Seriously??

"That's so gay" is absolutely, positively, 100% connected to homosexuality. WTF else would it be connected to? To think this some kind of reversal like "bad" or "sick" would require having lived in a cave for the last few decades. And if a listener is offended by that usage, it's because they're aware of the connection which isn't just "in their mind", but is the very reason that meaning of the word even exists. Suggesting the problem with using the word that way is with the listener and not the speaker is incredibly ****ing offensive.

If what you mean is that it's been thrown around so casually by some for years now that there are people who don't give it much thought when they use the word that way, and might do so with no ill will intended towards gay people, I'd agree with that. But their ignorance shouldn't mean that it's OK to do, just like if someone says they "Jewed" someone down on a price.

There is zero parallel between this and "using the Lord's name in vain".

Well, I guess I don't know for certain, as I have never used "gay" in that manner, but I have only heard it used by children. But I would guess that most them mean no offense to actual gay people, and when using the phrase are not thinking about homosexuals or homosexuality. The actual derivation of the usage is not something that they would be thinking about.

When I was a child I often used the term "gyp" to mean "get a bad deal", and I had no idea it was in any way connected to the word "gypsy", nor did I have any idea that there was a (formerly?) common stereotype about the Romani people being swindlers (or something like that, I still don't exactly understand the connection".

So, tldr, yes I already "knew all of that", but I'm not convinced that the people currently using the phrase knew all of that.

I don't think the usage of "gay" is something we need to worry about much here anyway, as, again, I have only ever heard of its use by children, but still, it's just a word that has already previously had several different meanings. "Christ" and "Gypsy" are names referring only to one person or group of people.

Do you think it would be offensive for me to use the word "queer" to mean "suspiciously weird" definitely a negative concept?

They are parallel in the sense that saying any of those things in a public forum is rude.

"Queer" is a delightful word. Another wonderful word that we probably can't use any more (even in the innocent context of "suspiciously weird.")

Sure, which is why in places like schools, efforts should be (and are being) made to ensure students understand this.

There's no need to worry; when it's used pejoratively we just deal with it like we would with any other slur.

It seems like you're trying to make this into some complicated concept. When someone uses the word "gay" pejoratively, they're using it in a way that is rooted in homophobia, whether that is their intent or not. The word having several meanings has no bearing on this.

I suspect that would depend on how you use it, and perhaps who you use it with. I've never understood "suspicious" to be part of its modern usage; the most common synonyms would be "odd", "weird", "strange", "eccentric", "unconventional". If you mean one of those things, maybe it's better to simply use one of those words if you're not confident you can use "queer" in an inoffensive way.

No. One is a word being used in a way that everyone should be able to recognize as rooted in homophobia, which is a great deal more than rude. The other is a name that some people believe is offensive to be used "in vain". But the main point is this - how we handle the use of the word "gay" has no relation to, or bearing on, how we handle the use of the word "Christ".

In old books I read a long time ago, "queer" definitely had a somewhat negative connotation (not related to sexuality). Not sure what you mean by modern usage; I'd say it wasn't really used that often until it was co-opted by a modern community.

From wikipedia:

"Origins and early use:
Entering the English language in the 16th century, queer originally meant "strange", "odd", "peculiar", or "eccentric". It might refer to something suspicious or "not quite right", or to a person with mild derangement or who exhibits socially inappropriate behaviour"

Linguistics are pretty complicated though, and I think it is interesting. This may be the wrong thread for further discussion of this nature though.

Really the main pertinent point is that the word "Christ" was used in a way that is specifically prohibited by three of the most widespread religions, and it in fact offended one of our members. The word "gay" has not even been used in a negative way in this forum recently (AFAIK), so discussion about that is purely speculative.

I find "homophobia" to be a stupid word used by people trying to silence serious conversation about a controversial topic.

For anyone new to this discussion, I am not opposed to moderators allowing folks to use the Lord's name in vain.

This nonsense started when my brief response to a poster using the Lord's name in vain was deleted. And my response wasn't in any way, shape or form snarky (unlike the post I was responding to).

Unlike the Woke Mob of Pea Brains, I think free-speech is a wonderful thing.

Bottom line: Apparently using the Lord's name in vain is acceptable, but gently addressing it's use is not.

Good to know. What thread was this in anyway?

The Covid thread.

Post #7987 was a snarky, blasphemous one-word response to an earlier post of mine.

I responded by quoting a portion of a Bible verse. Nothing snarky about my response. (Which I'm sure browser2920 will confirm.)

My gentle response was quickly deleted, while the one-word blasphemous snarky response remained.

Once again: I am not in favor of deleting the snarky post.

What I objected to was my gentle response to it being deleted.

addendum: Looks like Hoopie's offensive post was just deleted.

The entire post was a one word expletive? Even if that word was not offensive in itself, I would think it should be removed as both no content and strictly insulting.

Right.

Looks like it got deleted in last hour or so.

Two points. Firstly, you are using rather insulting language. I don't care at all - I'm not advocating for increasing the amount of civility on this forum - but our moderator likely does. Secondly, as a card-carrying member of the woke mob of pea brains, I'll note that I'm the one advocating our moderator restrict free speech less.

Calling someone, something gay as a pejorative (and not connected to a person actually being gay) is deeply offensive. As a 90s kid, this was part of my highschool parlance and I regret it.

I agree, Woke Mob of Pea Brains is "insulting", but in a fun, jovial way.

I'm fine with not using it any more, by the way.

I will henceforth no longer employ it unless far harsher snark is allowed moving forward.

I agree, you are a rare bird: A Leftist who favors free speech. I appreciate that.

Even though you and i disagree on most things, I generally find your posts thoughtful and worth engaging.

Calling someone "stupid" is insulting and rude. (Not merely, snarky.)

Calling someone "dum-dum" is what i would call "Snark Lite." Conveys the same idea, but in a fun and jovial way.

I agree. Calling something "gay" is offensive and shouldn't be used in any context.

I never did, but that was definitely done in the 80s as well. Sometimes it was directed specifically at more effeminate / less athletic boys.

When I was a schoolboy (1964-1976) kids would just flat-out call other people they didn't like f****ts.

It also wasn't specifically directed at anyone in this forum, or anyone at all in particular.

Not sure what the new mod thinks about vague insults made when referring to non-specific groups of people.

That was done in the late 70s-early 80s as well (along with the shorter version). Actually that word much more often than than the word "gay".

I think he said he was fine with light snark like "Woke Mob of Pea Brains", which is not directed toward any one individual. It refers to a rather nebulous, undefined group of people. I use it because I think it's funny.

"Gay" was seldom used by kids in my generation. It was always the insulting f-word equivalent instead.

I'm sure it's a touchy subject for you, since you probably get accused of this a lot, but it should be obvious I'm not trying to silence anyone and there's nothing even slightly controversial about "that's so gay" being a homophobic phrase.

I think if you were to step back for a moment and give this some serious thought, you'd come to see that it's not the word itself you have a problem with, but that you don't like the way that it's been used at times.

Except I believe that the two are inseparable at this point. At one time maybe the word had a technical meaning that was useful for social scientists and/or psychologists.

But now it's mostly just a club to smash people over the head with to avoid a serious discussion.

Edit: For the record, I never found you to be censorious or desirous of squelching discussion.