Dubstepforum.com

tr0tsky wrote:No I don't take offense, I just know why it can be offensive.

The point of the matter is that regardless of how entrenched the language is, no matter what somebody's intentions are, it's still wrong to say that something bad is "gay" as it is to say it's "bloody Jewish" or "******" or "Pakistani".

Pakistani, offensive???

Bloody Jewish, aye but only because of the bloody bit.

N word, nuff said.

Fucking Gays, gay c**t etc directed at a puddle jumper is a no no but calling an object, person or act gay-not quite up there with the N word.

I'm not sure that's true.

You wouldn't ever call a white person a ****** or a paki, but one could describe a straight person as "gay" - hence, it doesn't strictly or particularly seriously mean homosexual in that use.

Well 'paki' means 'pure' in Urdu so there's nothing stopping you yelling out to a vicar "oi mate, you're a paki!".

Why wouldn't you do it? Because it's offensive to people who are called 'paki' for a whole different reason. Same goes for gay, in my book.

Chester: obviously the word 'pakistani' isn't offensive I'd written 'paki' but decided to carry on with the rest of the word. I don't know why. Ask my over-active fingertips.

Bloody Jewish, aye but only because of the bloody bit.

What planet are you on? Do you think that it wouldn't be offensive to Jews if I called somebody who wasn't buying me a pint "a Jew", regardless of the "bloody"?

Fucking Gays, gay c**t etc directed at a puddle jumper is a no no but calling an object, person or act gay-not quite up there with the N word.

Why? Homophobia shouldn't be any more acceptable than racism. Just because it's used more or is deemed more acceptable to say in polite company doesn't give it a value judgement different to calling somebody a "nig-nog" because they're stupid.

tr0tsky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true.

You wouldn't ever call a white person a ****** or a paki, but one could describe a straight person as "gay" - hence, it doesn't strictly or particularly seriously mean homosexual in that use.

Well 'paki' means 'pure' in Urdu so there's nothing stopping you yelling out to a vicar "oi mate, you're a paki!".

Why wouldn't you do it? Because it's offensive to people who are called 'paki' for a whole different reason. Same goes for gay, in my book.

Chester: obviously the word 'pakistani' isn't offensive I'd written 'paki' but decided to carry on with the rest of the word. I don't know why. Ask my over-active fingertips.

Bloody Jewish, aye but only because of the bloody bit.

What planet are you on? Do you think that it wouldn't be offensive to Jews if I called somebody who wasn't buying me a pint "a Jew", regardless of the "bloody"?

Fucking Gays, gay c**t etc directed at a puddle jumper is a no no but calling an object, person or act gay-not quite up there with the N word.

Why? Homophobia shouldn't be any more acceptable than racism. Just because it's used more or is deemed more acceptable to say in polite company doesn't give it a value judgement different to calling somebody a "nig-nog" because they're stupid.

Why is it Homophobic?? I have no fear of gays.

Way i see it too many people are too easily offended these days. Im not keen on the word Jock or term Sweaty Sock but i dont greet when its used. I have been abused because of my ethnic back ground, meh, water of a ducks back.

tr0tsky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true.

You wouldn't ever call a white person a ****** or a paki, but one could describe a straight person as "gay" - hence, it doesn't strictly or particularly seriously mean homosexual in that use.

Well 'paki' means 'pure' in Urdu so there's nothing stopping you yelling out to a vicar "oi mate, you're a paki!".

We're talking about English, not Urdu, though... as far as I'm aware Paki only has one meaning in English.

As I've said before, "gay" is not a word I use very often in this context (not since I was a teenager anyway!), but I do think there's a clear moral difference between intentionally degrading a population and just using a misusing a word in a fairly colloquial way... do you reckon the kid from South Park would get offended if he heard a Londoner call a girl "fucking Butters"?

It's definitely not a big enough deal to have had all this fuss over. Amazing that the Bruno disagreement disappeared pretty quickly (with most people agreeing that being offended by homosexual people or the sight of cock is daft) and that we're still talking about a word that none of us probably use that much.

