Gay, ****, Homo and similar words...

[Kyu Puff]

And you are as dumb as **** if you believe anything you said in your last post.

 

[Jockmaster]

Why does the word "gay" bother you? You do realize "gay" didn't originally refer to homosexuals right? The "derogatory" part comes from your interpretation of the word within context, not within the definition of the word itself. So if I'm not looking at you shouting "GAY!! GO BEAT THAT GAY GUIZ", then there is no offence because there is no derogatory intent. This is observed via basic social skills.

If you take offense simply from the utterance of the letters G-A-Y, whether in offensive context or not, you are an idiot. A socially inept nancy

 

[Deleted member]

And you are as dumb as **** if you believe anything you said in your last post.

Isn't telling someone that they are dumb as **** more directly offensive than referring to a third party situation with vulgarity? Like, why do you care if someone "got *****" in smash bros? If someone got offended because they had a past history of ****, ok sure you've offended that person but now you're going to be offended for them? After telling someone else that they're dumb as **** in a directly caustic way? Talk about missing the point entirely. 0/10.

 

[IsmaR]

Spoiler

 

[Strong Badam]

Ugh.
Dog Spike is just the worst.

 

[IsmaR]

I thought he was cute. I saw it coming, given the role/name and all, way before EG was even announced.

 

[Kyu Puff]

Isn't telling someone that they are dumb as **** more directly offensive than referring to a third party situation with vulgarity? Like, why do you care if someone "got *****" in smash bros? If someone got offended because they had a past history of ****, ok sure you've offended that person but now you're going to be offended for them? After telling someone else that they're dumb as **** in a directly caustic way? Talk about missing the point entirely. 0/10.

First of all, I was responding to this. I regret stooping to his level, but I doubt he was offended at all.

You are dumb as **** if you don't understand social connotation man.

Jesus

Second of all, I don't feel like responding to a point that's already been responded to dozens of times.

This is not about offending people. You're allowed to get frustrated and you're allowed to be rude to people (maybe not the best thing for this discussion, but you can get over it). There's a huge difference between calling someone a name because you disagree with them, and calling someone a name because of who they are. When he called you an *** he was frustrated with you, and you knew that, so you probably didn't think, "wow, he called me an ***, so I must be an ***"--you took it with a grain of salt. But if he was insulting you because of who you are--your identity, your existence, things you can't change about yourself--it would be harder to recover from.

So some kids in high school were mean to you and called you gay based off your appearance. Your feelings were hurt. And I'm saying this in the sincerest way possible--I'm sorry you had to go through that! But consider this: after that engagement, you turned around and went back into a world that is CONSTANTLY VALIDATING YOUR EXISTENCE. You, being not ACTUALLY gay, could go back into the world and see a culture that values straight people like you, where being heterosexual is the norm, where everything about THE WAY YOU WERE BORN is validated. You got over it.

Now consider if you were actually gay, and some kids in high school called you 'gay.' Your feelings are hurt, first because you're thinking "Yes I am gay, is there something wrong with that??". But it gets worse from there. You go back into the world, and you realize that hey, everything in my environment is also telling me that being gay is not okay. You go back into a world where "cool" men are defined by how many women they can sleep with, to a world where gay marriage is still largely ILLEGAL, and to a world where at Smash tournaments, people casually throw out the word "gay" to mean "lame" or "boring." When everything around you is a constant reminder that the WAY YOU WERE BORN IS NOT OKAY, it is MUCH harder to just 'get over it.' You start to actually question whether or not the world is right, and you begin thinking that maybe you do deserve to be treated worse than everyone else. THAT'S what we mean when we say your language is marginalizing

"Talk about missing the point entirely," says the person who doesn't understand the difference between offending someone and marginalizing or alienating or triggering them.

 

[Spiffykins]

Isn't telling someone that they are dumb as **** more directly offensive than referring to a third party situation with vulgarity? Like, why do you care if someone "got *****" in smash bros? If someone got offended because they had a past history of ****, ok sure you've offended that person but now you're going to be offended for them? After telling someone else that they're dumb as **** in a directly caustic way? Talk about missing the point entirely. 0/10.

You should always care because it's inconsiderate at best and oppressive at worst. Calling someone dumb as **** for persisting in homophobia is far more justified.

This discussion frustrates me because it treads on my identity and the identity and experiences of people I care about, whereas some other people are invested in it because they have a false notion that they can say whatever they want and nobody can/should give them **** for it. You're not a guardian of free speech if you think nobody should ever get offended by things that don't personally offend you.

