What exists in the negative space?

  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 12:23 AM GMT
    Frequently, when we speak or write, we use descriptive words that are exclusionary. It's not because we meant it to be that way-- it's because of our reaction, which is to perceive a binary opposite. This is a talking point amongst scholars in all the humanities and liberal arts-- history, politics, physics, feminism, and art, just to name a few.

    An example (and please do not judge me for this) is the term "str8." When I chose my screen name, it was after a lot of thought on this issue. I don't like the term "str8," because it presents a number of issues in the "negative space" that surrounds the term:

    Traditional conventional wisdom has it that "straight" or "str8" is good, whereas "gay" or "gay-acting" is bad. When we choose to identify as "str8," as many gay people often do in their profiles, it's a slap in the face to transsexuals, effeminate men, or even just feminists like me. I've got a deep voice, I am strong, and I dress in traditional "male" fashion, but I choose not to identify as "str8" because that entire concept seems elitist, alienating, and detrimental to our cause as a gay community who is fighting for their civil rights.

    Please take note that the above paragraph was only an example. If you would like to address that issue, please feel free to do so.

    However, I'm more interested in your opinions about other words that exclude. Do you that we commonly use terms, outside of the obvious slang, that inadvertently create feelings of inequality? If so, do you make an effort to avoid them? Do you think you should?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 4:51 AM GMT
    Why does it seem that simply existing is so difficult for some? Words naturally describe and encapsulate things and can even become weapons, but it is the mind that creates words. Where words end, innumerable possibilities begin. Quiet can teach you as much as words.

    Everything we see and know comes from fractured symmetries.
  • kinetic

    Posts: 1125

    Aug 19, 2009 6:02 AM GMT
    My feelings on this can best be described through the majesty of song...


    And also this, well actually VERY MUCH this!


    Its all about the context.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 6:31 AM GMT
    I call my friends gay, because they're gay; straight-acting or not.

    I don't think of the term, "straight", as good or bad.

    And I can't think of any other examples right now,...too sleepy.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 6:39 AM GMT
    kinetic saidAnd also this, well actually VERY MUCH this!


    Its all about the context.

    That was sort of Taoist:
    Tao Te Ching 1The Way that can be put into words
    is not the Infinite Way
    The words that represent finite things
    cannot really represent what is infinite.

    Something indescribable envelopes the Cosmos,
    but the descriptions give birth to created things.

    Unmoved by desire, all the "hidden" reality comes into view.
    Full of desire, the reality of the eyes is all you behold.

    Even so, the invisible and visible
    emanate from one origin.
    The origin is a deep darkness.

    Deep, dark, indescribable emptiness.
    So begins all that can be grasped.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 7:59 AM GMT
    I think for some reason there is an inherent desire in language to define many things in terms of what we would consider their opposites. I think it can begin with very basic fundamental things, and having a universal definition of those things, we attach those definitions to other things as a way of explaining and defining what can sometimes be completely different and unrelated concepts.

    Lets use Light and Darkness as an example. The physics and philosophy of it aside, our understanding of what Light and Darkness are is rather fundamental to us as a species. One cannot really be explained without comparing it to the other. In simplest terms we explain Darkness as the absence of Light. Unentwining these two concepts without going into Physics 101 or applying a philosophical bent to it can be problematic at best.

    Now given our basically diurnal physiology, it goes to reason that some point in our evolution we began to make certain judgments and associations with the respective conditions. Light becomes seen as more favorable. We could hunt, gather and generally function better when we can see what we're doing during the daytime. It is usually warmer too. We do not, as a species, see very well in the dark and our circadian rhythms have developed to encourage us to sleep during this time where we really aren't designed to get as much done as when the sun is up.

    This is a gross generalization and may not be true of all languages and cultures, but perhaps as language developed it was easy to attach the positive and negative associations and linguistic representations of literal Light and Darkness to other concepts. For example. Why do we differentiate between light and dark humor and why do we use the words light and dark to define these different tones? One might evoke a more mainstream socially acceptable laugh and the other might cause us to laugh at those things that might be edgy or funny because society says we aren't supposed to think of them that way. Another analogy can be made with music. Someone with a musical ear might describe a piece or even an instrument's tone as Bright or Dark. One might evoke happy more lighthearted feeling while the other more serious, somber or even melancholy feeling. A person could probably spend all day coming up with examples. Why do we mean something negative when we say someone is dark or black hearted? We are making a value judgment and once again using language tied back into the two original concepts of Light and Darkness Concepts that really cannot be explained independently of each other. One defines the other. One is perceived as negative and the other positive. And while this may not be a direct correlation to Dan's questions surrounding Gay and Straight, I feel there are perhaps some psychosocial parallels surrounding the evolution of what we can describe as the positive and negative space surrounding those and many other words.

