Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Do you think it should be or is socially acceptable to use words like gay or faggot to describe things that you don't, in actuality, believe to be literally homosexual in nature? Louis CK said in one of his specials that growing up, you didn't call somebody a faggot because you thought that they were gay, you said that they were faggots because they were acting like faggots.

Are words just words, or should we be more considerate of people who could be offended?
(examples: "the N word", calling something retarded)

At 5/30/13 04:35 PM, Flerovium wrote: Do you think it should be or is socially acceptable to use words like gay or faggot to describe things that you don't, in actuality, believe to be literally homosexual in nature? Louis CK said in one of his specials that growing up, you didn't call somebody a faggot because you thought that they were gay, you said that they were faggots because they were acting like faggots.

Are words just words, or should we be more considerate of people who could be offended?
(examples: "the N word", calling something retarded)

I think people need to learn how to defend, grow, and evolve from hateful words. Shit piss crap hell damn fuck and bitch. I think those were the original dirty seven. They're 'bad words'. More than that, they are ideas. They express our true opinions of negativity.

Sometimes, we need more specific expressions of negativity, so new 'bad words' were created. Faggot hoe motherf*cker cunt retard jew n*gger punjab spick. These words used elements of the subject's characteristics as parts of, or the entirety of, the expression of negativity.

I don't know why people do it, but they do. I think that maybe it is because there is no 'good' without 'bad'. If you say one group is good, it automatically creates a class, situation, group, or person who is not good, not as good, or even bad.

Example: That car is amazing!
~Now because that car is amazing, there are other cars that are not amazing.

"That person did the right thing!"
~Now, there are people that do 'the wrong thing' without even existing yet.

"Winning that war was a victory for good!"
~Now, all people who 'lost the war' have lost to 'good' and are therefore 'not good people.'

I think it is those kinds of relationships that ultimately spark the need to create specific negative slurs and hateful words.

I've never been fond of the sentiment that believes just because you don't use a word literally that it's automatically OK to use.

There are certain words that have so much hatred and baggage attached to them. In these cases, even using the word for a wholly different purpose (of which none of those folk have convinced is even the case) still carries the hatred and baggage. Sure, you may not intend to spew out centuies of hatred every time you say faggot or ni**er, but you still do. At the very least you laugh in the face of those to which the word carries such meaning.

One thing that bugs me about the sentiment, is that the words haven't hanged as much as people think they have. Your Louis C.K. (how the fuck this guy is known for being funny when he couldnt make a person high on nitrous oxide laugh) example is a perfect illustration of this. Sure you may be call the person a homosexual, but you are using a term widely known as a term describing homosexuals still as a negative word implying those who are faggots are bad. In short, your use of the word still expressly, overtly, and powerfully states that homosexuals are bad, even though you may not think it does.

Not until the actual sting of the word wears off can such a formerly hateful word be used in such a manner. For words like gay, faggot, ni**er, et.al., it will be a long time before that happens.

Yeah....... the point of swearing is to be offensive.

I won't call you a doodyhead if you piss me off.. I'll call you a shithead. So if you get offended, GOOD!

Look the only word we know this is about is "G--,F---" or any of its derivatives.

And quite honestly centuries of hatred? Homosexuals are not some repressed people in great masses as the Blacks, Jews, etc.

They're plight has only gained ground in recent times because so too has their numbers.

Now I'm not saying whether or not it's wrong, you are what you are, so you can't help it, I accept that and I wouldn't persecute them for it.

Now faggot is not N----, nor is it K---, S---, K--,it was a word whose meaning has only changed in the recent past as a slur for gays.

I've called people fags and I've also used N------- (though in the 'gangsta' form). Does that mean I'm going up to the people whose associated with those words and saying them to their face? Ofcourse not.

A word is only a word, it's intent varies person to person, obviously calling a black person a n---- is offensive and intolerable. I've said to black friends jokingly, they don't give a shit, which is why I say it, now I'm not saying it to them every waking moment.

A word's reaction changes from person to person. You wouldn't go up to your boss on bad terms and then say "How's it going you S.O.B", to your best friend however you would.

Now I'm not stupid I know such words carry force, but in regards to F-g/G-y, it's interchangeable meaning loser or lame is too socially acceptable. I know the media and society will frown upon but on the playground and schools it's thriving and at least from my experience it's meaning (as a loser/lame) is set in stone and used frequently as such.