 

[Deleted member]

You should always care because it's inconsiderate at best and oppressive at worst. Calling someone dumb as **** for persisting in homophobia is far more justified.

This discussion frustrates me because it treads on my identity and the identity and experiences of people I care about, whereas some other people are invested in it because they have a false notion that they can say whatever they want and nobody can/should give them **** for it. You're not a guardian of free speech if you think nobody should ever get offended by things that don't personally offend you.

I think it's reasonable for victims to have an emotional response to an emotionally traumatic event.

I do not think it's reasonable that you feel that you have to "justify" an action that is 100% guaranteed and intended to offend someone when compared to a situation with less than a 100% chance to offend someone that is not direct and intentional. If your brand of justice favors the outcome with a strictly higher likelihood of emotional damage, you are the last person that should be dispensing justice. And frankly, calling someone "dumb as ****" is...inconsiderate at best and oppressive at worst.

Do you people really not see the irony of your positions? Am I the only one making these observations?

 

[Kyu Puff]

I do not think it's reasonable that you feel that you have to "justify" an action that is 100% guaranteed and intended to offend someone when compared to a situation with less than a 100% chance to offend someone that is not direct and intentional. If your brand of justice favors the outcome with a strictly higher likelihood of emotional damage, you are the last person that should be dispensing justice. And frankly, calling someone "dumb as ****" is...inconsiderate at best and oppressive at worst.

Go ahead and explain to me how calling someone "dumb as ****" in response to them calling me "dumb as ****" is oppressive. (Hint: It's not mutual oppression. It's two people bickering with each other over the internet and maybe feeling transiently frustrated with one another, but certainly not causing each other long term emotional damage; many of us have been involved in verbal arguments yet few of us are permanently traumatized by them.) Either you are grasping at straws or you are fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of oppression.

Edit: Let me elaborate (and by elaborate I mean make another logical appeal for you to selectively ignore): Two friends are in an argument. Their opinions are irreconcilable--things get a little bit heated and bad words fly in either direction. Later in the day, they are back to being best buds as if nothing ever happened between them. How is it that they can forgive and forget, when just a few hours earlier, they offended each other with 100% probability? How does one regain composure after being stung by insults like "jerk face" or "doodoo head"? Well, it's because the sting isn't very deep--you know your friend only called you that because they were frustrated--the insult itself doesn't mean much of anything and doesn't resonate with past experiences you've had.

Now imagine that the two people aren't friends on equal footing--they are partners in an abusive relationship. That changes things, a lot. One person is more powerful than the other. Behind their insults is a violent anger that terrifies the weaker person. NOW you could say the language is oppressive. Or, imagine that it isn't two people, but a million people on one side, and one, lonely person on the other. A million people are all shouting the same insults, and the single, lonely person begins to wonder if they're wrong--if they really are less than everyone else. The words are backed by social power. And again you wouldn't be wrong to say the language is oppressive.

For your sake, I really hope you understand the difference.

 

[OptimusRhymez]

There's some wicked sick attempts at rationalization going on in this thread. A+ guys! Does this mean I can throw out the n-word if I'm not talking about black people now, or what?!

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Anyone who thinks that 'gay' is different to something like 'asshole' because it relates to something you can't change about yourself needs to learn about determinism.
Anyone who thinks that the word 'gay' is inherently offensive or carries baggage needs to understand context and intent. If someone isn't trying to offend you, there is no reason to be offended.
Anyone who thinks that the word 'gay' should be avoided because it brings up bad memories or whatever needs to deal with it, because censorship is one of the worst human constructs imaginable, regardless of how it makes you feel, you do not have the right to tell other people what to do.

I love the in-built irony in the phrase "you do not have the right to tell other people what to do", haha, brilliant.

 

[[Legend]]

I had no idea people still got offended by other people using words in 2013, maybe I've befriended the wrong people.. or maybe the right people. Or maybe I've just been involved in the community of the internet or any/most online video game ever in the passed 7 or 8 years lol

Could just be me and my stand point but if you're a softy odds are you shouldn't venture out of the realm of Hello Kitty: Island Adventure, in life or in gaming. Kind of like Voldemort, you're only giving the word more sting by giving it a pedestal so to speak.
+1harrypotterreference

 

[Kaeon]

If you believe there is any possibility of a word upsetting someone, just shut the **** up. Problem solved.

 

[Combo Blaze]

But then no one would be able to say much because people seem to get upset by everything nowadays.