    And just for the record, I believe that the best things in life occupy, and the greatest moments of our lives are lived somewhere in the infinite shades of gray between light and dark when we dance haphazardly on the border of what we might call this positive and negative space.

    Anyway, that's my 3am rambling unintelligible gibbering on the topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 8:15 AM GMT
    danisnotstr8 saidFrequently, when we speak or write, we use descriptive words that are exclusionary. It's not because we meant it to be that way-- it's because of our reaction, which is to perceive a binary opposite. This is a talking point amongst scholars in all the humanities and liberal arts-- history, politics, physics, feminism, and art, just to name a few.

    An example (and please do not judge me for this) is the term "str8." When I chose my screen name, it was after a lot of thought on this issue. I don't like the term "str8," because it presents a number of issues in the "negative space" that surrounds the term:

    Traditional conventional wisdom has it that "straight" or "str8" is good, whereas "gay" or "gay-acting" is bad. When we choose to identify as "str8," as many gay people often do in their profiles, it's a slap in the face to transsexuals, effeminate men, or even just feminists like me. I've got a deep voice, I am strong, and I dress in traditional "male" fashion, but I choose not to identify as "str8" because that entire concept seems elitist, alienating, and detrimental to our cause as a gay community who is fighting for their civil rights.

    Please take note that the above paragraph was only an example. If you would like to address that issue, please feel free to do so.

    However, I'm more interested in your opinions about other words that exclude. Do you that we commonly use terms, outside of the obvious slang, that inadvertently create feelings of inequality? If so, do you make an effort to avoid them? Do you think you should?



    I think that labels are useful starting points for identity. I think there are certain words which quite clearly have a malicious intent behind them, but also that there are many ambiguous terms for which the intent may vary. Finally I think that all language is liable to have a meaning construed that was not imparted.

    I do not think anyone identifying themselves as straight or gay inherently is an insult to anyone. There is no predetermined hierarchy between the two words, one can interpret gay as being inferior to straight, but then there is also the pride many gay people find that tells them that gay is not a negative label at all, that no one is 'above' them.

    To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, "Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent". Words only have the power you choose to give them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 8:23 AM GMT
    I never define myself as str8 acting just because I really have no idea what that means, except maybe slapping asses in a Hooters.

    I am gay. I drink beer almost exclusively, I workout daily. I drive a pickup. I own and shoot guns but I am not a gun nut. I have danced at White Parties and been to a few SuperBowls. I own boats. I like interior design. I have three str8 brothers that, except for the dancing at White Parties, are not any different from me. I have been told by several str8 women friends that I am the str8est guy they ever met and they had no idea I was gay, but what does that mean? That I am not what they assumed a gay guy is supposed to be?

    I just get tired of labels. Effeminate guys are cool. Butch guys are cool. Everything inbetween. I like cool people. I am gay. How I am labelled? Who knows and who cares?

    The world has pigeonholed us as this or that. BUT, why do we?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 8:26 AM GMT
    SundanceKid said

    The world has pigeonholed us as this or that. BUT, why do we?


    Those are probably the most profound words I have ever read on this site. What a way to hit the nail on the head.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 9:44 AM GMT
    Thanks, Ryan. Just an older guy's view point.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 9:56 AM GMT
    danisnotstr8 saidI dress in traditional "male" fashion


    I hope you got rid of those plaid shorts, danitude ;-)
  • Anto

    Posts: 2035

    Aug 19, 2009 11:19 AM GMT
    Frequently, when we speak or write, we use descriptive words that are exclusionary. ... However, I'm more interested in your opinions about other words that exclude. Do you that we commonly use terms, outside of the obvious slang, that inadvertently create feelings of inequality? If so, do you make an effort to avoid them? Do you think you should?


    Like these? "I like smart, cultured, handsome, masculine . guys."

