Where'd it go?? "So Are you Gay?" thread

[spookiepants]

Wow, a few days ago a user started a thread here titled something like "So are you gay?" which requested people to comment on the use of "Gay" as a derogatory term on Rubi-Ka. The thread was pretty constructive. It didn't degrade into a flame war.

But now it is gone. Funcom deleted it.

That's a real shame because I thought the discussion was very educational to people. In that people dont realize that saying things like that are hurtful to a lot of gay/lesbian players.

Anyone know why this thread would have been deleted?

Does Funcom not want to address this issue? If not, deleting posts is a poor way of covering it up.

[spookiepants]

Oh, and for those who are interested, there is a Yahoo eMail group targeted towards gay/lesbian/bisexual players of Anarchy Online.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AO_gay/

So if you want to team/hunt/RP with people without having to endure anti-gay comments, this would be a good way for you to meet.

[________________Vamp]

Said poster would be me, for all those uninformed.

FC likes to hit homosexuals/bisexuals. Hate crime, hate crime, I say. They beat me to death with the nerf stick.

Brutality, every day, my friends. Brutality. Rodney King, Rodney King! oops, wrong guy.

[Buzzboy]

As I posted on the previous thread a lot of the use of the phrase "that's gay" is thoughtless rather than intended to be offensive - and as Blix mentioned in a previous post most people are apologetic when they realise they've offended someone.

That said people in game do need to realise that in a game like AO you cant tell anything about the person behind the alt (let alone that persons real life friends and relatives) - be it gender, ethnicity, religion, sexuality or whatever - so if chatting with people you dont know (be it team, guild or vicinity chat) people do need to stop and think whether what they say could be construed as offensive to someone listening

[spookiepants]

Originally posted by Buzzboy
and as Blix mentioned in a previous post most people are apologetic when they realise they've offended someone.

well, I think I said *most* people are. there are of course some who lash back and act like idiots.

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

I had a post that summed up to about "both versions of the word 'gay' are words and the offensive one usually does not refer to homosexuals to offend them in the process." Rock & roll music doesn't really refer to people acting like rocks rooling down a hill, so the offensive version of the word "gay" does not usually refer to homosexuals as being "lame".
I hope that didn't get it deleted.
There was one post that would probably be offensive (I am not one who can judge) a few after mine, but I don't know who may have posted after them because the thread was gone when I returned about 10 hours later.

[spookiepants]

Yeah, I know the post you're refering to. I won't mention the user here, since I don't want to risk another flame message.

Maxor, although I don't agree with your position, I think your input was good. A lot of people don't equate their negative use of the word 'gay' with actual people, faces. I think that show's they have no bad intentions.
But It isn't the same as "rock and roll" that you used in your analogy. They are different for a few reasons.
"Rock and Roll" isnt used to insult.
Rocks have no personal identity behind them.

People use the insultive term 'gay' often because it is so easy for them to do it. They don't think.
Try and replace "gay" with any other social group.
How would you react if someone typed : "Jeww!!!!" when they were insulting or making fun of something? It wouldn't sound so innocent then.

[________________Vamp]

Yeah. Blix says it best with the "Jew" reference.

You know, I find it especially interesting that (And I'm not making a stereotype, so be fair.) a lot of African Americans tend to be discriminatory in a prejudiced way, as well as using the word '******' more than any other clique or group I've encountered. Once again, I know it's a grey touchy area, so I don't intend to insult anyone of said denomination. I find this interesting because at the same time, they preach and biztch about being discriminated and having their anscestors enslaved. And I will not refute that. It's true that we live in an unfair society and obviously there was a, ehem, slave situation (vast understatement) in the United States. I find it incredibly hypocritical and idiotic that ANYONE would whine about being discriminated on and then have the kijones to go and promote the use of "gay" and "******" as derogatory terms.

Please bear with me here. I know that it's a very sensitive example, but it IS something that needs to be taken into context, none the less. Anyone who knows me knows that I never intend to make racial and/or prejudiced insults on that level.

Keep up the healthy input people. Blix is doing a great job.

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

Blix, here are a few better examples:
if someone calls me a "nut", they are not refering to a food or hold anything against it.
if someone calls me a "prissy" (OMG, they actually edited out what I first wrote), they often have nothing against cats..
if someone calls me a "SOB", they are not insulting either of my parents or hold anything against female dogs
if someone calls me an "***", they hold nothing against donkeys or mules (or democrats, as the 'donkey' was actually a jackass in an editorial strip where the mascot was first created, but the democrats made the best of it. Republicans are content with the elephant.)
if someone calls me a "bastard", they are not comparing me to a person with only one parent.
if someone calls me "retarded", they usually hold nothing against people with mental problems.

