To challenge casual homophobia on the dreaded fb?

[chundercatsarego]

A friend just posted: 'Just stalled my car in town.....gay!!!!:

Err...what? Is that OK? I think not.

Hmmm in this context I would probably roll my eyes and scroll on tbh or maybe send the flow chart I tend not to get involved in any fb spats or war of words.

I have however commented on blatant racism. There was no poorly thought out, immature status. It was just in your face racist. Thankfully the person isn't a friend of mine, they commented on another friends post.

YANBU. It isn't ever really just casual. Recently a colleague n FB talked about 'Jewing the price down'. I set her straight on it, she apologised, but I don't think she got why it was offensive to me (as I'm Jewish) and thought I was overreacting. I wasn't blowing my top, it just said that I thought that use was inappropriate and that I knew she couldn't have meant to come across as anti Semitic, but she did.

BoredPanda. I think that's really vile and racist in the extreme. Can't believe that person said that.

OP I agree with you wholeheartedly. We should challenge these things and as for being right-on. That's a load of nonsense. 150 plus years ago people 'owned' people as slaves and those who challenged slavery were viewed as right-on. We wouldn't even condone formal slavery now. OK there is wage slavery but that's another discussion altogether!!!

Proud to be "right on" since university 20 years ago

Bollocks- it is as out of order as someone saying that a person being useless and effeminate was behaving 'like a girl'. Pull 'em up on it!

But then, I am a bi girl so am probably 'holier than thou' on such matters.

Xposted with you Empire!

Thanks for the replies. It is interesting, I could see the comeback being 'I meant lame, not homosexual', but as mean articulated so well here, this is just synonymising being homosexual with being 'lame'. Not on.

Must be a regional thing then. Where I come from it was yoof speak for 'a silly moment/event/person' a carefree but daft thing. Which echoes the original definition for me.

It's PC gone mad here sometimes

But prosopopeia that's what pp have said that using 'gay' as a term for being "silly" implies that homosexuality is silly, unworthy, second class.

And it's not PC gone mad, it's a perfectly justifiably nasty thing to say-just like all racist/sexist etc remarks it's homophobic.

Yes I'm sure gay-as-in-rubbish is directly derived from gay-as-in-cheerful And that that makes all the difference to gay kids growing up hearing it.

i don't like lame either
gay is a horrid"insult"

Then don't use the word "Gay" Use the word "homosexual" Then there's no confusion.

One thing I really object to is the use of the word faggot. I used to use it (years ago) without really thinking. To me, that just seems a little more hateful. (even though the I initially associate it with Brains Faggots!)

My Dad still usues the word 'queer' to mean unwell or not quite right.

I asked someone once in America if they minded if i smoked a fag. Looked at me like i just clubbed a baby seal.

Malice can you explain what this: 'Then don't use the word "Gay" Use the word "homosexual" Then there's no confusion.' is in response to?

'Must be a regional thing then. Where I come from it was yoof speak for 'a silly moment/event/person' a carefree but daft thing. Which echoes the original definition for me.' What original meaning are you talking about here prosopopeia?

Also, prosopopeia, not that I agree with you at all that it's 'PC gone mad.' but don't you think that if people are offended by using gay as a derogatory insult then that's enough reason not to use it and therefore make the effort to be a bit 'PC', as you put it?

I was saying that people should should not use the word "gay" but should instead use the term "homosexual" if and when they're talking about men who like other men.

Without wanting to speak for prosopopeia the word "gay" had another meaning prior to being adopted as shorthand for "homosexual" That's widely known.

I think it's disingenuous to pretend that the word 'gay' meaning something lame or stupid isn't directly associated with the word 'gay' meaning homosexual. Gay is the standard colloquial way of referring to homosexuals that is currently preferred by Gays (as in Gay Pride etc). Therefore the first thing someone will think when they see the word 'gay' is 'homosexual'.

I was saying that people should should not use the word "gay" but should instead use the term "homosexual" if and when they're talking about men who like other men.

Do you use 'heterosexual' when talking about people who like people of the opposite sex. Or do you just use 'people'.

But it wasn't always thus. That's the point I'm making.

I do not use the word hetrosexual when talking about people who like people of the opposite sex, but of course I would if I was in a predominantly homosexual environment.

For example, I'd describe a black man as such if we were somewhere that most men were white (parliament for example). I wouldn't do it in Nigeria.

'Without wanting to speak for prosopopeia the word "gay" had another meaning prior to being adopted as shorthand for "homosexual" That's widely known.'

Malice are you referring to the 'gay=happy' point that had previously been raised? If so what has that got to do with this instance as described in the OP? The offence is taken when gay is used as a synonym for stupid/uncool/etc.

Also Malice why should we say heterosexual instead of gay?

(Homosexual* obviously. Sorry for the typo.)

1. I think it was expanded to mean "carefree"

1. Homosexual is the correct description.

Lastly, I don't care what people say really. I'm more interested in what they do. That said, this entire area is a minefield. I've previously said upthread that I don't use the word faggot because I think it's spiteful. I have used it, but don't now. Some people still use it. That's a matter for them, not me. It may cause some people offence, but again it's a matter for them I won't pretend to be outraged on their behalf.

Yes malice homosexual was the correct word and now so is gay. Its not derogatory to use either. But the terms homosexual/hetrosexual have morphed into a rather more formal way of explaining a person's sexuality. I find your insistance that only the term homosexual be used really just unnecessary and to be honest quite baffling.

I'm not insisting. It doesn't peronally bother me which word people use.

You either accept that the language is fluid and different words/expressions are adopted (or abandoned) by different groups/cultures/subcultures, or you don't.

As I've said before, the term 'marriage' used to have a very specific meaning, it doesn't now. It doesn't bother me because I know that the language is fluid.