    I don't think it matters, I also don't think it means binary opposite. The idea of something being opposite is itself usually created by us as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 11:20 AM GMT
    I find your argument fundamentally flawed on many points

    Words by their very nature are exclusionary, that is their purpose, and further more there is no such thing as a non-descriptive word, given the reason language evolved is to communicate, a word that describes nothing is purposeless and you will find the concept does not exist.

    If I say that the this is a chair, I'm using the word chair to communicate that it is in fact a chair, and that excludes about a billion other things it could be, it's not a book, a door, a sandwich etc

    Secondly
    I do not believe there to be a your concept of gay/st8, You are presenting it as if it were similar to gays arriving recently from a different environment and suddenly conforming to straight ideals when this is not the case.

    In the real world the behavior you conclude to be straight is actually (well "normal" but that word has picked up too many negative connotations from over zelously PC individuals) so I'll use "standard" (which means exactly the same thing but offends less because it's confined to usage by the intelligent segments of society who have better things to do than rise to such nonsense). No one is born gay, they may be born with the genetic inclinations to develop homosexual tendencies later in life circa puberty but as in infant they are born a standard male, thus the homosexual tendencies an individual exhibits are deviations* from their standard. Both in the sense of from the average of their common man and from the natural birth state.

    *deviation, deviant another word that has some how strikes up negative feelings in it's noun form from irrational people that don't see it simply means how much something differs from the mathematical average.

    You are implying that an individual is some how intrinsically gay and that any so called str8-acting behavior is a deviation from their gay standard when in fact it's the opposite.

    To reiterate an individual is a male, this carries a set of common expectations of behavior they exhibit, including among many other expectations is that they desire sex with females. even if the male deviates from this standard and other standards regarding effeminacy. There standard male behavior intrinsically does not change.

    Lastly is I use a word that makes someone else feel inadequate, that is that individuals problem not mine. If i want to offend someone and make them feel inadequate I will make it blatantly clear I'm doing so.

    Otherwise a plead the first and retain my right to try and better myself irregardless if exhibiting behavior I feel makes me a better individual makes someone else look like a worse individual.

    The alternative would be like accusing a law a bidding citizen that by not committing crime, and expressing reprehension at the thought of committing such acts they think they are better than and making criminals feel like inadequate members of the human species

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 12:41 PM GMT
    In the midst of the usual guy-above-you drivel what a pleasant surprise to find this little Wittgenstein-like examination of the limitations of language.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 2:45 PM GMT
    MsclDrew saidI find your argument fundamentally flawed on many points

    Words by their very nature are exclusionary, that is their purpose, and further more there is no such thing as a non-descriptive word, given the reason language evolved is to communicate, a word that describes nothing is purposeless and you will find the concept does not exist.

    If I say that the this is a chair, I'm using the word chair to communicate that it is in fact a chair, and that excludes about a billion other things it could be, it's not a book, a door, a sandwich etc

    Secondly
    I do not believe there to be a your concept of gay/st8, You are presenting it as if it were similar to gays arriving recently from a different environment and suddenly conforming to straight ideals when this is not the case.

    In the real world the behavior you conclude to be straight is actually (well "normal" but that word has picked up too many negative connotations from over zelously PC individuals) so I'll use "standard" (which means exactly the same thing but offends less because it's confined to usage by the intelligent segments of society who have better things to do than rise to such nonsense). No one is born gay, they may be born with the genetic inclinations to develop homosexual tendencies later in life circa puberty but as in infant they are born a standard male, thus the homosexual tendencies an individual exhibits are deviations* from their standard. Both in the sense of from the average of their common man and from the natural birth state.

    *deviation, deviant another word that has some how strikes up negative feelings in it's noun form from irrational people that don't see it simply means how much something differs from the mathematical average.

    You are implying that an individual is some how intrinsically gay and that any so called str8-acting behavior is a deviation from their gay standard when in fact it's the opposite.

    To reiterate an individual is a male, this carries a set of common expectations of behavior they exhibit, including among many other expectations is that they desire sex with females. even if the male deviates from this standard and other standards regarding effeminacy. There standard male behavior intrinsically does not change.

    Lastly is I use a word that makes someone else feel inadequate, that is that individuals problem not mine. If i want to offend someone and make them feel inadequate I will make it blatantly clear I'm doing so.

    Otherwise a plead the first and retain my right to try and better myself irregardless if exhibiting behavior I feel makes me a better individual makes someone else look like a worse individual.

