Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As someone who can remember when the word "queer" was used when someone was feeling a little unwell and not as a derogatory term for a homosexual I have to say I am in complete agreement with you on your feelings on the misuse of the word "gay" to mean something is a bit rubbish or "shit" as you put it.


I also think you'll find that the majority of people who have posted on this thread are also in complete agreement with you.

I still use queer to mean odd.

In fact queer to mean gay (james' gay, not modern schoolground parlance) is a bit old fashioned now isn't it?


James, I think everyone's pretty much in agreement that gay shouldn't have been coopted for rubbishness, but you're preaching to the converted here, you need to talk to people under 20 of whom you'll find few examples in these here parts.


But again, what can you do, the french tried to legislate for use of language and that got them nowhere, and the moment you tell a child not to do something it becomes de riguer in the playground.

Fads pass, I haven't called anyone a joey or ernie for years!!

Well, I never, i just thought it meant generally somewhere between bookish and geek...


spod (spd)

n. Chiefly British Slang

One who spends an inordinate amount of time exchanging remarks in computer chatrooms or participating in discussions in newsgroups or on bulletin boards.

"I woke up this morning feeling quite gay but after eating a large breakfast I soon felt rather queer."


Did I wake up a homosexual and have my sexuality confirmed after breakfast or did I wake feeling euphoric only to come down later on? Or perhaps I awoke feeling a bit rubbish and then decided I was somewhat worthless.

I rather liked this Urban Dictionary definition


spod


One who obsessively reads all the definitions of a word in the Urban Dictionary, then decides to send in their own definition.

Only a spod would send a definition to the Urban Dictionary.

It's actually quite reassuring that so many people agree with the thrust of what I'm saying.


I guess part of my initial point was that a comparison with racism is interesting because it shows what can be achieved. Witness the national outcry after some Celebrity Big Brother contestants made horrible racist remarks. My point is that we can and should apply the same 'intolerance towards intolerance' when it comes to homophobia.



I'm dragging this up from a couple of weeks ago because it was pointed out to me last night (I had missed it at the time) AND it was the last post on the thread for 24 hours at the time and received no response. But it is a very good point which had pertinence to the debate - as women are often at the end of extremely violent conduct - because they are women - and plenty of language pertaining to them is at least as insulting as using "gay" to mean "sh1t"


SO rather than subdivide the various groups at the rough end of the treatment, a broad coalition should be mindful of who says what to whom and what the context is. Oh wait - that's called political correctness and is often deemed A Bad Thing

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It’s a 4 year old on a bike do you really think he is going 15mph. Grown adults complaining about a child who probably isn’t able to string a few sentences together says a lot about the people in this forum. If this member was hit from behind the father was probably walking behind the bike so I don’t get the point of stretching out an overreaction from a child in Nursery bumping into you. Grow up Obviously a four year old should be cycling on the pavement.
    • Malumbu,  if none of us were there, does that mean that nobody should post anything on here unless they have witnesses from the EDF? Why would someone post something like this if it  wasn't true? This is not about whether children should or should not be cycling on the pavement. There are specific issues. a) the child was out of sight of the person supposed to be caring for him b) he appears to have been  either not looking where he was going or was out of control of the bike c) if he did see that he was about to hit someone  he apparently did not give them any kind of warning  d)  a person was unexpectedly hit from behind whilst just walking along, which in my view makes him a victim e) does the title of the thread really matter as the issue was described in the first post?  f) nobody is blaming the child, they are blaming the person who should have been watching him g) do you really think it was acceptable for that person to find the situation funny? The OP was not complaining about the 4 year old. They were complaining about an adult's lack of supervision of a 4 year old who was not capable of riding a bike and who hit someone from behind with no warning. Also, apart from reading the OP more carefully, perhaps also choose your words more carefully. Jobless? Lunatic? Charming.
    • Completely jobless and lunatic behaviour coming on a forum and complaining about a 4 year old and the child’s bike riding skills. Honestly grow up
    • I have to say, I too am upset about the passing of DulwichFox. He was a real local character, who unlike me, managed to stick with ED despite all of the nauseous yuppification of the last three decades. R.I.P to foxy    Louisa. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...