 

[EVH]

There are many words we use today that have lost their original meaning and have taken on new ones. Here are a few examples:

dumb - lacking the human power of speech. typically because of congenital deafness.
lame - someone who cannot walk because of an injury or illness.
****** - a mentally handicapped person. (I don't use this one but plenty of people do.)

When I call someone dumb, I don't call them that because I think they are mute and that's a bad thing. I call them that because they are dumb. The same with gay/**** etc.. I call someone gay not because they are homosexual and that's a bad thing, I call them gay because they are gay. If someone is trying to say that using gay as a derogatory term is offensive, then more power to them. But please check your derogatory vocabulary and make sure that you aren't being hypocritical.

 

[Jockmaster]

Seriously what an awful discussion. What the hell is a "trigger word"? Call me insensitive but it sounds to me like YOU are the one with some sort of problem if a word can "trigger" you, not me.

Example: let's say my uncle touched my peepee a few times and uttered the words "bean burrito" in my ear over and over while doing it. Does that give me the right to go around condemning people for saying "bean burrito" because it triggers my awful memories? Absolutely not. It's just one of those situations where you get over it, be a big boy and stop trying to find **** to whine and ***** about.

Sorry again if I come off as insensitive but this stupid whiny PC **** growing in our society is becoming a pet peeve of mine.

Edit: and for the record, using the word "gay" casually is in no way, shape, or form homophobic. 99% of the time I'm not even referring to actual homosexuals, I'm not being homophobic because their existence has nothing to do with my usage of the word. Period.

Getting offended by things that are not derogatory or hostile in any way is asinine.

 

[Deleted member]

It's just one of those situations where you get over it, be a big boy and stop trying to find **** to whine and ***** about.

It seems lately that telling someone to "get over it" or "deal with it" or anything similar is just as offensive as the derogatory language itself- even if it's functionally the appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it can be deemed abusive or as perpetuation of other abuse to tell someone that he/she is being overly-sensitive, even if the statement is true (and there are way too many overly-sensitive people).

The social ramifications have unfortunately been taken that a lack of respect and disrespect are the same even though it's not true in any way. I think we can all agree that open disrespect should be discouraged, but saying that "Fox is gay" clearly has no context to homosexuality and clearly isn't aimed with malicious intent to anyone. Get over it.

 

[mixa]

Analyze in context, which is more offensive?
Where do we draw the line?
If the cat was cuter, would it be ok?
How far can context help bad arguments?

[collapse=With a cat]http://rook.codebrainshideout.net/img/images/****.jpg[/collapse]

[collapse=No cat]

[/collapse]

 

[BTmoney]

You simply can't police someone's mouth. It doesn't work. That's why we are having this discussion in 2013.
A few of the above people have basically stated how I feel.
That being said,

 

[Spiffykins]

Anyone who thinks that 'gay' is different to something like '*******' because it relates to something you can't change about yourself needs to learn about determinism.
Anyone who thinks that the word 'gay' is inherently offensive or carries baggage needs to understand context and intent. If someone isn't trying to offend you, there is no reason to be offended.
Anyone who thinks that the word 'gay' should be avoided because it brings up bad memories or whatever needs to deal with it, because censorship is one of the worst human constructs imaginable, regardless of how it makes you feel, you do not have the right to tell other people what to do.

I love the in-built irony in the phrase "you do not have the right to tell other people what to do", haha, brilliant.

This isn't about censorship. Go anywhere else in this forum and you'll still see people saying ****, gay, homo, etc in exactly the ways illustrated in the OP. I'm not saying anyone needs to be beeped out any time they use a word I think they shouldn't, I'm saying it's pretty damn pathetic that some people can't think of any good reasons not to use those words in that way on their own. Or, you know, just don't care.

It seems lately that telling someone to "get over it" or "deal with it" or anything similar is just as offensive as the derogatory language itself- even if it's functionally the appropriate course of action. Furthermore, it can be deemed abusive or as perpetuation of other abuse to tell someone that he/she is being overly-sensitive, even if the statement is true (and there are way too many overly-sensitive people).

The social ramifications have unfortunately been taken that a lack of respect and disrespect are the same even though it's not true in any way. I think we can all agree that open disrespect should be discouraged, but saying that "Fox is gay" clearly has no context to homosexuality and clearly isn't aimed with malicious intent to anyone. Get over it.

Get over yourself.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

What is a 'good reason' to use any word, ever?

