Someone calls you 'gay' as an insult, what's your response/thoughts?
- Thread starter Archemetis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's kind of like in SLC Punk it's not that they're calling you gay. It's that they're giving you shit.
"Uh, you're a fag!"
"You wish
"
Being called gay as an insult usually only has an affect when you happen to be in the awkward teenage years of being unsure about your own sexuality. Though it's probably the case that the person throwing the insult around is in the same position, so is projecting their own insecurities on to others.
Or is just an idiot.
"You wish
"Being called gay as an insult usually only has an affect when you happen to be in the awkward teenage years of being unsure about your own sexuality. Though it's probably the case that the person throwing the insult around is in the same position, so is projecting their own insecurities on to others.
Or is just an idiot.
I read your post properly after posting my response, like I said I would.Mimsofthedawg said:sure you are, but my post was actually addressing a greater issue rather than targetting specifically your own.Archemetis said:
So I think I'm ok with my post, too.
After much thought, I declare that we're both ok with our posts.
My usual response to something like that would have to be something equally as childish and pointless, such as "Your mom's a ******!".
I don't take things like that seriously at all, I figure if they're telling you you're wrong in the first place, you'd have probably already guessed that he hasn't really grown up yet, and as such he's going to go for insults to make him feel manly.
More to the point I suppose, homosexual references have never bothered me. Most people that use them have no strong opinion on gays either way, and are just childish. I'm certainly not going to get offended on behalf of the gay population of the world. That would be stupid.
I don't take things like that seriously at all, I figure if they're telling you you're wrong in the first place, you'd have probably already guessed that he hasn't really grown up yet, and as such he's going to go for insults to make him feel manly.
More to the point I suppose, homosexual references have never bothered me. Most people that use them have no strong opinion on gays either way, and are just childish. I'm certainly not going to get offended on behalf of the gay population of the world. That would be stupid.
"Why yes, I am pretty happy."
(Gay = happy, queer = strange, fag = stick, ****** = pile of wood.. I mean.. Unless someone calls me a homosexual, I really don't care. If they do however call me a homosexual, I usually respond "I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for your boyfriend"
(Gay = happy, queer = strange, fag = stick, ****** = pile of wood.. I mean.. Unless someone calls me a homosexual, I really don't care. If they do however call me a homosexual, I usually respond "I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for your boyfriend"
Eh, the first thing that came to mind was LittleKuriboh's Pegasus. But yeah, that guy sure sent off a vibe.Snowden said:
I guess it depends on the culture. In Poland being called a cwel is very much derogatory, as it means the person addressed is the regular recipient of surprise prison anal sex, placing him on the lowest tier of the social hierarchy. By implication it also means such a person has made peace with them being little more than a walking penis receptacle and having absolutely no dignity or respect, being in fact treated with extreme contempt as sub-human.
Come to think of it, it's probably one of the most hurtful insults we have, as the term cwel is one that functions as a part of inmate/convict dialect of Polish called grypsera - wikipedia even has an article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grypsera so I won't go into specifics. Few terms from the grypsera have spread to common polish and the term cwel is one that is not diluted by overuse in common language. Partially since "showing off" the knowledge of few select terms of the grypsera without having a so-so comprehension of the whole thing makes the speaker appear to be a low-life criminal-wannabe in the eyes of real recidivists.
****** is a term that has been diluted by overuse and isn't that hurtful. Even South Park did an episode that tried to redefine the meaning of the word "fag" as an obnoxious person regardless of any paraphilia the person may have an affinity for.
Naturally when someone pulls the ****** card and resorts to ad hominem attacks the discussion is over - no point in wasting energy on someone whose frustration reaches a point where he considers insults valid arguments. When debating an issue online on sites like youtube I personally respond with a comment the opponent can relate to - for example by saying "Like the time that rabid mutt fucked your crack whore of a mum?" - which is almost guaranteed to result in a poorly typed and amusing string of more or less creative profanity. Of course doing so on reputable forums will not be a good idea.
Interestingly, being called a homosexual/****** is still more derogatory than being called a zoosexual/goatfucker. And being called a pedosexual/kiddiddler is more of a serious accusation than just a generic insult.