How's that? Every word in the english laungage has more than one definition, and many things can become offensive if all definitions are considered.

[Redrazors]

Neither food, cats, dogs, donkeys, your parents or illegitimate children are discriminated against that much in our society (ok there are animal rights issues). People with mental health problems are discriminated against, and people could well be offended by the use of the word retarded. Gay people are discriminated against in our society and people could therefore be offended by the use of the word gay in a derogatory sense,

The point being there is no absolute meaning of language, its all related to power differentials, and the same word can have lots of different connotations depending on who said it.

Compare the use of the word "******" between a white person and a black person. The former use probably is an act of racism, while the latter is probably a radical emphasis of enduring oppression and discrimination. Same word, very different meanings - because of power differentials and who says the word.

<to mod, please don't edit out what is obviously an offensive word out of context, cause the point is important>

[________________Vamp]

Thanks to RedRazor, for bringing into light a few things I was cautious of saying.

Maxtor, I find your defense of using "gay" in a condescending manner first of all, paper thin. And using the word "nut" as an example is outright childish and ill-thought. In fact, that has to be the most laughable and simply worst defense for a SLANDEROUS word that I have ever heard. Who would actually care if someone was insulting a macadamia.

The point is, this thread is about words that actually have some *affect* on other people. Perhaps you are too unintelligent to understand this.... and I think you are, especially since you're actually in essense promoting the misuse and abuse of this word. Using food and mentally impaired human beings as your defense is pretty low and shows serious lack of judgement.

I'd like to nicely ask you to either not bother posting in this thread, or at least think before you do so again.

[lilnymph]

Maxter, I understand what you are saying, however I think you are wrong. The point with these words is they are designed to insult someone. for that to happen, the meaning of the word MUST be something insult. Bastard is insulting because you are suggesting someone is illegitimate, SOB you are insulting the persons family. Ass you are calling someone an ass, meaning they are stuborn. For gay to mean lame and be an insult, you are, wether you like it or not, saying Gay people are lame. There is no way round this. You keep telling us you are an intelligent person maxter, if this is try, you shouldn't have ANY trouble thinking up other ways to say lame, and insult people should you

And Maxter, untill you understand the feelings behind gay pride parades, I will let you off for thinking they are lame.

hugs

lilnymph

[______________hobbes]

Intelligence, insight and the ability to communicate define the merit of a post on this forum.

National origin, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, social standing, education and age are all merely matters of speculation to the reader. What a unique level playfield this is. What a great opportunity for people with different backrounds and experiences to discuss common topics.

It is this great potential which has lead to my disproportionate disappointment with this forum in general, but threads like these are a welcome aberration.



I must admit I have used the word "gay" to mean lame, but to me the word has been so far removed from its origin, that its original derragatory connotation does not conciously cross my mind.

After reading threads in this forum (see also.. "AO for Kids") I will now change this habit, rather than defend it. You can either dig in to attempt to justify your point of view, regardless of right or wrong, or you can use the perspectives of others to broaden your worldview. We all grow up in such a narrow field of view.

A philospher once stated that to make a society just, you should compose the laws blind to your own identity. So if you favor a caste system, a dictatorship, or slavery, you must be willing to abid by this if you are revealed to be the slave. This is a good model for how we should intereact with each other on the forum and in real life. Neutral to the identity of ourselves and our conversant.



Now, for a little ****e!

If a female homosexual is a lesbian (from the Greek isle of Lesbos), what is the male homologue? It seems so obvious, but I can't think of it?

I strongly believe, that in most cases, homosexuals are born, not made. I have liked females since before kindergarten, I really didn't know what I wanted from them until my testicular tumor started to control my mind, but always I knew I liked their smell, touch and presence.

Hell yeah, I (we all) pretended to hate each other as grade schoolers with cootie spray and such, but as Shakespeare said, "Me thinks the woman doth protest too much".

Anyway, did any of you sit down and vote. Did you logically tally up the pros and cons of women vs men. 3 to 2 is the final score, looks like I'm going with the ladies. Hell no, you didn't, you have no concious control over this.

End part 1

[______________hobbes]

Actually, this is the ****y part.

Given in Part 1, that sexual orientation is not a conscious choice, it can, therefore; not be "good" nor "evil", just a biological program.

So, in this respect, I have nothing against homosexuality, it is a variant of human behavior.