I'd say if it fits the context, which those words, now, do.

 

[Deleted member]

Get over yourself.

I don't actually take myself very seriously at all. I probably just give off that impression because it's the internet.

Either way the discussion at hand isn't about me or my ego. You're welcome to debate my stance though.

 

[Jockmaster]

Nobody will debate my stance either bruv

 

[Xyzz]

Considering your "stance" is kinda ignoring what the folks actually say, that's not too surprising.

No reasonable person is suggesting that random words should not be said because of the off-chance that somebody has traumatic experiences associated with them. All they're saying is that it's stupid to use words that have a chance that's actually pretty high to remind some people of those, because they actually refer to the thing itself.

Would help if you addressed their points instead of arguing against something nobody suggested in the first place.

 

[Spiffykins]

I don't actually take myself very seriously at all. I probably just give off that impression because it's the internet.

Either way the discussion at hand isn't about me or my ego. You're welcome to debate my stance though.

I ain't here to deb8, I'm here to educ8.

Edit: and for the record, using the word "gay" casually is in no way, shape, or form homophobic. 99% of the time I'm not even referring to actual homosexuals, I'm not being homophobic because their existence has nothing to do with my usage of the word. Period.

Oh that's right, you don't mean gay as in GAY, you mean gay as in anything you deem bad, right? Totally different meaning. There's no way the two are related in ANY way, right? That's not homophobic at all. I can't see why anyone would ever have a problem with that, and if they do they should just get over it and stop being such nancies!

...do you really wonder why people aren't responding to you?

 

[[Legend]]

I actually had this conversation with my buddy a few days ago when he casually said something deeming something 'gay' around his aunt, who happens to be lesbian.. in no way shape or form directed at her, couldn't be more harmless of a statement referring to a not so ideal outcome of some obscure situation he was mentioning around family even, and she (not saying this is wrong or right) very snottily said "Uhm, Excuse me?" and it literally took him five or so minutes to even deduce that she was even responding to what he said.

The moral of the story is that there is always going to be someone who jumps up to take offence to something regardless of the speakers intent, realization it was said, or relationship to the individual even, there are just people out there that have deemed words entitled to offence regardless of context. I just find it funny, in any situation if I were gay, any other race, *****, homeless, more poor.. I don't see myself being offended by a word someone chose to use. There is a certain level of insecurity you have to be at to allow the words of a person; you don't even know, don't care about, will never see again, have an effect over your own personal state of mind due to a sound they emitted through their mouth whether it be from detachment from the supposed taboo of the word or even from ignorance of trying to use it in an offensive manner, you should be a strong enough individual mentally to not let a word cause mental instability regardless of how uncalled for or inappropriate the word is.

Also it's almost assuredly hypocritical when I can guarantee that everybody here has found criteria in this topic the punch line of a joke at some point in time and laughed entirely too hard at it.

TL;DR- just words, lighten up

 

[Jockmaster]

No reasonable person is suggesting that random words should not be said because of the off-chance that somebody has traumatic experiences associated with them. All they're saying is that it's stupid to use words that have a chance that's actually pretty high to remind some people of those, because they actually refer to the thing itself.

Ok well here's the thing: there is absolutely no way of knowing which words have a "high chance" of offending someone. In my personal experience, I have NEVER knowingly offended anyone with casual use of the word "gay", so for me its a sort of "low chance" of offensiveness. If anything, some of my hispanic pals would actually take MORE offense to being called a "bean burrito" than "gay".

It alllllll comes down to this magical thing called -context-

Oh that's right, you don't mean gay as in GAY, you mean gay as in anything you deem bad, right? Totally different meaning. There's no way the two are related in ANY way, right? That's not homophobic at all. I can't see why anyone would ever have a problem with that, and if they do they should just get over it.

WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT "GAY" HAS ACQUIRED A NEW MEANING INDEPENDENT OF HOMOSEXUAL CONNOTATION. I MEAN FOR CHRIST'S SAKE THE HOMOSEXUAL CONNOTATION ISN'T EVEN THE ORIGINAL ONE

I FEEL LIKE IM TAKING CRAZY PILLS

 

[Strong Badam]

i'd see your argument if the new connotation had completely replaced the old one, but this clearly isn't the case here. for example, approximately no one uses the term "lame" to refer to a person who is unable to walk correctly. using the term "lame" to describe something uncool/unentertaining/silly then doesn't really offend anyone, because no one identifies with that adjective. using "gay" to negatively describe something is different because doing so paints the word "gay" as a negative adjective and regardless of the context this makes its use to describe homosexuality take on negative connotation where it otherwise wouldn't. i shouldn't need to describe why this is bad when we as a society are trying to make progress on equality and human rights.

