offensive.

"Gay" originally meant "happy", "carefree", "cheerful", and/or "light-hearted". I do not wish to use that word to refer to homosexuals or bisexuals.

I do not wish to say "gay". Please allow me my right to say "homosexual", or, if I wish, something more offensive.

"Gay" originally meant "happy", "carefree", "cheerful", and/or "light-hearted". I do not wish to use that word to refer to homosexuals or bisexuals.

Very well. I you are no longer straight or heterosexual, you are a breeder. :p

Seriously, it's just a pet peeve. A group of people should be able to determine what they would like to be called, and other people should respect that.

Very well. I you are no longer straight or heterosexual, you are a breeder. :p

Seriously, it's just a pet peeve. A group of people should be able to determine what they would like to be called, and other people should respect that.

That's fine with me, being called a "breeder" does not offend me.:)

That's fine with me, being called a "breeder" does not offend me.:)

Yeah, it wasn't meant to offend. It was meant to be vaguely humorous.

"Gay" originally meant "happy", "carefree", "cheerful", and/or "light-hearted". I do not wish to use that word to refer to homosexuals or bisexuals.

So? And "Silly" used to mean "blessed," "gaudy" used to mean "joy," "deer" used to mean any generic animal, "enthusiasm" used to mean "abuse," "vulgar" used to mean "popular," "harlot" used to mean "a boy," "notorious" used to mean "famous," "garble" used to mean "to sort out." Do you object to the current usage of those words as strongly as you do to the current usage of "gay?" Or are you just in a snit because you don't like that the "icky gays" are gaining acceptance in modern society? Language (like society) evolves and changes. Words change their meaning. Get over it.

Gay has been used as an adjective to describe homosexuality since at least the 1920's. At almost 100 years now, it's hardly a new usage.

Why not put up an opposing sign up right next to it?


".... biased language in our society causes unintentional damage."

"Stop using it."

"Everyday..."

Extreme political correctness endangers free speech by limiting what is in the public discourse. Toughen up bitch!

What the bloody hell? When was that?

Oh, that's right. Before I realized I was asexual.

You said you were attracted to females before you realized you weren't attracted to females?

WTF?

Seriously, what's with the batshit crazy teenagers coming out recently? First SL then this...

You said you were attracted to females before you realized you weren't attracted to females?

WTF?

Seriously, what's with the batshit crazy teenagers coming out recently? First SL then this...

I don't think calling yourslef asexual necessarily means you're batshit crazy. I know Chandy considers herself as such, and I"d haradlya call her batshit crazy.

I don't think calling yourslef asexual necessarily means you're batshit crazy. I know Chandy considers herself as such, and I"d haradlya call her batshit crazy.

Alone and by itself, no (though I question the legitimacy of that claim by someone at that age).

Let's just say this poster has a....history.

Alone and by itself, no (though I question the legitimacy of that claim by someone at that age).

Let's just say this poster has a....history.

Fair enough. I'm jumping in at the tail end of a what I can only assume is a lengthy discussion.

Alone and by itself, no (though I question the legitimacy of that claim by someone at that age).

How old should I have to be to be able to recognize my own sexual orientation and not be doubted for it? I'm not going to wait until I'm 25 and assume that I'm just broken and I'll somehow be "fixed" by then. I'm not going to assume that I'm straight but just slow at developing or something. I started puberty five years ago, I'm not going to wait another five years to have my orientation accepted, not when people years younger than me aren't usually doubted when they say that they're straight.

I'd rather go with the label that fits me 100% now but has a small chance of changing in the future than with a label that fits me 0% now but has a very small chance of fitting me in the future.

I understand what it is on the forums, but why the hell should it be the same in real life?

Words have connotations as well as denotations. Saying the wrong word to the wrong person can end up with a beating.

You said you were attracted to females before you realized you weren't attracted to females?

WTF?

Seriously, what's with the batshit crazy teenagers coming out recently? First SL then this...

Wow, way to be ignorant. You just characterized an entire sexuality as some kind of way for teenagers to "rebel".

I think that borders on one of the most intolerant and ignorant things I've ever read on here.

For those of you wondering Neo Nalitir's "history" consists of one point where he was kind of emo and was going on about how humanity needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. He then came back saying a bunch of people on some website were trying to ruin his life because he had stopped one of their "raids" (I'm not sure, but I think this is when a bunch of people all join a site and start posting flames and spam and stuff so the site is ruined.) because he was a..."cyber protector" or some such. So he reported them to the FBI (I think) and then claims he started being harassed or something. No idea if it's true or not.

:rolleyes: What is it about the concept of language as a mode of communication that you don't understand? Since you do not agree that words mean things, then I am afraid you are not worth talking to.

