Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Liberace was WHAT?

Liberace was WHAT? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I'm saying that the new usage is a redefinition of the word "gay" (over the past 50 years) and there's been a consistent denial that the redefinition took place in order to assert the legitimacy of the change. And I think the appropriation of words by subgroups and then the imposition of that new meaning tends to piss off the population at large, or keep tensions going between the mainstream and the subgroup.

Redefine words if you must, but don't deny that they were used differently by most people 50 years ago. And don't be snippy when folks call you on it.
Eighty+ years, not 50.

And gee whiz, language changes all the time.

Let's try this again:
Originally Posted by finboy and then edited by me View Post
I'm saying that the new usage is a redefinition of the word "n i g g e r" (over the past 50 years) and there's been a consistent denial that the redefinition took place in order to assert the legitimacy of the change. And I think the appropriation of words by subgroups and then the imposition of that new meaning tends to piss off the population at large, or keep tensions going between the mainstream and the subgroup.

Redefine words if you must, but don't deny that they were used differently by most people 50 years ago. And don't be snippy when folks call you on it.
As far as "tensions", those are caused by prejudiced assholes, not by the terminology they prefer to use.

You don't like that "gay" means something different today?

How about the word "fag", which used to mean "torch", and is now used by subgroups who've imposed it onto the population at large, in the process actually *diluting* the word's crassness.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
I'm saying that the new usage is a redefinition of the word "gay" (over the past 50 years) and there's been a consistent denial that the redefinition took place in order to assert the legitimacy of the change. And I think the appropriation of words by subgroups and then the imposition of that new meaning tends to piss off the population at large, or keep tensions going between the mainstream and the subgroup.

Redefine words if you must, but don't deny that they were used differently by most people 50 years ago. And don't be snippy when folks call you on it.
I don’t see anyone denying there’s been a redefinition of the word ‘gay’. Obviously there has, otherwise it would still have its original meaning of happy, gaudy, jolly, carefree, etc.

And I have to agree with analogika—the tension comes not from the redefining of words, but from the people who choose to use words disparagingly. Those who just sort of ‘follow suit’ and use words in their newer meanings, but neutrally, don’t cause any tensions with them. And they’re weak tensions at that: qv., the more recent redistribution of ‘gay’ to mean basically anything negative—has that created much tension? Not really.
     
TomR
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hudson Valley of N.Y.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2008, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies View Post
They didn't have "gay" back then. They didn't have "gay" until 20 years ago.
[color=white]T

He was a pillow biter. A bedpost bandit. A Rump wrangler. A bone smuggler. An Anal cowboy. A bun blaster. A Pepperoni smootcher. Well, you get the idea!
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 01:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post

As far as "tensions", those are caused by prejudiced assholes, not by the terminology they prefer to use.
Or, the terminology could be forced on everyone else, thus pissing people off. It would be great to be able to invent new uses of words and then make up stories about how they'd been used that way by "most people" for generations, but it isn't intellectually honest to do so.

The word you used in your "illustration" is a perfect example: it was practically NEVER acceptable to use that word in polite, scientific conversation or context. Now, two people greeting each other on the street might use it, as long as one of them is Jesse Jackson.

Words change in meaning and acceptance. Changing the use of words because of an agenda of "acceptance" is just deception for deception's sake.

Use words however you want to, just don't fudge their pedigree. In fact, I'm happy to see some folks using big words at all.
     
Apemanblues
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 51°30′28″N 00°07′41″W
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 05:41 AM
 
I'd like to see evidence that "everyone else" and "most people" are pissed off by homosexuals using the word "gay" to describe themselves. I was uaware that this level of uptightness existed.

Either I live in some weird chilled-out bubble (probably true) or it's just not a matter that concerns most people.

I need a pie chart or something. Let's see the stats man. Gimmie poll!
( Last edited by Apemanblues; Jul 22, 2008 at 05:48 AM. )
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 07:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Or, the terminology could be forced on everyone else, thus pissing people off. It would be great to be able to invent new uses of words and then make up stories about how they'd been used that way by "most people" for generations, but it isn't intellectually honest to do so.
It wouldn't be "intellectually honest" (what a beautiful and utterly meaningless construct, btw - empty blather to make it look like you've REALLY REALLY thought about something) if it *WERE* made up.

Since it's not made up, but simple fact (your ad-hominem attempt at discrediting wikipedia kind of fails at the point where Webster's and Oxford back them up) it's not "dishonest" at all.

