you're missing the point, ohdear.

he uses it BECAUSE it's offensive. He knows it's offensive. He HOPES it's offensive.

It's obviously not used "an abbreviation," as the unoffensive term 'gay' is shorter to both write and say.

Don't be fooled by this creature - he's vicious and nasty ... his faux civility is a transparent ploy he will use for a week or two.

On other boards he has accused gay people with children of molesting their children - of gay people with children of not caring or loving their kids - and any other manner of vile hateful evil things.

But on this issue - he's brought it up MYRIAD times in the past four years...always with the feigned surprise that others find his slurs offensive. He gives new meaning to the word disingenuous.

edited to add: he also mentions the word 'gay' being used because is sounds 'warm and fuzzy- - when ACTUALLY it was a word used to denigrate gay men for over a hundred years before the gay population took back the word and owned it. It's funny that a word once meant to invite hatred is now considered 'warm and fuzzy' - well, at least for some people.

Oh No! Tristan, I am more than willing to be missing the point and admit it, but unless I am missing it again, I think it is YOU and Gary who are both missing the point!
You and he are more alike than either of you care to admit.
And I know, I know, my posts seem out of sync with all your back and forth snippy remarks to each other.
But, even IF they use it offensively, and that is most grievous and surely outside the bounds of civility and plain old fashioned manners...it is just like this.
Someone...SOMEONE!!! Can't somebody be the first to let it drop?
You now say that the word gay was taken back by the homosexual community, though it was said at first as a term of derision.
Well then for the sake of peace and to best the mean folk, just take back the word Homo too.
It is really what happened in history with Christians. That term being used as a slur. But the followers of Christ took it back and wear it proudly. Well too proudly if you ask me, but you don't and that is a whole other topic...
But see, this is how I see the word Homo.
There is a path for all of us to walk. And every time someone says Homo, you see a big bump in the path. And it causes stumbling. Loss of momentum, loss of enjoying the journey. So Just take the word back like the word gay. Then you will have more words to use for yourself too.
And every time someone wants to use the word who is afraid of gay people, and can't ...they feel that they are missing out on getting to do a great service to their intellect of making use of the language as they see fit. And those same folk feel that to degrade people is a good thing. That is their best shot at improving the moral tone of the world. Per the moral system they hold to. If they degrade people who do not adhere to it.
So I say let's all be happy and say Homo. Not using it doesn't help the people who want to, not using it doesn't mean that they are learning to like or even respect others, it only frustrates their work, their big and special work for fixing the morality of the world by saying Homo. I mean, you do see how valuable that is, don't you?

I just think that both of you are overlooking each other's rights. And the basic right of all people is peace. Next is freedom. If you make freedom first, you will not ever have peace.

OD

you are aware how sanctimonious that sounds, don't you?

do you also think we should all use words 'kike,' 'nigger,' 'spic,' - and of course the ever-popular c-word used for a woman? would you be happy?

Okay Swede.

Now I just want to come right back here and do two things, I want to say that I quoted Tristan by using the quote bar at the bottom of his post. When clicking that, a box shows up with his words already there and now I add my ever-inspiring good words for him to further reflect on! Such is the mission I have here.

Tristan, I am sorry if it sounded sanctimonious to you. I would have suspected that it sounded the same then to Garysher.
What I wanted to convey is that you got to take it back Tristan. Or wait it out.
The first thing that happened for the people who you wrote about that have been called names of derision, is that first they gained rights, and then in time the names were no longer accepted.
I think now most people would never dream of using those words, though there are always certain hate groups that will.
But overall, the public is not receptive to hearing those words.
But first came the civil rights and the black people as one example did not bemoan the fact they were called the N word. They sat at the front of the bus and they drank at the water fountain.
Peaceful and without demands, simply claiming their rightful place.
Now read my post again and see how if you can even try to do role playing, the homophobic would maybe take offense at my post too. See, I only want everyone to get along.
Why does that trouble you?
What concessions are you willing to make Tristan? To get along with Garhsher and Jefferson and any others who have said things about being gay that you did not like?
OD

Our language is not being hijacked. Words mean whatever the listener interprets them to mean. The word "homo" is a slur because people interpret it as a slur. Allow me to explain further by repsonding to OhDear:

It is not quite so easy as this.