    The alternative would be like accusing a law a bidding citizen that by not committing crime, and expressing reprehension at the thought of committing such acts they think they are better than and making criminals feel like inadequate members of the human species



    This is a thread about language. Yours needs some work. I can't even understand what you're saying. Irregardless is not a word.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 2:48 PM GMT
    Sparkycat saidIs this really the kind of foolishness you people worry about? This is the definition of having your head stuck up your ass.


    Dear Sparkycat,

    If you don't have anything nice to say, please don't say it at all.

    Much love,
    Daniel
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 2:52 PM GMT
    Anto saidFrequently, when we speak or write, we use descriptive words that are exclusionary. ... However, I'm more interested in your opinions about other words that exclude. Do you that we commonly use terms, outside of the obvious slang, that inadvertently create feelings of inequality? If so, do you make an effort to avoid them? Do you think you should?


    Like these? "I like smart, cultured, handsome, masculine . guys."

    I don't think it matters, I also don't think it means binary opposite. The idea of something being opposite is itself usually created by us as well.


    PLEASE. I did not take a stance. I posted a talking point, and I asked for your opinion on the matter. What I said in my profile is exactly what I prefer in a dating relationship. I'm sorry you feel left out. This is not a thread about my profile.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 3:07 PM GMT
    Another example:

    Black and White.

    Black is the opposite of white, right?
    I think not.

    "Black" might be defined as the absence of color. Blue, green, and yellow, then, are the opposite of black. Right? Color is the opposite of no color.


    What I'm getting at with this thought about language-- and it's just a thought-- is that I worry about the way we are taught as children. When I was a kid, and even through high school with the SAT, "antonym" recognition was an important part of tests. We are encouraged and even required to recognize binary opposites that many times don't exist.

    I wonder if this simple tenet of linguistic education spills over into our manner of everyday thinking? I wonder if people actually perceive man as the of woman, black as the opposite of white, and gay as the opposite of straight. And, when we self-identify as "good," do we then, on some subconscious level, perceive the "opposite" person as bad, without even giving it some thought?

    Look, I know that most of you don't think of people this way, and neither do I. I posted this topic because it's a valuable argument outside of this forum. Before you go judging my character or trying to call me a hypocrite, please just consider the ways that this argument could be used in the real world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 3:18 PM GMT
    Those guilty of vilifying a particular label for being too restrictive are often just as guilty of labeling themselves.

    For example, a lot of gay men reject the term 'gay'. Mistakenly taking it not as the meronym that it is ('gay' does bring to mind flamboyance) but as a metaphor for cross-dressing, effeminate homosexual men. They are themselves restricting its definition, not the other way around. Because the truth is anyone can push past these boundaries. Why stick to gay ballet dancers when you can also have gay construction workers?

    And yet these people often abandon it and adopt another entirely exclusionary label to define them. Like 'Str8 acting' or 'Androphile' or whatever catchy fancy words they happen to find. Especially certain pe0ple. *ahem* Who have gone as far as making fun of everyone else not like them as well as giving a very specific list as to what makes someone 0ne of them and what doesn't. What is the point then? When you complain about being 'gay' being too exclusionary, why go and make another more exclusive group instead of working on the original be more inclusive or abandoning every label altogether? It's hypocritical.

    Words evolve. What a certain term encompass and what it excludes shift over time. Once upon a time, 'Vandal' meant a member of a very specific Germanic tribe that invaded Rome, nowadays 'vandal' means what? Once upon a time 'Heathen' meant an inhabitant of the highlands of the British isles, now it means a practitioner of a non-Christian faith. Once upon a time, 'Consul' meant the elected rulers of the Roman Republic, nowadays they are simply diplomats. Once upon a time, the 'Cosmos' was a flat Earth inside a sphere with holes and the Sun and moon orbiting around it, now the Cosmos extends far beyond what we can ever know. Labels can be pushed farther so they exclude less people.

    Even so, they will never be all-encompassing, or they would lose their meaning. It's like removing everyone's names and then trying to find one specific person. Like thus:

    "Hello, my name is ANYONE and I would like to see ANYONE who is a friend of ANYONE. Can you help me?"

    Labels are there because it's important in nailing down abstractions. To give an idea of what something is and what it isn't. By rejecting one label, you are simply adopting a new one. You can never be 'label-less', no matter how hard you try.