âEUoeNo one can make you feel inferior without your consent.âEU
âEU* Eleanor Roosevelt, This is My Story

that is all.

At 5/30/13 09:00 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: And quite honestly centuries of hatred? Homosexuals are not some repressed people in great masses as the Blacks, Jews, etc
They're plight has only gained ground in recent times because so too has their numbers.

First off, homosexuals have been persecuted for hundreds of years. The only thing has gained ground recently is awareness of this fact. Just because people didn't know, care, or mind that there was persecution doesn;t erase the fact there was persecution.

Now faggot is not N----, nor is it K---, S---, K--,it was a word whose meaning has only changed in the recent past as a slur for gays.

True, it's only about 100 years old in its use as a pejorative term for homosexuals, but in that 100 years the term has garnered a shit ton of hate, plight, and harm with it. The youth of a word is not the bearing here, the power of the word is.

A word is only a word, it's intent varies person to person, obviously calling a black person a n---- is offensive and intolerable.

A word is NOT only a word. anyone who says this is either lying their ass off or faking tough. words can carry a great deal of power for both good and bad, regardless of exactly how they are used.

Finally, when it comes to communication what the speaker intends to mean is completely and wholly worthless. It has been, is, and always will be. What really matters is what the listener, both direct and indirect, hears. When I and millions of other peopl ehear the word faggot we either hear the hatred garnered towards homosexuals, or an immature person who isn't bright enough to realize they're laughing off such hatred of homosexuals.

Now I'm not stupid I know such words carry force, but in regards to F-g/G-y, it's interchangeable meaning loser or lame is too socially acceptable. I know the media and society will frown upon but on the playground and schools it's thriving and at least from my experience it's meaning (as a loser/lame) is set in stone and used frequently as such.

In short, you'd rather choose to demena homosexuals by using a word that is, and has been for a long time, referring to them in order to demean your friends, instead of taking the extra syllable it takes to call them a loser?

At 5/30/13 09:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In short, you'd rather choose to demena homosexuals by using a word that is, and has been for a long time, referring to them in order to demean your friends, instead of taking the extra syllable it takes to call them a loser?

Best argument I've seen so far.
This isn't worth debating really, I just kind of wanted to see who'd be bigoted enough to say that they're justified in using words like faggot.

At 5/30/13 09:46 PM, Flerovium wrote: This isn't worth debating really, I just kind of wanted to see who'd be bigoted enough to say that they're justified in using words like faggot.

I call people faggots whether or not they are gay.
If feelings are hurt well mission accomplished.

At 5/31/13 09:23 PM, Love wrote: I call people faggots

Btw this instantly makes me a bigot!

bigot [Ë^bɪgÉTMt]
n
a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race
a person who is extremely intolerant of another's creed, belief, or opinion.

Oh wait no it doesn't.. because indifference =/= intolerance.

At 5/31/13 09:26 PM, Love wrote:

Oh wait no it doesn't.. because indifference =/= intolerance.

to liberals. any white person who isn't a liberal is automatically a bigoted racist red neck beer chugging retard with rotten teeth, living in a trailer who clings to their shotgun and bible.

any black person who isn't a liberal is a house slave who works relentlessly for his white master.

anyone else who isn't liberal is ignorant and working against their own interests.

At 5/30/13 04:54 PM, Psycho666 wrote:

I think people need to learn how to defend, grow, and evolve from hateful words. Shit piss crap hell damn fuck and bitch. I think those were the original dirty seven. They're 'bad words'. More than that, they are ideas. They express our true opinions of negativity.

Fuck can be used for good things, like "I fucking love this band".

At 5/31/13 09:26 PM, Love wrote: Oh wait no it doesn't.. because indifference =/= intolerance.

Who said it does? It just makes you ignorant and disrespectful.

Chris Rock said something similar.

I imagine it would be offensive, but everyone says you should allow for freedom of speech. It's weird, because I hear people saying you should have the right to say s**t and f**k but not fa**ot or ni**er. By that logic, could you call someone a ni**er if they're acting like one? Of course, how would you even do that? Too stereotypical.