`Don't stand chattering to yourself like that,' Humpty Dumpty said, looking at her for the first time, `but tell me your name and your business.'

`My name is Alice, but --'

`It's a stupid name enough!' Humpty Dumpty interrupted impatiently. `What does it mean?'

`Must a name mean something?' Alice asked doubtfully.

`Of course it must,' Humpty Dumpty said with a short laugh: `my name means the shape I am -- and a good handsome shape it is, too. With a name like yours, you might be any shape, almost.'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

Now we have officially entered into the realm of the ridiculous.

Now we have officially entered into the realm of the ridiculous.

?suolucidir naht rehto gnihtyna neeb GSN sah nehW

There's a difference between denying the existence of asexuals and using "gay" as a derogatory term.

If by your own definition we do not believe that asexuality exists as "not being attracted to anyone else", then we should not feel the need to accept that you find our saying so is offensive. Therefore, to bring your argument to its logical conclusion, we should continue to say that asexuality is the absence of sexual organs and that your definition of self is invalid -- because we say so. No matter how frustrating that makes you feel, and no matter how many other people "think" they are asexual, and no matter how many other people are offended by our insensitivity to your view of the word in that connotation.

Once again, I do not use gay to refer to homosexual people. I only use homosexual to refer to homosexual people. If someone came up with something like "gay" for asexuals, and it was a word that has already been used, then I would deny it meant asexual, but rather what the word originally meant.

But this is precisely what has happened. Asexuality did not originally mean "having no attraction to other people or objects sexually." That is a recent and communal change in definition.

But this is precisely what has happened. Asexuality did not originally mean "having no attraction to other people or objects sexually." That is a recent and communal change in definition.

What did it mean originally?

What did it mean originally?

It probably referred to asexual reproduction.

?suolucidir naht rehto gnihtyna neeb GSN sah nehW

.gninaem ym teg uoy fi ,SUOLUCIDIR is ereht dna suolucidir si ereht tuB

Go ahead.

No, because what I may believe for the purposes of this thread, "dick" is an insult, and it most definitely does not mean "forum poster". And I imagine I would get a slap on the wrists if I called you a "dick", because it is an insult no matter what I claim it means.

Fact is, words have meanings. You may try to make out that you believe they mean something else, but you're wrong.

THE UNITED STATES
... WELFARE SYSTEMS.
:D :p

You're funny...
PLEASE LEARN THE LANGUAGE.
Spanish? :confused:

;)

I do not wish to say "gay". Please allow me my right to say "homosexual", or, if I wish, something more offensive.

"Gay" originally meant "happy", "carefree", "cheerful", and/or "light-hearted". I do not wish to use that word to refer to homosexuals or bisexuals.

So homosexuals and bisexuals can't be as happy as us heterosexuals?

This post makes me gay. :D

You guys know when someone calls someone 'gay' as an insult, it's really spelt G-H-E-Y, right?

:p

You guys know when someone calls someone 'gay' as an insult, it's really spelt G-H-E-Y, right?

:p

Ha...ha...ha? :confused:

How old should I have to be to be able to recognize my own sexual orientation and not be doubted for it? I'm not going to wait until I'm 25 and assume that I'm just broken and I'll somehow be "fixed" by then. I'm not going to assume that I'm straight but just slow at developing or something. I started puberty five years ago, I'm not going to wait another five years to have my orientation accepted, not when people years younger than me aren't usually doubted when they say that they're straight.

I'd rather go with the label that fits me 100% now but has a small chance of changing in the future than with a label that fits me 0% now but has a very small chance of fitting me in the future.

it would be improper to look at a newborn baby, note that it has no teeth, then declare that it will never have teeth.

Sexuality developes in different people at different rates. This is why I question how valid that definition is at someone your age, because at your age, it's quite possible things just have not developed yet. I don't think either term is fitting at this point in time. I think the more proper one, at your age, would be "young".

Wow, way to be ignorant. You just characterized an entire sexuality as some kind of way for teenagers to "rebel".

I think that borders on one of the most intolerant and ignorant things I've ever read on here.

Oh relax. I haven't said anything about a sexuality (although, to be technical, this would be more properly defined as a lack of sexuality, non?).

However most things said by THIS poster are immediatly suspect.

For those of you wondering Neo Nalitir's "history" consists of one point where he was kind of emo and was going on about how humanity needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. He then came back saying a bunch of people on some website were trying to ruin his life because he had stopped one of their "raids" (I'm not sure, but I think this is when a bunch of people all join a site and start posting flames and spam and stuff so the site is ruined.) because he was a..."cyber protector" or some such. So he reported them to the FBI (I think) and then claims he started being harassed or something. No idea if it's true or not.


And this would be exactly why.