The Kinsey Institute published that sexuality is a spectrum, ranging from 1 to 7, with each pole representing the extremes of sexuality (pure homosexual vs pure heterosexual). They went on to suggest that most people were somewhere in between these two radical poles, like we were all to some degree bisexuals.

I think they are totally wrong and this is why gays (I refuse to type homosexual again as the word is too long) are so severely discriminated against.




People don't understand them. There is no common ground. It's black and white not shades of grey. If I were drunk and horny in a room full of male movie stars and an ugly chick. I'm still going for her, no latent bisexual urges are surfacing. This is the truth, not macho BS and I know most will agree with me.

Yes, I can look at a man and think that he is handsome or well built, I can even shower with him at the gym, but this is really nothing more than an assessment of the competition. What I'm really thinking is.."I know women will find his attributes favorable to mine and I am jealous".

No physical arousal period. It is physical arousal which defines your sexuality. If I shower with naked women, my response is not cerebral, but more errr... visceral.



So intellectually, I have nothing against homosexuals.

In reality, they evoke disgust in me. One night I was at a local dance club and this guy taps me on the shoulder and says that his friend wants to meet me. I turn around and look in the general direction he is pointing. Nobody is there but a guy. I say, "I think she left?". He says "No, he didn't".

Even as I type this, I still remember my disgust. I told him that he was in a straight bar in the state of Texas and that the next person they pulled this stunt on was likely to knife them, and that they should probably leave. See, I am a nice guy, but it still doesn't change my innate programming.

When a girl walks by and drags her hand down my arm and I find her unattractive, I still feel flattered, the touch does not bother me. I usually will say that my girlfriend doesn't approve of that and she will move on, no harm, no foul.

If a guy were to do that, you'd better get a bucket 'cause I'm going to puke. I am not the type to need be macho and "kick his ass", because I am comfortable with myself. However, if he were to do it again, there would be trouble. A non-ambiguous forceful reply.



Even non-sexual scenarios they can disgust me. Yesterday, I was flipping through the channels and started watching this show about a man decorating his living space. It took me 10 minute to realize that I was not watching an SNL parody of gay men. From his clothing, to his voice, to his arrangment of monochromaic colors, to his immaculately groomed and dyed beard, he was the stereotypical homosexual- he was Christopher Lowell. I just shook my head and laughed. He and I must come from different planets. I couldn't connect with him.

Anyway, I know most of you homosexual men are invisible, you are the newscaster, a beer drinking sports fan, a tough guy and that married man with children, not the stereotype.

I want to make it clear, that I respect peoples variances and I don't judge. If you are homosexual and posting on this forum, I probably don't know it and in disussing topics where we have common ground, I probably even like you.

It is just in person, that you make me uncomfortable, because I am a man and I know how men think. I feel uneasy when a stranger looks at me in the locker room, I don't want friends who are looking for an opportunity when I go out and get drunk. I guess it all goes back to "When Harry met Sally". Men don't have female friends they don't want to sleep with, even if they pretend they don't (I'm talking "friendship", not a casual acquaintance). Same with gay men hanging out with straight guys.


What the hell is my point??????


I was just letting my young straight friends know that it is ok to have a conflict between your intellectual self and your animal/emotional self. You can still be a healthy tolerant person, a good person and still feel dislike or distaste for people who are different from you based on your innate programming.

[________________Vamp]

Hobbes, my friend. I'd like to thank you for giving this thread one of the most well-written and intellectually grand posts that I have ever seen. I'm very glad that you weren't touchy to say that homosexuals can be disgusting to you. In my opinion, that's a natural thing, depending on who you are. I think that this is comparable to that one armed girl that you may see on the street. You look at this fellow human being and although she is just that, you may get a chill down your spine. This is simply because it is something that is very unfarmiliar and uncomfortable.

What it comes down to is human nature and conditioning.

I'd love to write more, but the relatives are here. Time to celebrate Giftmas. Happy holidays and love to everyone.... er, at least everyone worth loving

[_____________Welzzin]

I might get jumped on for saying this, but I feel that I have to say it.

I believe that if people of different sexual, racial, gender or whatever background don't like the use of certain words or phrases that they think are derogitory(sp?) then they shouldn't be using them either. Some people might think that since some black people call each other n***** that it's ok for them to do it as well. Same applies to homosexuals and any other group that finds themselves offended by a word or words. Now, having said that, i'm by no means a racist. I think folks would be better off if everybody just butted the hell out of everyone else's business.

