"Dan talks about Harley Davidson riders" ??? Maybe, but not in this video.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

"Dan talks about Harley Davidson riders" ??? Maybe, but not in this video.

It's a nod at the South Park episode "The F Word". The boys make the persuasive argument that inconsiderate douchebags, eg Harley riders, are the true faggots.

>> ^radx:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
"Dan talks about Harley Davidson riders" ??? Maybe, but not in this video.

It's a nod at the South Park episode "The F Word". The boys make the persuasive argument that inconsiderate douchebags, eg Harley riders, are the true faggots.


Ah. :-)

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by rottenseed.

that's so Harley Davidson...

Said perfectly.

"Context is everything"

There you go.

>> ^gwiz665:

"Context is everything"
There you go.


But some people want to make it their priority to represent a group of people that they're not a part of. These people can't determine intent or context.

Take that back, you sand monkey!
>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^gwiz665:
"Context is everything"
There you go.

But some people want to make it their priority to represent a group of people that they're not a part of. These people can't determine intent or context.

Dan Savage? Soooo gay.

What a delightfully gay spokesfaggot!

He's so white.

(Somehow, that's the only commonly accepted color allowed in such a sentence.)

^Has this been sifted already? That was great *promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 5:58am PDT - promote requested by original submitter acidSpine.

>> ^acidSpine:

^Has this been sifted already? That was great promote


http://videosift.com/video/Simon-Amstell-s-Take-On-Katy-Perry-s-Ur-So-Gay

Yeppers, I was on it!

I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.

And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.

When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.

Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.
And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

What? so those of us that know what the word actually means can no longer use it as it is intended?
Just because some group is labeled with a term doesn't mean all other meaning goes out the window.

If some group starts getting labeled as (insert random word) guitars - do we change the meaning of the word and stop using it in it's original context? - I tend to agree with him, that it's a non-issue as long as we deem it so. Make an issue of it and it becomes an issue. Words can have more than one meaning. Use it in a slang way, it's original meant way or use it in a derogatory way and the outcome of a word can mean many things. It's all how it was intended.



>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

I wish he'd said more on this.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.
And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.


I see your point, and I would never want a kid to feel picked on, or alone. But if that's the way it works, then why doesn't gay still mean happy? And shouldn't gay kids be happy about the fact they're called happy? No, because the meaning of the word changed. Just like it will again.

See, what needs to happen is, you have to let the word move on. If we keep acting like the words "gay" or "fag" are bad, then they always will be. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever just go away.

I'm incredibly lazy. I've learned not to get offended when people call me that. Even if they mean it in a negative way. What we should really be teaching people is that WORDS CAN'T HURT YOU. We need to move past the era of incantations and spells.

If what you're suggesting actually happened, that the words "female" or "jewish" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap", then people would use those words precisely because they offended people. And the more anyone tried to "stamp them out", they would just become more and more powerful. Seriously.

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

I don't think it's sufficient to tell people to ignore it, that just because it's a word it shouldn't hurt them. As human beings, we tend to care about what others, individuals, groups, or society in general, think about us. One needs to feel as if they're being spoken and referred to with the appropriate respect in order to feel accepted. Maybe the words themselves don't hurt, but the intentions certainly do. So while I agree that context is everything, I don't see how you can just brush it off when somebody calls you lazy and means it negatively. Do you not care at all about whether that person respects you? What if it was a loved one calling you lazy? Would that not hurt at all?


And FlowersIn HisHair, you're right, people don't say "Jewish" and mean "anything a bit crap". It's actually used derogatorily in very specific situations when referring to somebody who is acting self-servingly. Eg. "You Jew-ed me," or "You ripped me off, don't be such a Jew". Given the obvious negative connotation behind these statements, and the clear connection between the derogatory use of the word Jew and stereotypes about Jews, I can't imagine any Jew hearing the word being use that way without feeling bad.


Which leads me back to the original conversation. I don't actually think the word "gay" is used to mean "anything a bit crap". I think it's meant to indicate that somebody is being "lame" (and yes, I know there's a slight irony in my use of the word. And not just lame, but acting like a pansy, in a non-masculine way. While the use of the word is often more general, it is most commonly to refer to someone who is acting in a way befitting the negative stereotype about "gay" people. It's not just a harmless word that has a general meaning of crappiness, but one that only has meaning because of the existing negative and harmful stereotypes about "gay" people.