You know what *I* think is intellectually dishonest?

Being a bigoted, prejudiced jerk who can't accept gays as equal members of his society and simply doesn't have the balls to say so, instead arguing vaguely about "agendas" "forcing words upon others".

(Forcing words! That's really almost funnier than it is pathetic.)
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
It would be great to be able to invent new uses of words and then make up stories about how they'd been used that way by "most people" for generations
Right then.

Heterophobic - anyone who doesn't go on straight pride marches. In common use since 1743.

Christianophobic - anyone who doesn't go to church at least once a month. In common use since 547 AD.

Macophobic - PC users. In common use since 1923.

Equaliphobic - gay people, minorities or their supporters who think "equality" means positive discrimination. In common use since five minutes ago.

Meowophobic - anyone who doesn't laugh at lolcats. Barstewards. In common use since 1976.

~

In other news, 'tis true. My mom is pissed that "gay" no longer means "happy" and resents the commandeering of the word by equaliphobics.

~
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
Being a bigoted, prejudiced jerk who can't accept gays as equal members of his society and simply doesn't have the balls to say so, instead arguing vaguely about "agendas" "forcing words upon others".

(Forcing words! That's really almost funnier than it is pathetic.)

Or, rather, being someone with the balls to call it like it is. I don't personally care that folks call themselves "gay" or whatever, but the idea that a small group gets to decide what words mean (and the rest of us don't) is kind of troubling. Orwell & Huxley had it right -- whoever gets to control the language controls the mind. Newspeak and all that. Up is down, strength is weakness, less is more, etc. (Orwell & Huxley are writers of futuristic novels with social subtexts, among other things. When you get to high school you might have to read some of this stuff, but maybe not because both of these guys lived during a time when "gay" meant "happy" to 99% of everyone in the whole wide world.)

What I could do is declare that the word "blue" now means "wonderful" and everyone who doesn't agree with me is a racist, homophobe, and otherwise bigot. Then if I can just get some intellectuals to write papers about how "blue" has been used like that "forever" I can REALLY hammer those backwards bastards who refuse to move to the modern era.

Liberace can be [whatever]. He was flamboyant (or in Newspeak - fabulous). And he was *enormously* ... talented, and the other part of his life is irrelevant (except for understanding all the pain he went through by staying "in the closet".) He was a great artist that made people aware of a terrible disease that was suddenly killing people. So to some extent, you can say he was a martyr. Same with Freddie.
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:04 PM
 
Just like society, words change and sometimes you will not like how.

This is called life.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Just like society, words change and sometimes you will not like how.

This is called life.
Preserveophobe!
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
Dakar the Fourth
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the hearts and minds of MacNNers
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
Preserveophobe!
Or, as you usually call it, Lefty.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth View Post
Or, as you usually call it, Lefty.
Doofophobe!
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Or, rather, being someone with the balls to call it like it is. I don't personally care that folks call themselves "gay" or whatever, but the idea that a small group gets to decide what words mean (and the rest of us don't) is kind of troubling. Orwell & Huxley had it right -- whoever gets to control the language controls the mind. Newspeak and all that. Up is down, strength is weakness, less is more, etc. (Orwell & Huxley are writers of futuristic novels with social subtexts, among other things. When you get to high school you might have to read some of this stuff, but maybe not because both of these guys lived during a time when "gay" meant "happy" to 99% of everyone in the whole wide world.)

What I could do is declare that the word "blue" now means "wonderful" and everyone who doesn't agree with me is a racist, homophobe, and otherwise bigot. Then if I can just get some intellectuals to write papers about how "blue" has been used like that "forever" I can REALLY hammer those backwards bastards who refuse to move to the modern era.

Liberace can be [whatever]. He was flamboyant (or in Newspeak - fabulous). And he was *enormously* ... talented, and the other part of his life is irrelevant (except for understanding all the pain he went through by staying "in the closet".) He was a great artist that made people aware of a terrible disease that was suddenly killing people. So to some extent, you can say he was a martyr. Same with Freddie.

http://www.the-brights.net/vision/es...e_brights.html

Richard Dawkins attempts to follow the evolution (pun intended) of the word 'gay' to mean homosexual by initiating the change of the word 'bright' to mean atheist.


The thing is, the value of words is that they allow us to communicate by using shared meanings. When you go changing words from their accepted meaning it breaks communication, and prohibits us from using the original meaning if we wish to be understood.