 

[[Legend]]

So basically you can say anything you want as long as the person is ignorant to what the meaning is, like the word 'lame'

So just dig deep in your dictionary and try to use words that have gone under the radar for what society has forgotten to deem as wrong

For progress!

 

[Jockmaster]

Ok Strong Bad look...what I'm saying is that "gay" now has multiple definitions, and the way you figure out which definition to understand is through context. This is why I keep saying that it's only a lack of social skills that would lead someone to be offended by a word being used in a harmless fashion.

That's all it is, just finding offense in something that isn't offensive simply through not understanding the modern vernacular in which that word is being used

That's it. Its that simple

 

[Kyu Puff]

They aren't two separate meanings. One was derived from the other, and everybody (except for you, apparently) knows that.

That's it. Its that simple

Wow man. This discovery has some seriously far reaching implications: Hey depressed people, stop being depressed. Hey war veteran, stop being traumatized. Hey **** victim, just forget about it. Hey cancer patient, no need for the pain medication, just choose to stop hurting. I can't believe it took us this long to realize how simple the human mind is. You're a ****ing genius.

 

[Xyzz]

Ok well here's the thing: there is absolutely no way of knowing which words have a "high chance" of offending someone. In my personal experience, I have NEVER knowingly offended anyone with casual use of the word "gay", so for me its a sort of "low chance" of offensiveness. If anything, some of my hispanic pals would actually take MORE offense to being called a "bean burrito" than "gay".

So a random string of words has the same chance of upsetting somebody as the actual word "****"?

I'm not saying that "bean burrito" has a zero chance of offending people, or that you can't say **** even amongst your close friends without upsetting anybody. But do you really want to argue against one of them being more likely to offend people (thus having a comparatively high chance)?

To quote somebodie's wise words: I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and **** a better argument than that. (As evidently I am not really on the side who wants to 'censor' in the name of political correctness or for whatever reason, but I just can't ever condone crappy reasoning.)

 

[Jockmaster]

And the homosexual derivative that the newest definition has been derived from was actually derived from it meaning "happy", but you don't see a lot of people running around saying "gay" to describe happy things nowadays. The derivative is meaningless, and giving the derived definition a false "offensive" meaning based on some strange connection to its derivative is simply illogical. You can't base the word on its derivative, you have to base it on the CONTEXT in which it is used. I don't know how to put that any more clearly; if a person is not trying to offend you, then you should take no offense from the word. If you do, you are reading more in to the language than is actually there...you are inserting offensiveness in to a non-offensive situation (the reason why people do this is a whole other discussion, basically summed up by the fact that they feel sorry for themselves so they want to victimize themselves so that everyone else feels sorry for them too.)

And it's like this: "Hey war veteran/depressed dude/**** victim, stop being dumb and taking things that are not meant to offend out of context to make you seem like you are being oppressed or whatever. I'm sorry for what happened to you, but living your whole life in one huge victim complex is not going to get you anywhere and all you're doing is causing a ruckus for literally no reason. Try to look for the lighter side of things instead of acting like everyone is trying to shove oppression down your throats at all times, because they really aren't. Nobody ****ing cares that much."

So a random string of words has the same chance of upsetting somebody as the actual word "****"?

I'm not saying that "bean burrito" has a zero chance of offending people, or that you can't say **** even amongst your close friends without upsetting anybody. But do you really want to argue against one of them being more likely to offend people (thus having a comparatively high chance)?


To quote somebodie's wise words: I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and **** a better argument than that. (As evidently I am not really on the side who wants to 'censor' in the name of political correctness or for whatever reason, but I just can't ever condone crappy reasoning.)

What I'm saying is that the word is subjective and that you can't ****ing tell me what word is more offensive than another. It literally ALL comes down to how the word is used. It's not this black and white **** where "Oh this word is universally offensive and shouldn't be used". No, it really all depends on how you use it man. And while there are words that come off as more sharp than others, the fact of the matter is that some like "****" have evolved in certain vernaculars to NOT be offensive. And if you immerse yourself in a culture that subscribes to such a vernacular, you have to understand that that word is not being used in the traditionally sharp and offensive way.