We've all got waaayy too much spare time.

Magma wrote:

tr0tsky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true.

You wouldn't ever call a white person a ****** or a paki, but one could describe a straight person as "gay" - hence, it doesn't strictly or particularly seriously mean homosexual in that use.

Well 'paki' means 'pure' in Urdu so there's nothing stopping you yelling out to a vicar "oi mate, you're a paki!".

We're talking about English, not Urdu, though... as far as I'm aware Paki only has one meaning in English.

As I've said before, "gay" is not a word I use very often in this context (not since I was a teenager anyway!), but I do think there's a clear moral difference between intentionally degrading a population and just using a misusing a word in a fairly colloquial way... do you reckon the kid from South Park would get offended if he heard a Londoner call a girl "fucking Butters"?

It's definitely not a big enough deal to have had all this fuss over. Amazing that the Bruno disagreement disappeared pretty quickly (with most people agreeing that being offended by homosexual people or the sight of cock is daft) and that we're still talking about a word that none of us probably use that much.

We've all got waaayy too much spare time.

I think the point here isn't in the clear moral difference. If you're ignorant there is no moral issue as it was out of ignorance. Once you've been told several times that it is offensive then there is a moral issue at hand. It is no longer ignorance, it's willful stupidity. Someone was offended. Right there that tells you there's something wrong with what you're(Aftee) doing. You can choose to respect that or not but the moral ambiguity went out the window 6 pages ago. I think that is the point being made. You might not mean to offend. Once you do and continue down the same path what is one to believe about your character?

ChainsawClownStyle wrote:I think the point here isn't in the clear moral difference. If you're ignorant there is no moral issue as it was out of ignorance. Once you've been told several times that it is offensive then there is a moral issue at hand. It is no longer ignorance, it's willful stupidity. Someone was offended. Right there that tells you there's something wrong with what you're(Aftee) doing. You can choose to respect that or not but the moral ambiguity went out the window 6 pages ago. I think that is the point being made. You might not mean to offend. Once you do and continue down the same path what is one to believe about your character?

Yes, if someone is offended by my language I would tone it down. If you don't, you're a dick. Correct. Just as I wouldn't greet my Mum by saying "Alright you saggy old tnuc?". It's all about vernacular.

However, there is *massive* precident for this word being used in a non-offensive manner. It's going to be nigh on impossible to get rid off because, as you say, lots of people are ignorant to it's possible offensive nature - perhaps it's time that people considered the motives/context before allowing themselves to get offended by certain words?

I can't say I've got a huge circle of gay friends, but I know a fair few through girlfriends (my ex and current are both in fashion) and I've definitely heard them use it in this context without causing argument - they clearly understand the context issue.

ChainsawClownStyle wrote:

Magma wrote:

tr0tsky wrote:

I'm not sure that's true.

You wouldn't ever call a white person a ****** or a paki, but one could describe a straight person as "gay" - hence, it doesn't strictly or particularly seriously mean homosexual in that use.

Well 'paki' means 'pure' in Urdu so there's nothing stopping you yelling out to a vicar "oi mate, you're a paki!".

We're talking about English, not Urdu, though... as far as I'm aware Paki only has one meaning in English.

As I've said before, "gay" is not a word I use very often in this context (not since I was a teenager anyway!), but I do think there's a clear moral difference between intentionally degrading a population and just using a misusing a word in a fairly colloquial way... do you reckon the kid from South Park would get offended if he heard a Londoner call a girl "fucking Butters"?

It's definitely not a big enough deal to have had all this fuss over. Amazing that the Bruno disagreement disappeared pretty quickly (with most people agreeing that being offended by homosexual people or the sight of cock is daft) and that we're still talking about a word that none of us probably use that much.

We've all got waaayy too much spare time.