[Caleena]

So finally a well written post, and a possible serious group of individuals posting in it.

How rare for the AO boards.

Well, my own sexual preference has nothing to do with this post, however my social circle does. In said circle I have a lot of gay and lesbian friends. In this group being ‘straight’ is a rare commodity indeed. Within this group the use of the words ‘gay’, ‘******’, ‘****’ and ‘queen’ are used commonly. Welzzin made a very good point that within certain demographics it is acceptable for certain phrases and words to be used, however outside of these circles it is a taboo to use them.

The use of derogatory names in a mmorpg or a char room used to make me frown, and leap on the defensive wagon, but I find myself not doing it anymore. In a faceless and nameless environment it is a blessing and a curse that people do not know you ‘physically’ and cannot judge your character by how you use your mannerisms and gesticulations.

It is the fact that people cannot judge this that I let my once major pet peeve go. Possibly in the social circles that these people travel in ‘those’ words are used frequently to describe something or someone and the real significance and interpretation are not fully understood.

I am not saying that I am a bigger person for letting it go, and I am not suggesting that we all should, hover we should realize that there are a lot of people that do not understand fully what gravity the words they use have. So sometimes I just let things fly, but on occasion you will hear me utter phrases like ‘potty mouth’ and ‘ooh someone had a nasty experience as a child’, so much so that I have them scripted.

So perhaps we should all learn a little tolerance, a kind reminder that inappropriate language is exactly that occasionally.

Regards,

Caleena

[spookiepants]

Wow Vamp,
You were pretty hard on Maxtor.

sure his arguements were bogus.

But his thoughts represent probably the majority of AO players right now. So it would be beneficial for him to continue to share his arguments in this thread.

I wonder what Funcom's thoughts are? They certainly havn't done anything to discourage 'gay' being thrown around as a derogatory term.

In some ways, they've encouraged it.

Can anyone find an example on the official Anarchy Online web site?

[__________Maxtor 1-7]

I'll try to combine a lot into this post, so;

RedRazors,
I used several examples so people could see similarities and differences in the words. As you say, "there is no absolute meaning of language", different words can follow different properties. Discrimination doesn't have much to do with the word unless you try to make it fit. I am forcing part of your post to work for me as an example and to magnify my point.
If you want to debate the n-word, send a tell to Maxtor6 or Maxadvent, the alt I play most right now. However, I will not be on much until the weekend because it is the holiday season and relatives want food. That word also works a lot more for your perspective than mine, obviously, so the argument is somewhat predictable.

Vamp,
I am trying to post an idea that the word is only offensive if you consider it to be offensive to your own preferences. If you want to read my post bit at a time and not consider the entity of it, you are free to do so.
It is quite strange that my defense of the word “gay” is paper-thin because I am not trying to defend it. If you read my entire post in the previous thread (which I will only refer to this time because my other posts were aimed at someone who saw it), you would have noticed that I was attempting to separate the word “gay” from “homosexual”. I figured that it is better to not use the word “gay” often as an insult a while ago, and have considered myself smarter and more mature than those who do so (mostly by knowing that many of the people who use the word as an insult are chatty, foul-mouthed, and simply stupid).
“The point is, this thread is about words that actually have some *affect* on other people. Perhaps you are too unintelligent to understand this” you have proven your point. Then again, if this thread is about words which have a personal effect on people, and you are trying to personally insult me (with some failure because I do not consider insults in an argument), you must consider yourself unintelligent also due to the fact that you consider me to be dumb for ‘defending’ (or, as you think, promoting) an insult (which I do not) while you do insult. According to this logic, I am smarter than you. If not, avoid insults (to prove me wrong in that sense, all you have to do is not insult me. Isn’t that easy?).
-was that one too fast or did I miss something? Doesn’t really matter, it put me in a good mood.
I am not trying to defend the insult, but wanted to begin the argument by establishing the fact that the word “gay” has two very different meanings which are usually not associated with each other. I hope to move past that someday and refine the subject of the argument




Time to discard the examples but keep the point (have the discussion evolve a bit)..
Lilnymph,
There were two basic types of words I used in the examples. First were words that are not offensive in their native terms, the second were used to insult or describe someone with bad or lower than normal qualities but also to insult people outside of those traits. I wanted to find a combination of the two but couldn’t quite think of one (“redneck” was the closest thing that came to mind but it is more comedy than insult). I’m sure I’ll find a clever way to insult people online, but it is much more primitive than in real life and cleverness isn’t quite as easily written or noticed.