For example if I were a black male who chose to for some reason join a primarily african-american gang, there is no doubt that they would use the word "*****" a lot. Normally if I'm a random black dude walking down the road and some dude said "Hey *****", I would be like whoa that was weird and pretty uncalled for (about a 3 on the Kyu Puff offensive scale). But if I joined this gang, I would come to an understanding that, within the context of the way this gang communicates among themselves, the word "*****" has grown to have a different meaning...one of friendship. So in that context, a word that is normally offensive has, within context, become the exact opposite.

That's why context is the deciding factor in these things. When people say "Fox is gay", they aren't saying "Fox is an annoying and stupid character, and so are homosexual people so I'm going to compare him to them". They are saying that Fox is gay. It has a different meaning independent of the derivative.


Basically this is the best way I can summarize it:

Words are not static things with static definitions. Language and culture are way too complicated for it to be that way. Because if this, it is asinine to isolate a word out of a sentence and take offense to it; the sentence is so much more complicated than that and has cultural and social connotation behind it. Life isn't this black and white thing where you can just willy nilly call someone mean for the slightest thing they do, you have to look at intent and context. It is unfair to the person speaking to tell them what they are saying and what they mean, despite what emotions YOU have tied to specific words.

 

[Xyzz]

I really wonder how you would get the idea of that being a good response to me (and am really hard strained to not make fun of you in mean ways).

I am not in the slightest bit advocating the censoring of whatever words whatsoever (unrelated but I felt like making that statement again)
I haven't even mentioned offensive words.
I was for now purely talking about words that are more likely to remind people of traumatic experiences.

Pray tell me how a random word like "mineral water" is going to have the same chance of having the impact as "****". Obviously it's a social issue, therefore there is no real absolute truth, but I suppose if you really wanted to you could go ahead and run a statistical survey on the matter, or think about which you would commonly use amongst people you don't know too well.

In regards to offensive words: Sure, there are groups of people who adopted the term originally meant to hurt them and use it among themselves in a "yeah, I'm black, and I don't feel bad about it. What are you gonna do about it, apartheid pig?" (or more in a fun way among friends nowadays, probably). Doesn't change the fact that not being part of that particular demographics I wouldn't really run around and call them ******* or refer to people of Arabian descent as towelheads, even if they do so amongst themselves.
Well, the general idea of that there's groups who might find that offensive still stands, and it's again far more likely to offend somebody by calling him ****** than a "calcium sack".
In regards to "gay". That's so wide spread, that there's a hard time arguing against its use. I still think it's stupid, and wouldn't do so myself, but wouldn't really want to censor people. Hell, this is specific examples, which I don't even want to talk about. The only thing I really want to say here as well is that there's definitely words that are inherently more offensive than others. Sure in lack of actual studies I can't really prove that, but I doubt there's much reason to, if you would expend the slightest bit of logical thinking on the matter.

edit: underlined the line which you really should address in your response, because you failed to do so last time. Subjectivity is one thing. Statistics really work here though, and it's not hard to see why.

 

[Strong Badam]

That's all it is, just finding offense in something that isn't offensive

 

[Jockmaster]

Xyzz: I literally just said that yes some words are sharper than others and have an -easier- chance to offend someone simply because there are more ways to use that word TO offend someone. I totally agree with you on that one. That doesn't change the fact that the word is still only as offensive as the context it is surrounded in.

So yes, some words are inherently stronger than others on a shallow, definition-to-definition basis. But that means almost nothing to the discussion at hand. The fact of the matter is that you have no reason to be offended by words like "****" and "gay" in the smash community unless you are just being a nancy and making a big deal out of things. As you said, it only takes the slightest amount of thinking to realize that people are not trying to personally offend you.

Strong Bad: nice le meme face XD

 

[Deleted member]

I ain't here to deb8, I'm here to educ8.

"I'm not here to have productive conversation with intellectual development, I just like making an ass of myself in public."

You really are the last person who should be dispensing justice in any way.

 

[michael_li]

i use the word f.ag/got, gay, homo, **** in a lot of my life. with buddies, not around people i don't know though. especially not around girls or superiors like boss, teachers, people in public. this **** is common sense, as long as your not in your house your whole life or go to some christian school. then you probably know when and when not to use it. nam sayin bro?

 

[TheGoat]

Too much political correct bull**** rampant throughout the world especially in the US.

Tell me this, when someone says "****" or "gay" in video games, do you think it actually has to do with forced sex or homosexuality?

Are you going to start barking at people for saying "holy mackerel" because it's blasphemy too?