    But, as we all know already (and perhaps the source of this wondering) labels never define you fully, as they are part of language - the invention of a group of people to better understand their components. You will fit in better with one label than the other. It's more important to keep an open mind and not be afraid of changing labels if it doesn't suit you anymore, than rejecting labels outright.

    If you do wish to name yourself something that will describe you fully, I suggest using a nonce. LOL. Because that's the only way you can truly be what you really are and not what you seem to be based on the agreed definitions of preexisting words.

    Try labeling yourself a Liasahghjfically-Inclined Kdsfsdjflksjdlsdgsgsic and Usdsfkjfdsfsical PersonĀ©. icon_lol.gif And if someone asks what that means, just describe yourself. LOL

    viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=446
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 3:20 PM GMT
    MsclDrew saidI find your argument fundamentally flawed on many points

    Words by their very nature are exclusionary, that is their purpose, and further more there is no such thing as a non-descriptive word, given the reason language evolved is to communicate, a word that describes nothing is purposeless and you will find the concept does not exist.

    If I say that the this is a chair, I'm using the word chair to communicate that it is in fact a chair, and that excludes about a billion other things it could be, it's not a book, a door, a sandwich etc

    Secondly
    I do not believe there to be a your concept of gay/st8, You are presenting it as if it were similar to gays arriving recently from a different environment and suddenly conforming to straight ideals when this is not the case.

    In the real world the behavior you conclude to be straight is actually (well "normal" but that word has picked up too many negative connotations from over zelously PC individuals) so I'll use "standard" (which means exactly the same thing but offends less because it's confined to usage by the intelligent segments of society who have better things to do than rise to such nonsense). No one is born gay, they may be born with the genetic inclinations to develop homosexual tendencies later in life circa puberty but as in infant they are born a standard male, thus the homosexual tendencies an individual exhibits are deviations* from their standard. Both in the sense of from the average of their common man and from the natural birth state.

    *deviation, deviant another word that has some how strikes up negative feelings in it's noun form from irrational people that don't see it simply means how much something differs from the mathematical average.

    You are implying that an individual is some how intrinsically gay and that any so called str8-acting behavior is a deviation from their gay standard when in fact it's the opposite.

    To reiterate an individual is a male, this carries a set of common expectations of behavior they exhibit, including among many other expectations is that they desire sex with females. even if the male deviates from this standard and other standards regarding effeminacy. There standard male behavior intrinsically does not change.

    Lastly is I use a word that makes someone else feel inadequate, that is that individuals problem not mine. If i want to offend someone and make them feel inadequate I will make it blatantly clear I'm doing so.

    Otherwise a plead the first and retain my right to try and better myself irregardless if exhibiting behavior I feel makes me a better individual makes someone else look like a worse individual.

    The alternative would be like accusing a law a bidding citizen that by not committing crime, and expressing reprehension at the thought of committing such acts they think they are better than and making criminals feel like inadequate members of the human species



    Your example about "chair" is irrelevant here. It's a noun. Now, since I didn't actually say this in my original post, I will add that I'm looking for descriptive words, and especially those which apply to people. Not chairs.

    The straight-acting standard that we have BOTH implied in our posts is a social construction. There is a "way" that men are expected to act, and that set of mannerisms has changed throughout history. (Check out Louis XIV, the most desirable of men in the French Baroque.) Actually, the idea of masculinity vs. femininity deserves an examination in historical context. "Butch" vs. "Fem" is a fairly recent phenomenon, and I wonder why it actually came about. I also wonder why I am primarily attracted to "butch" men... in that sense, am I prejudiced?

    Part of your argument here is based on postulates. Be careful about that. You said "no one is born gay" as though it were a fact. It is very likely not true.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 3:23 PM GMT
    Sedative saidThose guilty of vilifying a particular label for being too restrictive are often just as guilty of labeling themselves.

    For example, a lot of gay men reject the term 'gay'. Mistakenly taking it not as the meronym that it is ('gay' does bring to mind flamboyance) but as a metaphor for cross-dressing, effeminate homosexual men. They are themselves restricting its definition, not the other way around. Because the truth is anyone can push past these boundaries. Why stick to gay ballet dancers when you can also have gay construction workers?