However, just because people use Jew or Gay in a negative way, we don't let them have the words and declare them off limits. We continue to use it in an appropriate and respectful way. If people decide to use it in the negative way, that's might be their choice, but their use might infer something about the degree to which they accept and support certain harmful stereotypes. I'm not sure that I agree with Savage that the word is harmless.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.
And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

I see your point, and I would never want a kid to feel picked on, or alone. But if that's the way it works, then why doesn't gay still mean happy? And shouldn't gay kids be happy about the fact they're called happy? No, because the meaning of the word changed. Just like it will again.
See, what needs to happen is, you have to let the word move on. If we keep acting like the words "gay" or "fag" are bad, then they always will be. They will never, ever, ever, ever, ever just go away.
I'm incredibly lazy. I've learned not to get offended when people call me that. Even if they mean it in a negative way. What we should really be teaching people is that WORDS CAN'T HURT YOU. We need to move past the era of incantations and spells.
If what you're suggesting actually happened, that the words "female" or "jewish" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap", then people would use those words precisely because they offended people. And the more anyone tried to "stamp them out", they would just become more and more powerful. Seriously.

This again comes down to context.

See you are making the association that when the word "gay" is used in replace of "lame", that it is a direct reference to "being gay is lame", which is not the case. It is just the word "lame", stop, no association with sexual preference.

The point that Dan is making, is the word used in a society that is openly accepting of homo/hetro relationships, it would be a non-issue, the distinction would be obvious and no one would be of any offense and as he points out, the term for homosexuality may in fact change again.

His issue is with policing words as black or white, when language is much more grey. Yes we don't live in this perfect world but we shouldn't police the english language because of it, rather try and educate, promote use towards it.

For example, when two homosexuals use the term "gay" between each other, much like the word "nigga", it it understood how this word is being used. Why can't that same privilege be afforded to a hetrosexual person who is in full support, understanding and acceptance of being a homosexual? There should be no more remorse involved because the user is not directly in the minority.

Censorship has never solved anything and if you tell people "Don't ever use the gay word like that!", you don't get a good result. The people who used it negatively will use it even *stronger* and be fulfilled that it effected you so much. The key to acceptance is commonality, not further isolation.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I do hate to disagree with Mr Savage, who speaks very well about the practicalities of sex, and whose opinion and good sense I generally trust and revere. But to dismiss this as simply the "evolution of language" is damaging, and in fact misses the point. The use of the word "gay" to mean anything "a bit generally rubbish" is itself founded on homophobia. Kids call things they don't like "gay" because they consider homosexuality to be undesirable; now how is that supposed to make gay kids, reluctant to come out for fear of persecution, feel about what they are? What if "Jewish", or "female" came to mean "anything a bit generally crap"? Would there be a serious and concerted effort to stamp out such a perversion of the language that a group had used to describe itself? You bet your ass there would.
And yes, "gay" used to mean something else, language evolves, blah blah. That's fine if the word in question doesn't identify a vulnerable group that is still fighting for acceptance and equality on an individual and global level.

i never let anyone dictate how i should feel about myself based on their limited understandings and poor vocabulary.
words will always be inadequate to truly express what we are feeling/thinking/dreaming and they will always evolve into more nuanced meanings.
savage pointed out the pivotal crux of language:context.

speaking only for myself i dont really appreciate faggot too much,i prefer cunt.now THAT is a great word.
and i am never letting go of "gay" that word fits in to waaaay too many situations,none of which have to do with homosexuality.

context and intent can be fairly easily discerned for anyone who is paying attention and has half a brain.
for those that take offense to these words..out of context..well,i suspect they may take offense to a great many things and i for one am not going to stop being me in order to appease someones tender sensibilities based on an archaic and irrelevant meaning.

WHERE THE FUCK DO HARLEYS COME INTO THIS VIDEO?!? AM I THE ONLY ONE CONFUSED!?

>> ^MarineGunrock:

WHERE THE FUCK DO HARLEYS COME INTO THIS VIDEO?!? AM I THE ONLY ONE CONFUSED!?


Watch more South Park. Seriously, it's a great episode. One of the best.

"bi-curious?"

Stimulus, just to answer your question real quick. When someone calls me lazy, and there's a negative connotation to it, I do hear it. But I know I'm lazy because I AM lazy. No one knows better than me. And I generally consider those people to be idiots for pointing out the obvious, it's not like I make it a secret.

The fact is, I make up for being lazy by being incredibly smart.

@MarineGunrock

Yes, but where does it come into play with Dan Savage?
>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
WHERE THE FUCK DO HARLEYS COME INTO THIS VIDEO?!? AM I THE ONLY ONE CONFUSED!?

Watch more South Park. Seriously, it's a great episode. One of the best.
"bi-curious?"

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by littledragon_79.