Getting back on topic:

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.

First, I should clarify that I am not white. Second, I was involved in a social justice group through my old school for a while a couple years ago.

My experience in that group is that when 'normal people' enlist as a group to do 'social justice' they tend to avoid any endeavours which will require a great deal of effort, like public war protests, organizing petitions to stop workplace discrimination, and many others.

It is invariably easier to nag at casual uses of so-called 'biased' language in their local enclave (school, neighborhood, whatever) and call that social justice. But if you were asked to choose between undertaking the massive task of trying to say, stop sexual violence on a global scale, or put up posters which remind passers-by not to say things like "she's too ethnic," which would you choose?

Let it suffice to say that the group I was in choose the latter. I left because I believe we should have chosen the former.

I short, I agree with you completely, Neo Naliitr.

Oh relax. I haven't said anything about a sexuality (although, to be technical, this would be more properly defined as a lack of sexuality, non?).

However most things said by THIS poster are immediatly suspect.




And this would be exactly why.

It's not him I'm objecting to. It's the generalization of an entire group of people as some kind of teenage fad. I don't really care about him, it's just Chandelier and people like her don't deserve to be written off.

You guys know when someone calls someone 'gay' as an insult, it's really spelt G-H-E-Y, right?

:p

Because we're all in the habit of spelling to each other when we're being insulting.

And please, tell me in which dictionary your spelling "ghey" exists.

it would be improper to look at a newborn baby, note that it has no teeth, then declare that it will never have teeth.

Sexuality developes in different people at different rates. This is why I question how valid that definition is at someone your age, because at your age, it's quite possible things just have not developed yet. I don't think either term is fitting at this point in time. I think the more proper one, at your age, would be "young".

Then if things change, then my label will change accordingly. But even if things do change, that won't change the fact that the Chandelier of today is asexual, even if the Chandelier of the future will not always be this way. I'm not too young to know that I'm not attracted to anyone. People seem to accept it when young people are attracted to others; why is it so unusual that I'm not? I am asexual, at least for now and probably for the rest of my life, and if I wait until everyone accepts that to consider myself that, then I'll never be able to. It'll just be "Oh, you're twenty. You're probably just a late bloomer", then "Oh, you're twenty-five, you're just developing slower, you'll catch up! Just give it five more years!", then "Oh, you're thirty, just give it a few more years, you'll be attracted to someone eventually!" And then, well, probably before then, it'll turn into, "Oh, you're not attracted to anyone? Pay us lots of money for therapy and we'll try to fix you!" Well, that implies that there is something wrong with not being attracted to anyone, and that it is an inherently broken thing. Well, we're not broken, and I'm not going to let people make me wait to label myself. If it turns out that I change, then, well, labels can be changed.

It's not him I'm objecting to. It's the generalization of an entire group of people as some kind of teenage fad. I don't really care about him, it's just Chandelier and people like her don't deserve to be written off.

In fact, in Bogaert's study the asexuals were slightly older on average than the sexuals.

Then if things change, then my label will change accordingly. But even if things do change, that won't change the fact that the Chandelier of today is asexual, even if the Chandelier of the future will not always be this way. I'm not too young to know that I'm not attracted to anyone. People seem to accept it when young people are attracted to others; why is it so unusual that I'm not? I am asexual, at least for now and probably for the rest of my life, and if I wait until everyone accepts that to consider myself that, then I'll never be able to. It'll just be "Oh, you're twenty. You're probably just a late bloomer", then "Oh, you're twenty-five, you're just developing slower, you'll catch up! Just give it five more years!", then "Oh, you're thirty, just give it a few more years, you'll be attracted to someone eventually!" And then, well, probably before then, it'll turn into, "Oh, you're not attracted to anyone? Pay us lots of money for therapy and we'll try to fix you!" Well, that implies that there is something wrong with not being attracted to anyone, and that it is an inherently broken thing. Well, we're not broken, and I'm not going to let people make me wait to label myself. If it turns out that I change, then, well, labels can be changed.



In fact, in Bogaert's study the asexuals were slightly older on average than the sexuals.

Hear, hear!

Ad the OP, I'd advise you to think things through... Your rights are not at risk, and if you choose to act poorly and be inconsiderate of others that is your choice and your right. You will suffer negative consequences of hurting others with your words which, even if you don't think they are hurtful, are hurtful.

it would be improper to look at a newborn baby, note that it has no teeth, then declare that it will never have teeth.
Don't you think that a 17 year old is a bit different?


Sexuality developes in different people at different rates. This is why I question how valid that definition is at someone your age, because at your age, it's quite possible things just have not developed yet. I don't think either term is fitting at this point in time. I think the more proper one, at your age, would be "young".
Well, would you say the same to a 17 year old who claimed he was a homosexual? That he was just young? Or a heterosexual for that matter?