Come to think of it, it's probably one of the most hurtful insults we have, as the term cwel is one that functions as a part of inmate/convict dialect of Polish called grypsera - wikipedia even has an article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grypsera so I won't go into specifics. Few terms from the grypsera have spread to common polish and the term cwel is one that is not diluted by overuse in common language. Partially since "showing off" the knowledge of few select terms of the grypsera without having a so-so comprehension of the whole thing makes the speaker appear to be a low-life criminal-wannabe in the eyes of real recidivists.
****** is a term that has been diluted by overuse and isn't that hurtful. Even South Park did an episode that tried to redefine the meaning of the word "fag" as an obnoxious person regardless of any paraphilia the person may have an affinity for.
Naturally when someone pulls the ****** card and resorts to ad hominem attacks the discussion is over - no point in wasting energy on someone whose frustration reaches a point where he considers insults valid arguments. When debating an issue online on sites like youtube I personally respond with a comment the opponent can relate to - for example by saying "Like the time that rabid mutt fucked your crack whore of a mum?" - which is almost guaranteed to result in a poorly typed and amusing string of more or less creative profanity. Of course doing so on reputable forums will not be a good idea.
Interestingly, being called a homosexual/****** is still more derogatory than being called a zoosexual/goatfucker. And being called a pedosexual/kiddiddler is more of a serious accusation than just a generic insult.
The second one. As I explained being called a cwel isn't just an insult, it's probably the most degrading word that one could expect to hear. Ergo Poland falls outside your definition of a civilized society. In fact, most of Eastern Europe doesn't qualify as civilized either - and that's just from personal insight.Imperator_DK said:
You're making an assumption that your culture is some sort of global standard and anyone who doesn't embrace it is inferior - in this case uncivilized. I think there's a fancy word to describe people who think like that.
Well, considering that your word Cwel has a more extensive - and negative - meaning than the neutral word "Gay" has, not necessarily. Only if that is the only word available and used to describe them - and they're thus discriminated by default - would its common use make those aspects of the cultures despicable and uncivilized by my chosen ethical standards (and some UN and EU declarations). Or at least any individuals in them who actually hold such discriminatory views I would consider so, since cultures and subcultures vary greatly within nations, and little can thus be said on them overall.archont said:
Since no one should be given greater respect or better treatment than they're willing to extend to innocent others as an original position, I see no problem in reflectively labelling them as such if - and only if - they do the same to gay people.
There certainly are! "Human rights advocate". Liberal might do as well.
Cultural relativism might be all good and well, but I of course have every bit as much - or little - right to judge the worth of others (and their culture) as those others have to judge the worth of gay people (and their (sub)culture). You can hardly go around judging gay people and not expect that to reflectively have an adverse effect on how others who strongly disagree view you.
EDIT: Anyway, I also happen to know there's at least one Polak on here who's openly gay, so it's hardly all of Poland that can't handle gay people or even outright discriminates them.
As statistically some 10 % of a population will be LGBT people, that's an estimate of some 3,88 million in Poland, plenty to form a significant subculture that obviously isn't too hostile to being gay. Add to this all the progressive liberal straight people, Atheists (usually, at least) and those who simply don't care about the issue either way, and Poland will probably be considerably less unified in its view on gay people than is suggested.
Thus it's only parts of the culture - Conservative Catholicism chiefly, I'd think - that's infested with discrimination. No need to draw the geographical nation(s) hosting all these differences into it.
My response is to tell them to go and fuck themselves, and possibly to go and suck a dick if I think that they will be particularly offended by it. I may also retort "shut your hole you fucking cumdumpster", they have no regard for offence by using "gay" as a synonym for bad/useless/rubbish/whatever then I have no regard for their offence and will fashion the most outrageous and colourful insult that I can come up with.
Other than that they end up sounding to me the same that teachers sound to Charlie Brown - just noise, nothing else existing on my mental radar, they become nothing to me.
Other than that they end up sounding to me the same that teachers sound to Charlie Brown - just noise, nothing else existing on my mental radar, they become nothing to me.
Correct, the meaning goes beyond the strict word homosexual. The polish language is very flexible in use and reuse of swear words. Amusingly so, in fact: http://www.polishforums.com/general-language-17/polish-swear-words-139/Imperator_DK said:
Nontheless, the default meaning of the verb to cwelić is to have a homosexual encounter. Naturally that's not the only word for it, as there are always medical and/or latin-based neutral words. Bottom line is, it's definitely a valid insult. It's not quite clear if gays are being discriminated by default, even to me. Their presence certainly is tolerated, although not welcome.