This happens with other terms as well - OreoCookie and I were discussing the meaning of the words 'well-regulated' and he thought it referred to legislation, while Oxford's showed that it denoted something that was maintained in good working order.

There is no fault in resisting breaking the shared meanings that allow us to communicate.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 01:13 PM
 
While obstinate refusal to accept that language changes with society is just quixotic.

Originally Posted by finboy View Post
Or, rather, being someone with the balls to call it like it is. I don't personally care that folks call themselves "gay" or whatever, but the idea that a small group gets to decide what words mean (and the rest of us don't) is kind of troubling. Orwell & Huxley had it right -- whoever gets to control the language controls the mind. Newspeak and all that. Up is down, strength is weakness, less is more, etc. (Orwell & Huxley are writers of futuristic novels with social subtexts, among other things. When you get to high school you might have to read some of this stuff, but maybe not because both of these guys lived during a time when "gay" meant "happy" to 99% of everyone in the whole wide world.)
They also lived during a time where homosexuals were beaten and thrown in jail. Legally.

And most high-schoolers will at some point read Shakespeare, which is just PACKED with stuff that no longer means what it used to, or has simply fallen out of use, and Huckleberry Finn, where the "n-word" is used as was absolutely commonplace 150 years ago, before those goddamn activists made it illegal to kill a ****** before breakfast just to start the day on a positive note.

And somehow, they all deal with the historical context, and somehow nobody complains.

You know, I grew up in a world where "cock" meant "chicken".

I got over it in eighth grade.
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika View Post
You know, I grew up in a world where "cock" meant "chicken".

I got over it in eighth grade.
So, you're telling us that you got over cock in the eighth grade?
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
finboy
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by vmarks View Post
There is no fault in resisting breaking the shared meanings that allow us to communicate.
Excellent citation. Thanks.

Be careful, though. If you support the idea of consistency in word usage, you might be a BIGOT. If you're against agenda-driven revisionism, you might be labeled a Luddite. Watch out!
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Doof View Post
So, you're telling us that you got over cock in the eighth grade?
Ah no. That didn't happen until quite a bit later.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 07:58 PM
 
I don't personally care that folks call themselves "gay" or whatever, but the idea that a small group gets to decide what words mean (and the rest of us don't) is kind of troubling.
If you don’t like a particular meaning of a particular word, don’t use it. If enough people feel the same, that meaning of that word will soon die out or become at least rare.

Gay people did not suddenly just decide to change the meaning of the word ‘gay’, and then everyone else was left standing on the side wondering what just happened. The word gradually extended its ‘user base’ and meaning, and this was apparently generally felt to be a good development, or nobody would have bothered to use it. There are plenty of other words for homosexuality, nobody forced anyone to use ‘gay’ over any other. Back when the word still carried somewhat of a stigma and was not yet considered a/the default, neutral word to describe homosexuality (say, ’50s, early ’60s), ‘gay’ and ‘queer’ were more or less equals in terms of their meanings and how loaded they were. If people in general had felt, over time, that ‘queer’ was a better word for homosexuals than ‘gay’, their meanings may well have been the opposite of what they are now.

There is no conspiracy.
     
BasketofPuppies  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 22, 2008, 11:39 PM
 
Why is it that half of my silly threads turn into something political?

Better try to change this one back.

From the South Park episode, "It Hits the Fan"

Randy: That word's kind of getting old. It's not really funny anymore.
Man: Yeah, they're gonna have to come up with a new swear word now.
Mr. Garrison: Well, they can't use "fag." Because you can't say "fag" unless you're a homosexual.
Randy: Really? So we can't say (bleep)?
Mr. Garrison: No. See, you got beeped.
Man: You mean you have to be a (bleep) to say (bleep)?
Mr. Garrison: That's right.
Jimbo: Hell, that's not fair! I should be able to say "fag."
Awkward silence
Randy: Hey, you didn't get beeped.
Jimbo: Uh, oh.
Mr. Garrison: Well well well! Guess we learned something new about you, Jimbo, you freakin' fag! You wanna make out or something?
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2008, 04:49 AM
 
Why is it that half of my silly threads turn into something political?
Hey, only by one person, at least!
     
Uncle Doof
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 23, 2008, 06:37 AM
 


How queer!
If you don't want to be eaten, stop acting like food
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:34 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,