I have very little against the majority of what people in gay pride parades want, but do not like how they are performed and some of the extremes. Guys in speedos should, under no condition, be allowed in public areas. I do not want to see what they want to show, and I believe most other people agree with me. However, females can get away with it under the condition that they look good. Also, some of the fringes of the gay pride parades are out of the question and destructive to the rest of society in my opinion. Male homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood because they have a much higher chance of getting temporary, permanent, or fatal diseases. However, some idiots in California (the source of a lot of idiocy, apparently. That much sun must be toxic) believe it is because of discrimination and want to endanger everyone else with various diseases (many without cures). Similar goes for adoption, and I do not believe any child should have two parents of the same gender.
AIDs researchers have been granted a horrendous amount of money by petitioning directly to the government, more money than any other major disease per person affected I believe. Private donations do not come from people who are sickened by those with AIDs by their preference (male homosexuals are much more likely to get AIDs than other people because of their preferance), but by people who pity those who are infected or hope it is cured before they get it. Gay pride parades make a habit of excluding normal couples (such as the ex-governor of California who wanted to have a float called ‘the normal people’) and disgust many people who may support what is desired. The parades should display what is tolerated by as many people as possible to gain support. Because politicians are elected, they must agree with the majority of the population. Someone could run on being for gay rights if enough people publicly supported gay rights movements (that has to include heterosexuals).
I do not think the parades are the best thing for homosexuals because they give the illusion that homosexuals are completely disgusting in every way possible (did I mention that leather and animals are a bit much?).


I'll update this later, when the vines leaching off the family tree stop using all my free time

[spookiepants]

ack!
Maxtor: I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and to help ya out. But you've really gone over the top with your last reply. I'm not sure if you were frustrated and just venting, or what, but you went way off topic into dangerous territory that I think exposed some issues you have beyond simple word useage:

Guys in speedos should, under no condition, be allowed in public areas. I do not want to see what they want to show, and I believe most other people agree with me. However, females can get away with it under the condition that they look good.

What on earth does this have to do with anything?

Also, some of the fringes of the gay pride parades are out of the question and destructive to the rest of society in my opinion.

Typically the fringes of any group are destructive to exstablishments. Thats why they are called fringe elements. Every group has them.

Male homosexuals are not allowed to donate blood because they have a much higher chance of getting temporary, permanent, or fatal diseases.

This is untrue. One's attraction to another does not make you more succeptable to disease. One's actions and behaviours do. You, like many uneducated people equate orientation with behaviour. And you interject a lot of assumptions in that. It is shameful that a group like Red Cross would deny blood donations so illogicly.

However, some idiots in California (the source of a lot of idiocy, apparently. That much sun must be toxic) believe it is because of discrimination and want to endanger everyone else with various diseases (many without cures).

Well so now we know you have something against California as well as gays. ha ha. but anyways, getting blood from gay people is not dangerous. Get blood from people infected with disease is.

Similar goes for adoption, and I do not believe any child should have two parents of the same gender.

Well on to the next off topic complaint of yours. You do not believe any child should have to parents of the same gender? ummm ok. Make sure your kids are raised that way. However I would never want the government to deny a child a loving, and nurturing home.

AIDs researchers have been granted a horrendous amount of money by petitioning directly to the government, more money than any other major disease per person affected I believe.

..And on the the next complaint of yours. We now move away from gay rights, and into the realm of government funding of medical research. Its sad Maxtor that you use the term "horrendous" to describe the large amount of funding going into research on the HIV virus. Hmm would it be ok if more people died then? Our society has made great achievements in retro-viral research. we now have combination drug therapies that span accross other diseases and we've gained tremendous knowledge in the field of viral genetics. all because of the HIV research efforts. Want the money spent elsewhere? Well rally behind a cause and lobby for more research funding. But its hurtful and shortsighted to complain about successful research done on HIV/AIDS

.. Gay pride parades make a habit of excluding normal couples (such as the ex-governor of California who wanted to have a float called ‘the normal people’) and disgust many people who may support what is desired.

"normal" couples?
If you think a float called "Normal People" would have been constructive as part of a gay pride celebration, then you are totally clueless.

I'll update this later, when the vines leaching off the family tree stop using all my free time [/B]

Please do update your post. I think that a lot of what you said is reactionary and I hope that you regret typing it. If you wish to edit out your remarks, please do so, and I'll edit my responses.

Of course you're free to keep them too, I supose. But there is really no point in argueing with you if you honestly support what you typed. These issues you brought up are way more inflamatory than can be discussed in a thread.