People can change, it's true. But as of today, the label seems to be the correct one.

As for asexuality -- if you're comfortable with it and it doesn't pose a problem for you, my advice is not to worry about it.

You may later become attracted to others, you may not. Doesn't make you good, bad, normal or abnormal.

Words are like bullets, so don't ever speak. Imo, that is the mark of a tolerant society.

Words are like bullets, so don't ever speak. Imo, that is the mark of a tolerant society.

A society that doesn't speak?

I tried posting this in the Gaia forums, but with little success. (Idiotic mods)

The GSA at my school, along with my International Club have been known for putting up idiotic signs. They put up a new sign yesterday. It reads:




What... The... Fuck?

Now then, first of all I would LOVE to know how ANY of those can be considered "biased" statements. I have to wonder if the GSA even knows what biased means. And even then, what does "too ethnic" even mean? And even then, should they be allowed to restrict our First Amendment rights (Note: Not shouting fire in a crowded theater, not promoting hate or violence against anyone) just so that their feelings won't get hurt?

Frankly, I think people need to toughen up and stop being so god damned sensitive. Your opinions?

I'll show you more of the signs if you want to see.

1st: The statements are bias in that the speaker has a negative viewpoint against the person to whom they are applied... :p

2nd: They should not be able to restrict our right to insult, but, by the same coin, we can't tell them to not request it. That said, I believe P.C. speech is retarded idiocy that indicates larger attempts to achieve a fascist (one-party, one-way, one opinion) and/or totalitarian (the government pwns ALL)-esque mindset.

A society that doesn't speak?

that way no one can get offended.

pertaining to the topic...

calling your computer "gay" because it isn't working isn't homophobic...you see there's something called context...

gay has three definitions: happy, homosexual, and lame. as words evolve, the different definitions diverge and one doesn't necessarily imply the other. it's linguistics

take for example the word "sick." it means disgusting, or ill. in slang, it could mean kick ass or awesome. eg, that guitar riff was absolutely sick. in this case, I honestly don't think the person thinks that the riff is kick ass because it induces fits of vomiting...they simply think it's sick because in that context sick strictly means awesome.

this applies to the situation in which Neo was describing. calling his computer "gay" isn't bigoted...because well, in that context the computer was being lame, irritating, etc. in not working. there's absolutely no connection between homosexuality in that statement because homosexuality isn't characterized as being lame, is it?

obviously, there are situations where usage of the word can imply homophobia and bigotry, but that simply isn't one.

Politically correctness at his finest.
Only in the USA.

1st: The statements are bias in that the speaker has a negative viewpoint against the person to whom they are applied... :p

2nd: They should not be able to restrict our right to insult, but, by the same coin, we can't tell them to not request it. That said, I believe P.C. speech is retarded idiocy that indicates larger attempts to achieve a fascist (one-party, one-way, one opinion) and/or totalitarian (the government pwns ALL)-esque mindset.

You know, being polite and having good manners isn't PC. Not insulting people isn't PC, nor is being an ass and using hurtful, derogatory and bigoted language a good way to fight fascism and totalitarianism.

A society that doesn't speak?If you listen to the guy who started this thread, you'll realize that there isn't any point in speaking anyway. Because everyone has different definitions for most words. From his point of view, I could really be talking about astrophysics and bestiality right now.

If you listen to the guy who started this thread, you'll realize that there isn't any point in speaking anyway. Because everyone has different definitions for most words. From his point of view, I could really be talking about astrophysics and bestiality right now.

Yes, but those are more esoteric definitions, so it would be understandable if someone didn't catch that... (and yes I know you were being sarcastic) whereas some words in fact do have multiple completely different definitions that are commonly used.

that way no one can get offended.

pertaining to the topic...

calling your computer "gay" because it isn't working isn't homophobic...you see there's something called context...

gay has three definitions: happy, homosexual, and lame.

Yes, and of course the reason that gay=lame is a pejorative is because it comes from people calling each other gay as an insult, because they believe that being a homosexual is wrong.

That's the context, and we're well aware of it, thank you.

I still think England is where PC-ness rules, but the USA isn't far behind.

It's not him I'm objecting to. It's the generalization of an entire group of people as some kind of teenage fad.

Object to that all you wish, I didn't make the generalization.

What I was referencing was when one poster pointed out that the OP had, in the past, made topics discussing his sexual attraction to other females.

The OP responded by saying "that was before I realized I was asexual."

The basic of that conversation is thus "I talked about how I was attracted to women, until I realized I wasn't attracted to women."

That comment alone makes me very suspect of the veracity of his claims. His history makes me moreso.