I think the point here isn't in the clear moral difference. If you're ignorant there is no moral issue as it was out of ignorance. Once you've been told several times that it is offensive then there is a moral issue at hand. It is no longer ignorance, it's willful stupidity. Someone was offended. Right there that tells you there's something wrong with what you're(Aftee) doing. You can choose to respect that or not but the moral ambiguity went out the window 6 pages ago. I think that is the point being made. You might not mean to offend. Once you do and continue down the same path what is one to believe about your character?

That you're an uncompromising, selfish arsehole (read: me),

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQkA9iqCGSY

So fucking offensive. I bet the crowd in the cinema were squirming in their seats.

Surface_Tension wrote:I've made a petition to a mod, so I guess we'll see if shit happens or it doesn't.

a petition to do what? filter out the word 'gay'?

I'd have thought that would be even more hurtful, singling it out as a dirty word that has to be censored just because of some ignorant, non-malicious usage.

@ still arguing with surface_tension

I believe the topic was about the movie bruno and it's intensive use of the male penis...Not a place for you to talk shit and spread gay rights because you're too feminine and afraid to do it in real life.

Who the fuck tries to start a petition on a fuckin' dubstep forum to ban usage of the word "gay" meaning "stupid"? Get the fuck over it jesus christ. Aren't you a grown man? Call me a cracker I'm not gunna cry and run back to the closet and PM every admin attempting to start a dubstepforum wide gay pride parade.

I don't fucking care if you see it as "ignorant" or not, it's personal opinion on the matter and if you're too dumb to see it's not slating gays then good for you don't fucking say it. When it comes down to it it's a fucking word and if you cry and get suicidal over that then you're the ignorant one who needs to grow up a bit, this isn't elementary anymore when someone calls you a poopy face and you cry for a half hour.

So do us all a favor and go rim your fatass butch label owner and stop starting shit with everybody because you're so god damn self righteous. No one gives a fuck about you crying and whining on every forum post you make and trying to continuously promote your label which from the likes of you and the rest of it's homosexual, overly sensitive crying load of fucks doesn't look like it's in too good of shape.

intensive use of the male penis ftw

Jolly Wailer wrote:intensive use of the male penis ftw

I haven't seen it yet but plan to...do they actually show their uncensored dicks?

If I remember right they blurred it all out on Borat so I'm not sure why they'd show it now? Not like it's a big deal just curious.

blurring out a man's penis in a motion picture is so gay

@ aftee, seriously tho, not sure - there's pics at the end of the Hangover where the brother is getting a hummer from this old gal in an elevator


I dont think they have to be blurred.. the wrestling scene in borat may have been censored cuz you were getting some full-on taint/bumhole shottys

Jolly Wailer wrote:the wrestling scene in borat may have been censored cuz you were getting some full-on taint/bumhole shottys

fist dildo

EAT MY BACK PUSSY

couldnt be bothered to read every comment
but i say it
its nothing like Borat really
most of it seems staged
and the only thing the film proves
is American public ignorance haha

but yer
a super gay film
and if you wanna watch the funny bits
i suggest you dont watch this film lol

so is it ok to say surface tension is acting gay?

So should swastika's be banned even though for hindus it means something completely different to a izan?

Even if some people are offended by it as a symbol of oppression and genocide, for others it has completely different connotations. I personally dont think using 'gay' to mean stupid or bad is particularly clever or appropriate - but i think its still a bit of a grey area.

also

Magma wrote: I wouldn't greet my Mum by saying "Alright you saggy old tnuc?".

[/img]

made me crease

Firky wrote:"to destroy the beast you must ridicule it".

tr0tsky wrote:SBC is a cleaver bastard who uses his skill in making bigots look stupid because of their bigotry.

Diss04 wrote:fuck you if you're offended by your own body parts, dickhead

Aftee wrote:half you fucking people on this forum take shit too seriously.

hayze99 wrote:It's about the intention, pretty much every little kid uses the word gay that way, and there's no hatred or anything that comes with it.

thats my opinion...

Surface_Tension wrote:You get a black guy and a white guy and you put them into a situation where they are fighting each other on the street, racial slurs will fly from even the most tolerant of mouths.