    And yet these people often abandon it and adopt another entirely exclusionary label to define them. Like 'Str8 acting' or 'Androphile' or whatever catchy fancy words they happen to find. Especially certain pe0ple. *ahem* Who have gone as far as making fun of everyone else not like them as well as giving a very specific list as to what makes someone 0ne of them and what doesn't. What is the point then? When you complain about being 'gay' being too exclusionary, why go and make another more exclusive group instead of working on the original be more inclusive or abandoning every label altogether? It's hypocritical.

    Words evolve. What a certain term encompass and what it excludes shift over time. Once upon a time, 'Vandal' meant a member of a very specific Germanic tribe that invaded Rome, nowadays 'vandal' means what? Once upon a time 'Heathen' meant an inhabitant of the highlands of the British isles, now it means a practitioner of a non-Christian faith. Once upon a time, 'Consul' meant the elected rulers of the Roman Republic, nowadays they are simply diplomats. Once upon a time, the 'Cosmos' was a flat Earth inside a sphere with holes and the Sun and moon orbiting around it, now the Cosmos extends far beyond what we can ever know. Labels can be pushed farther so they exclude less people.

    Even so, they will never be all-encompassing, or they would lose their meaning. It's like removing everyone's names and then trying to find one specific person. Like thus:

    "Hello, my name is ANYONE and I would like to see ANYONE who is a friend of ANYONE. Can you help me?"

    Labels are there because it's important in nailing down abstractions. To give an idea of what something is and what it isn't. By rejecting one label, you are simply adopting a new one. You can never be 'label-less', no matter how hard you try.

    But, as we all know already (and perhaps the source of this wondering) labels never define you fully, as they are part of language - the invention of a group of people to better understand their components. You will fit in better with one label than the other. It's more important to keep an open mind and not be afraid of changing labels if it doesn't suit you anymore, than rejecting labels outright.

    If you do wish to name yourself something that will describe you fully, I suggest using a nonce. LOL. Because that's the only way you can truly be what you really are and not what you seem to be based on the agreed definitions of preexisting words.

    Try labeling yourself a Liasahghjfically-Inclined Kdsfsdjflksjdlsdgsgsic and Usdsfkjfdsfsical PersonĀ©. icon_lol.gif And if someone asks what that means, just describe yourself. LOL

    viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=446


    Great post. I'm going to ponder this while I drive for eight hours back to the midwest. Ugh.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 3:40 PM GMT
    Daedalus304 saidI think that labels are useful starting points for identity.


    QFT

    We see this play out around us all the time. So much, in fact, that we're usually oblivious to it.

    A sense of identity is one of the most basic aspects of consciousness. And when people define themselves by a given set of labels (something which is very hard to avoid), they make themselves susceptible to manipulation based on those labels. A person will do almost anything to defend his/her sense of identity, and it doesn't take much to get the person to then defend other things associated with the same labels that the person has applied to themselves.

    If you're willing to manipulate people by using their self-identity -- through the lever of self-applied labels -- you can go far. Political and savvy corporate machines do this all the time. It's sad that so few people realize that this is happening to them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 5:12 PM GMT
    Gay is defined as expressing a sexual preference for the same sex

    Infants are not developed to the point where they can express much more than hunger and pain, therefor it is a reasonable argument that an infant cannot be gay because they have not yet developed to the point where they can begin to express sexual desires or preferences.

    Therefor a new born infant cannot be gay, they can possess a genetic disposition or even certainty to develop into a gay individual but they cannot be gay.


    Faggot, Queen, Twink, Dyke, Cunt these are all nouns......are you seriously suggesting your going to restrict which words you're going to object to only adjectives

    and if one individual cannot understand the language of another it is equally likely the second individual's language comprehension skills need work.

  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 19, 2009 5:32 PM GMT
    mscldrew--

    Well, to acknowledge your criticism of comprehension skills, I will say that this more recent post is much better.

    My argument is not about name-calling. I don't care to delve into a debate about nature vs. nurture or the environmental vs. biological debate as it applies to homosexuality. Nor am I talking about traditional "slang." I made that point in my OP.

    The argument I'm making is for the ripple-effect that stems from our misallocated perception of binary opposites. I'm talking about the idea that language is responsible for prejudice just as prejudice is responsible for language.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2009 5:38 PM GMT
    this is how language works,takes a word and change its meaning slowly...
    what about the word ''gay'' are we all giggling jumping happy little gay people,lol