The word "gay" is sometimes used insultingly, but it's also used by homosexuals to describe themselves. So when I hear the word "gay", I interpret it depending on what I think the speaker means.

On the other hand, when I hear the word "homo", it is almost always used by someone who dislikes gay people as an insult. I expect to hear it used in the fashion, "Damn homos" or something like that. So when I hear the word "homo", it immediately causes me to imagine someone who would like to see me burned to death, or perhaps hung.

"Homo" is the way gay-haters tend to describe gay people, and so it is a slur. The only way to change that would be for gay-haters to say it less, and gay-supporters to say it more.

Do you see what I mean? I can start saying the word "homo", and Tristan can start saying the word "homo", but that's not going to change anything, because Tristan and I are only two people out of hundreds of millions. Tristan is not the entire gay population in one person: if he starts saying "homo", it's still going to be used mostly by people who hate gays, and thus it will still offend.

We can't just choose to stop "homo" from being a slur. So what do we do about it?

Garysher, surely you care about the feelings of others, right? And you realize the word "homo" hurts other people's feelings. So why not use the word "gay" instead? No one is going to mistake you for meaning "happy".

And Tristan, if someone does say, "homo", forgive them for their offense. Being offended truly isn't a big deal. We offend others all of the time: sometimes on accident, and sometimes on purpose, but we're still well-intentioned, and being offended hasn't really caused us any true harm. Being denied civil rights and equal treatment is something to get worried about, but being offended isn't.

Part of the issue with "slurs" is that there is typically at least one word meaning the same thing which isn't a "slur".
Like the black "n-word" has the non-slur version of "black".
The Jewish "k-word" has the non-slur version of "Jew".

"Homo" has the non-slur version of "homosexual".

This has all been explained to you before, but you keep repeating the same lame arguments which have already been addressed...

Another tired argument is to pretend that if ONE abbreviation of a word can be a "slur", then ALL abbreviations of are slurs. By your logic, since "Brit" isn't a slur, then "sp*c" can't be a slur for Hispanic...


1) To use your own attempt at logic, are you saying that being homophobic is inherently bad because you presume what you said?
It's amazing how you still argue yourself in a corner so quickly.

2) "homophobic" doesn't "dehumanize" anybody. It's a word to describe a situation. It isn't the WORD that you find to be a slur, but rather the MEANING of the word you take to be a slur.
The n-word is a slur. The MEANING of a person being black is not inherently a slur.
But in your case, you object to "homophobic" because you don't like what it MEANS. There is no suitable synonym which others could use.


Say whaaa?

By your logic, you would be guilty of doing that when you use the word "homo" then...

It's amazing how you start out with 1+2, and whined up with the color green...

garysher...

Maybe you can explain why the OED lists the word "homo" as a slur...
... while you present arguments claiming that it isn't?

Is the OED wrong?

homo
/homo/ informal, chiefly derogatory
• noun (pl. homos) a homosexual man.
• adjective homosexual
AskOxford: homo

OD,
For some degree, "concessions" aren't really possible. Unless a gay person is willing to accept the back of the bus...

A lot on the "anti-gay" side just aren't willing to accept equality.
A lot don't want any gay union legal protection. They don't want sodomy being legal. They don't want gays to be able to adopt. They want an employer to be able to fire somebody just for being gay.

There are no "concessions" that really exist for some people who support gays being fired for BEING gay.


Quite frankly, I find such discussions much more poignant. Gay adoption. Gay employment. Gay unions.

But some would rather discuss the "homo" word... Some would rather exchange insults rather than debate an issue...
And you'll note who started this thread.

Quite frankly, I think some people try to obfuscate the debate with insulting slurs to HIDE the fact that they can't debate the issue convincingly...