"That's sooooo gay!"

[Birdy]

if a child grows up without 'this' (this being the thoughts in my head right now) even entering their mind, i feel it could have tremendous positive influence on uniting the world? hyperbole? maybe. but all big change stems from somewhere.

a-fuckin'mean too.

the 'words' are not how we solve the problem, the attitude is.

the sooner we recognize this, the step closer we'll be to your goal quoted above.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Guest

[meggo]

okay i am going to try not to overboard post in this thread because i have beaten this horse to goddamn death...

birdy i definitely agree that the attitude is a huge problem. definitely.

that being said - i think that, at the stage that we're at right now - the words are also a problem.

maybe [hopefully] someday 'gay' will just mean happy, and 'faggots' will just mean the bundle of sticks you use as kindling, and so on and so forth.

but right now, those words are so often being used to mean something negative - i really don't see how you can ignore that. i mean i know you're not ignoring it, but...

you say it is us [people] who give words meaning, and meanings will change according to the society they're used in. fair enough.

so - this is the meaning we've given them. referring both to homosexual people AND any random thing that we don't like - rules, songs, people, etc. this is gay, that is gay, the whole fucking world is gay. awesome.

so if we're to get away from this negative connotation, how do we do that? i don't think the answer is in using them over and over so as to desensitize people. i'm not suggesting that this is what you're saying, but how do you answer that?

have i completely missed the bus? or am i reading your posts more or less accurately..?

i know from reading the other posts that i will get nowhere here. but, i am a glutton for punishment, or something.

horse = dead & beaten. X 10

[Birdy]

I know from reading the other posts that i will get nowhere here.

Where are you trying to get? It seems to me that I should be the person trying to get somewhere, if anyone. You have the support of the majority of this board, and of the courts. You're already there.

I suppose i'm the one who's truly the glutton, responding to your post which insinuates listening to my ideas would be 'punishment'.

but i want to make the world better, and am a happy spirit, so i'll say this:

the kid in this particular situation was bullying and in bullying, used the phrase "that's gay".

what was reacted to here wasn't that this child bullied another child, but that the child used a word which we don't consider appropriate. the victim then turned from being a bullied child, to the gay population at large.

this seems to be a recurring theme with the advent of the phrase 'politically correct'. the abused in an isolated situation, is no longer the abused. various identity groups take their place instead.

in an ideal world we would be desensitized from words and would recognize that a word will never have the power to kill you. but the world is far from ideal, and human beings are laden with emotions, and certain words will always have their stinging bites.

my answer is a bigger picture. focus on what makes people want to hurt other people, what drives people to insult and to bully. If we shift our focus and our resources and our money towards that, we will stop the attitudes that spur someone to use such offensive words in the first place and the victim in these situations, will finally be the victim.

if we don't do that, and merely continue on our current path of slapping wrists when someone uses a 'politically incorrect' term, people will continue to insult and to bully and will find a different offensive word to fill that void. you will still have that child in the corner of your school yard thinking it's uncool to be a Mormon and we'll have a different identity group as the victim.

that's all.

[meggo]

yep - i get your point, and i will say again that i agree that there is a larger picture of just getting people not to act like assholes, in general.

but as dr evil mouse pointed out earlier in the thread -

"I don't think one issue outweighs the other, though. The fact that "gay" is used in a derogatory sense without many people batting an eye - or even seeing them throw up resistance to recognising it as an issue worth raising - is a good indicator of what people who do identify as gay have to deal with a lot of the time. And the fact, too, that Mormons still have to put up with overt razzing after achieving the level of success they have - and remember, Joseph Smith was killed by an angry mob - speaks volumes about our inability to deal with difference."

i think these need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, i.e., you do not let it go when you hear someone, especially a young person, using a word in this manner. if you're lucky, maybe you can help drive home that bigger picture that you speak of. if you're not lucky, at least you know that you tried and did not simply let it slide because you're so damn tired of going thru that argument again.

ya know?

[Birdy]

yep, i know.

i just feel for the little Mormon kid, and think in all of this political correctness, her plight gets lost.

[meggo]

i feel for the kid too, absolutely. i don't care much for her response, but that school is blatantly using a double standard and i think they need to take a hard look at what exactly they are trying to achieve with their code of conduct.

the article does focus more on the "gay" comment, but i think most people will be able to recognize that the remarks made to the girl are equally hurtful and unacceptable.

so - i think we are actually mostly in agreement here. thank goodness

and now i have a journal article for my grade 10s this week! thanks hamilton.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Loosely on the same topic -

Term 'visible minorities' may be discriminatory, UN body warns Canada

Last Updated: Thursday, March 8, 2007 | 11:10 AM ET

CBC News

Canada should reconsider using the term "visible minorities" to define people facing discrimination, a United Nations anti-racism watchdog reports, suggesting the phrase itself is discriminatory.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination released a report Wednesday on how Canada is living up to an international treaty aimed at eliminating racism.

While Ottawa is praised for some initiatives — including the establishment of a number of committees to fight discrimination and the toughening up of legislation against hate crimes — a number of concerns are raised relating to other issues.

Among those is the use of the term "visible minorities," which the committee says "may not be in accordance with the aims and objectives of the Convention."

The convention is the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which says distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory.

It calls on Canada to "reflect further" on the use of the term visible minorities.

The 16-member group also expresses concerns over the heightened risks of discrimination resulting from increased national security measures, including the Anti-Terrorism Act and the use of security certificates.

Canada should continue to review its national security measures, the report says, and undertake "sensitization campaigns" to protect people from being labeled as terrorists.

Canada is also taken to task for not making sufficient progress in tackling discrimination against aboriginals, who they say continue to face discrimination in employment and are under-represented in public offices and government positions.

The report also accuses the police of using a disproportionate amount of force against African-Canadians and says that there is a disproportionately high rate of incarceration of aboriginals.

Canada should consider alternatives to prison wherever possible for aboriginals because of the negative impact caused by separating them from their community, the report recommends.

As well, the committee raises concerns over Canada's treatment of undocumented migrants and stateless persons whose asylum applications have been rejected. It calls on the government to provide both groups with access to social security, health care and education.

Seems a kind of double-bind - how do you identify a group that might be or has been discriminated against without making the identification? This should make for an interesting exercise in language.

[phishtaper]

this is kinda funny, i had a student ask me last week if he could apply for certain grants as a minority because he is gay. i said i didnt think so. hmmmmm.