It's a touchy subject so I'd appreciate if you'd avoid pulling a reductio ad extremum - it's clear that there's something wrong with a society that actively hunts out and castrates homosexuals, but we're not talking about an extreme case here.
That's not someone I'd call a liberal. Closer to a left-wing extremist if you want to go that way. You're free to keep on guessing though.
You certainly have a right to judge other cultures and/or people. However I was hoping that someone who considers him/herself a liberal would be able to, for the purpose of a debate, go beyond this kind of simple thought. Refrain from subjective judgement and acknowledge prejudices as a fact of life that can't be handwaved away or used as an excuse to do the same. You can't keep the moral highground and use the eye for an eye rhetoric simultaneously.
I wouldn't call it that. It's more of an issue of gayness being a negative, pathetic and repugnant trait. Not in everyone's eyes naturally. Think of your reaction if a completely normal bloke would openly and publicly state that he enjoys having sex with horses, and he'd be saying it serious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_(film) - you probably wouldn't punch the guy, spit in his face or anything as extreme, but wouldn't like to be seen talking to him at parties.
Also I can't find any real life evidence to support the figure of 10%. It appears that the LGBT community goes to great lengths to hide their identities over here - and frankly as long as they do, it's irrelevant how many LGBT people we have, as they live in their world and we live in ours, without conflicts of any sort.
It's not an issue of Conservative Catholicism. Sure, they're the people who are actually active in their support of heteronormativity and critique of homosexuality. The others just take homosexuality as a negative trait - status quo - without further exploring the topic.
Also, the only thing I believe in, religion-wise, is Valhalla. Other than that I'm an atheist.
To me it is clear that there's something wrong with a society that discriminates based on harmless factors no matter how it's done. As I wrote, the methodology in dealing with it should be reflective, meaning that it'll be no more extreme than is practised by the discriminators. And it's limited by human rights and international law anyway.archont said:
If the description of a certain group is useable as an insult - the strongest one even - then I think it's safe to say they're being discriminated...
"Liberal" - in one definition at least, since fittingly there's no real authoritative one - refers to someone who judge only based on the harm principle. There's no requirement that one has to accept - or even tolerate - discriminatory practises which violate it.
Being soft on discrimination or discriminators in methodology is not - conceptually - a liberal trait. That's more of a leftist hippie thing. Tough-on-unethicy approaches may be (far) more common amongst those with more conservative ideals, but the liberal side actually has its hardliner hawks too.
Just why can't one keep the moral high ground while punishing wrongdoers? Surely there can be right and wrong regardless of what methods are used to promote it?
I care only to eradicate such discrimination in the most efficient way possible (legal under international law, of course), which I - currently - believe to be a tit for tat [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat] tactic. Though that choice might well also be because turning the other cheek never did suit me. Especially not when it is the cheeks of other less fortunate innocents who are being slapped.
What would we really discuss anyway? Normatively, I will never acknowledge discrimination of innocents as valid in any form, so all we could discuss would be the objective efficiency and ethicy on the various approaches and methodology in how to change it; to the extent you think it should be changed, of course...
I'm always open to understanding the problem - as a problem - and to discussions on better methodology - both in terms of efficiency and less collateral damage - and certainly don't pretend to be much of a diplomat (far too vocally idealistic for that...), but I see no way I could be convinced that discrimination based on sexuality between consensual adults could ever be just.
Not personally and privately socializing with someone - which is always OK no matter the cause - and publicly denouncing them or even denying them societal civil and economic rights and adequate legal protection against discrimination are entirely different issues.
Not that I would really resent talking to a zoophile as long as their acts with the animals did not violate the harm principle, but you're probably right that it would not a topic that would picker my interest enough to strike up a conversation on it. Though I have actually politely spoken to a few users of lolicon on this site, a topic which is certainly no less unpleasant to dwell on than bestiality, but again does not (provably) violate the harm principle and thus cannot be condemned.
The question of course would be why they go to such great lengths. And whether or not they should have to. That they're not visible does not preclude a large and active subculture though. And pride parades have found their way to Eastern Europe as far as I'm aware.
So it's also an issue with Conservative Catholicism. That further secular bigotry exist does not absolve them of their role in this.