At 6/1/13 10:09 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/31/13 09:26 PM, Love wrote: Oh wait no it doesn't.. because indifference =/= intolerance.

Who said it does? It just makes you ignorant and disrespectful.

Ignorant? No I know exactly what faggot means and where it came from.

Disrespectful? That's the point of swearing idiot.

At 6/1/13 03:51 PM, Love wrote: Disrespectful? That's the point of swearing idiot.

Love, the public is dying to know, how does it feel to be a bigot?

At 6/2/13 01:38 AM, Flerovium wrote:

At 6/1/13 03:51 PM, Love wrote: Disrespectful? That's the point of swearing idiot.

Love, the public is dying to know, how does it feel to be a bigot?

You mad?

I originally typed my comment without the *s on the word. The person on the top of the page got away with saying "faggot" but I couldn't get away with N-word for some reason. In all fairness, that probably is more offensive by most standards.

At 5/30/13 09:24 PM, Camarohusky wrote: In short, you'd rather choose to demena homosexuals by using a word that is, and has been for a long time, referring to them in order to demean your friends, instead of taking the extra syllable it takes to call them a loser?

Loser is just not that great of an insult really.

Unless you are like, 5 or something.

You're all a bunch of god-damned Naggots. You turned this whole fucking conversation on offensive words into a giant rant about oppressing homosexuals. Nobody coached you into it, you guys just ran with it, talking about your 'baggage' that you carry around in silly words. You're all being very inconsiderate to all the other great offensive terms and slurs that are out there. Shame on you.

At 6/2/13 02:03 PM, Psycho666 wrote: Naggots

Lmfao

you should be able to use any word you want to without people acting like tightasses while pretending they dont think the same about it

and even in your case, you could use the word "gay" to describe something "joyful"

I think it's a fair social trade off.

For example in our country you can say something like: tering, or krijg de tering. Which means in translation f*ck me ( when hurt) or f*ck you, however it can also be interpreted as "get cancer".

When I was young it was the goto word when I bumped my little toe against the chair, but as you can imagine it was not accepted by everyone around me. So after I got older and saw the negative effects of the actual decease and countless of negative feedback situations, I refrained from venting my emotion with this word and replaced it by "chips". Which is a tasty treat.

So I think it's currently a fair system, the person that uses a curse word the wrong way will eventually be the one hurting himself in terms of likability, maternity and or seriousness. And will need to change that habit into something more positive eventually.

At least that how it works in real life. If you go onto internet it's a different story and people should pack a bigger shell.
Unless they are connected online to the real world then the same rules. ( some people tend to forget that )

Words change all the damn time. This is nothing but older more butthurt generations clashing with younger people, at the gist of it. Growing up, fag and gay was almost never used to reference something homosexual. It took the liking of the words stupid and retarded. Just an all around pejorative to describe displeasure with something or someone.

besides, in the end society gives meaning to the words more than dictionary.
so with time, if people use "faggot" as a generic insult instead of referring to gay or whatever, it will end up just meaning a generic insult.
for example: the word "idiot" originally meant "someone who doesnt care about politics", and now its just used as an insult, and its original meaning is socially unexistant.

in conclusion: use words as you please as long as they serve their propose well

At 6/5/13 11:05 AM, SuperHitler420 wrote: Banning words

I don't remember anybody mentioning such a thing.

At 6/5/13 02:41 PM, Flerovium wrote:

At 6/5/13 11:05 AM, SuperHitler420 wrote: Banning words

I don't remember anybody mentioning such a thing.

From the OP: "Do you think it should be or is socially acceptable to use words..."

AKA: Do you think some words should be banned?

Banned being the implied meaning of, "Do you think it should be or is socially acceptable to use."

At 6/5/13 04:35 PM, Psycho666 wrote: AKA: Do you think some words should be banned?

So you'd argue that words that most definitely aren't considered "socially acceptable" like racial slurs are "banned"?
Because the two terms don't seem to mean exactly the same thing to me.

It's probably been said (Who reads posts, anyway?) but words are just words.

I use the word dyke to my friends, just because that's what we call each other for affection~.

I use retarded all the time. And it's retarded how, in my school, you can get in serious trouble, even get suspended and be forced to go to counseling if you use the word retarded in a bad way.

:/