What Made you Smile/What Ticked you off Today?

[o.pwuaioc]

"Gay" in the third sense of the term you list is a derogatory usage, meaning it is one that equates things attached to meaning 2 as "stupid" or "annoying". That usage is offensive to a lot of people (no, it is not offensive to everyone and no, it is not offensive to all gay people).

Two things: 1. Plenty of gay people use it to describe their sexual orientation in a very neutral way, and it is often promoted as such. From the oft-used acronym LGBT to the Gay-Straight alliance, gay is not in and of itself derogatory, nor should it be dropped from neutrally describing the sexual orientation of homosexual men, at least at this point in time. It is not anywhere near on par with that other odious word to describe gay men.

2. Using it as a slander may have well been influenced by its adoption of the homosexual community in the 60s, but in fact it was a) used to refer to homosexuals decades earlier, and b) was used as an insult centuries prior (some even think the insult goes back to the 15th century, the passage is disputed). Gay meant something frivolous, gaudy, and promiscuous, without a care in the world. As an insult, it was used to target homosexuals for being such, but it was not in and of itself derived from such.

Similarly, dim-witted for a while referred to folks with mental disabilities, but it both predated and survived that usage, as I'm sure gay will.

[dsheinem]

"Gay" in the third sense of the term you list is a derogatory usage, meaning it is one that equates things attached to meaning 2 as "stupid" or "annoying". That usage is offensive to a lot of people (no, it is not offensive to everyone and no, it is not offensive to all gay people).

Two things: 1. Plenty of gay people use it to describe their sexual orientation in a very neutral way, and it is often promoted as such. From the oft-used acronym LGBT to the Gay-Straight alliance, gay is not in and of itself derogatory, nor should it be dropped from neutrally describing the sexual orientation of homosexual men, at least at this point in time. It is not anywhere near on par with that other odious word to describe gay men.

2. Using it as a slander may have well been influenced by its adoption of the homosexual community in the 60s, but in fact it was a) used to refer to homosexuals decades earlier, and b) was used as an insult centuries prior (some even think the insult goes back to the 15th century, the passage is disputed). Gay meant something frivolous, gaudy, and promiscuous, without a care in the world. As an insult, it was used to target homosexuals for being such, but it was not in and of itself derived from such.

Similarly, dim-witted for a while referred to folks with mental disabilities, but it both predated and survived that usage, as I'm sure gay will.

Good points both. I hope no one thought I was suggesting that the word should never be used in any context, just that there really aren't good reasons in contemporary US culture to use it as a negative critique of something instead of saying "irritating," "annoying," etc. (unless you are hoping to risk offense, being deliberately reflective [like a comedian], etc.).

[kidfresh]

Because you've been asking for it;

"The black dude left his credit card behind." That was the context. I'm strapped for time right now, but I'll come back and talk about how I feel about the usage of the word "gay."

[mjmjr25]

I've learned that between best and worst case scenarios, the latter is the more likely. That's how I've come to assume you are making fun of me.

Don't let it get to you, REPO. Some people feel the need to bully and put down others to make their own self feel better.

...and others like to play passive-aggressive internet psychologist on gaming forums...also, to make their own self feel better.

[samsonlonghair]

My artist gallery reception was a big success. I wasn't expecting too much really. I just thought that a few friends and other artists would stop by.

What I didn't except was to talk my way into the best art gallery in the county. They schedule six week exhibits more than a year in advance. I'm looking at having a big show in the spring of 2015. This is an exciting time for me. I had better get to work.

[o.pwuaioc]

I've learned that between best and worst case scenarios, the latter is the more likely. That's how I've come to assume you are making fun of me.

Don't let it get to you, REPO. Some people feel the need to bully and put down others to make their own self feel better.

...and others like to play passive-aggressive internet psychologist on gaming forums...also, to make their own self feel better.

Oh, right, because me telling REPO not to feel bad that moderators get by insulting him is such a dick move.

I was neither being passive aggressive nor was I playing internet psychologist. I just told some guy to ignore the fuck too many people insulting him for doing just the same that everyone else does here. I mean, for crying out loud, look at Luke's posts! Yet since he's buddy buddy, no one rags on him.

[fastbilly1]

Congrats Samson. What kind of art do you do?

[Hobie-wan]

Because you've been asking for it;

"The black dude left his credit card behind." That was the context.

Yeah, that's no good. If I went into a store primarily staffed by people of a different racial flavor than me and left something behind, I'd totally expect them to say "The white guy in the green shirt left his keys behind if he comes back" or whatever. It is more descriptive than just "The guy in the green shirt" and as long as it was used as a clarifying descriptor, not in a disparaging tone I don't care.

[puke_face]

I mean, for crying out loud, look at Luke's posts! Yet since he's buddy buddy, no one rags on him.

Luke's posts have some sense to them. Sometimes. Every once in a while. More often than not.... ah, who am I kidding. Luke, shut up.

[KalessinDB]

Because you've been asking for it;

"The black dude left his credit card behind." That was the context.

Yeah, that's no good. If I went into a store primarily staffed by people of a different racial flavor than me and left something behind, I'd totally expect them to say "The white guy in the green shirt left his keys behind if he comes back" or whatever. It is more descriptive than just "The guy in the green shirt" and as long as it was used as a clarifying descriptor, not in a disparaging tone I don't care.

And yet, here's where we are. Sigh.

I work at a 911 center. When asking people for descriptions of suspects (be they in robberies, assaults, or even missing person cases), you'd be amazed at how many people flat out refuse to answer when we ask "Is he black, white, or hispanic?"... like, I'm not asking you to tell me his heritage, I'm just asking, if a cop drives by the dude on the street, what would he look like at a glance?

But no, people outright refuse to answer. Sometimes about their kids who are missing! Isn't that special.