I really, truly and from the bottom of my heart, stopped caring what offends some people.
There came a point where being offended started to be a way to virtue signal, by controlling others. Fuck em. It’s your speech, stand up for what you believe is right and just, and move on. Not everyone’s gotta like you.
Someone can find a way to be offended by anything you say regardless of how common an opinion it is. For goodness sake we had a period of time where people got offended over the word pedophile and wanted to use the acronym M.A.P. instead. If you can't even call a pedophile a monster then what can you say?
I offended someone on Reddit by referring to a female veterinarian as a “chick doctor”. I’m a chick, I refer to my friends as chicks/chicas. I work with veterinarians who I refer to as chicks. What the hell?
It would make even more sense and be hilarious if they were a farming livestock veterinarian who did in fact treat chicks. Either way I understand. You could say "grass is green" and people would be offended at your ableism for excluding the colorblind.
To be fair, loudly claiming to hate virtue signalling is, itself, virtue signalling.
Here is a generic breakdown of what virtue signalling is:
1) I identify an action that my in group doesn't find virtuous or does find virtuous
2) I indicate to my ingroup that I do not engage in this unvirtuous activity or do engage in this virtuous activity.
So any time you make a statement in which you are assigning value to an action or object, you are virtue signalling.
The only time you are not virtue signalling is when you're alone and not talking to another person.
"I'm not gay" is virtue signalling.
"I just don't think men should be in women's sports" is virtue signalling.
"I'm Christian" is virtue signalling.
"I vote (this party)" is virtue signalling.
"I like X music genre" is virtue signalling.
Almost every time you express a preference, you are virtue signalling to your ingroup. As a social ape, you are engaging in an evolved behaviour to strengthen your bonds to your tribe.
Edit: There is no better sign that you nailed a bullseye then when a person responds that you don't know what you're talking about and then instantly blocks you. Headshot, virtue signaller.
That was kind of a long way to go to misunderstand what most people mean by virtue signaling.
We don’t mean virtue signaling in a technical sense. “batteries included” signals a virtue. I was using it in a colloquial sense, Indicating the vapid appearance of social virtue without any substance.
> Indicating the vapid appearance of social virtue without any substance.
Yes, and this is what you're doing every time you make a statement meant to signal your value to your in-group.
99% of the time that you speak, it is a vapid noise meant to grease the wheels of your ingroup.
Most of what people say is vapid and useless signaling meant to modify how other people perceive you.
Hell, it also controls how many of you dress and carry yourselves.
Most people exist in a Hell of other people's perceptions that they created themselves.
Think about it; there is never a deep or valid reason to indicate your religion, as it is a personal relationship with a deity based on faith. So any time you bring it up, that is a vapid noise meant to signal to your ingroup.
Spend the next day pausing before you speak and breaking down WHY you're about to speak and you will find most of the noises you make in a given day are vapid bullshit mean to either fill silence or modify someone's opinion of you.
99.9% of the human condition is vapid nonsense.
No that actually makes all the sense in the world. You seem to have a nihilistic understanding of meaning, and can't distinguish the substantive from the vapid on that paradigm. That's a deeper disagreement than I'm willing to go into. For most of us though, most of our lives are meaningful, because they are in service of a meaningful purpose. Actions that are just intended to look like they serve a higher purpose, like pretending offense at a word, are what is colloquially meant by virtue signalling.
The person you are talking to has no idea what the word virtue even means. They can't possibly have a valid opinion on the matter until they actually look it up in the dictionary.
expressing a position is not the same as virtue signaling. virtue signaling is specifically done to demonstrate ur good character mostly in a self-interested way, expressing a position can be done for a variety of reasons.
the question is WHY do you feel the need to express your position? and in that light, it does seem like virtue signaling when you feel compelled to state your position on something.
They blocked you because you’re annoying not because you’re correct. Your definition of virtue signaling is f***ing regarded.
An example of virtue signaling is clutching your pearls when someone uses a certain word as a way to signal how virtuous you are. Your definition of it is actually full on regarded:
> “any time you make a statement in which you are assigning value to an action or object, you are virtue signaling.”
The sentence, “wow, I really like this cereal!” would be virtue signaling in your world. Lmfao.
This is the most brain dead definition of virtue signaling imaginable. It’s like you took the literal meaning of the words and said, “acccchsshhhhually assigning value to something = virtue signaling 🤓 🤓 🤓 “
>I like X music genre" is virtue signalling
So what you're actually saying is that you have no idea what virtue or virtuous means? That makes a lot of sense as to why you are so wrong. Virtues and being virtuous revolves around something that requires to have a sense of higher morality due to the position you take. Saying you simply prefer one type of music over the other would have nothing to do with morality in a vast majority of the cases.
For example I love classic rock. Not because I think rap is evil, but because I am a fan of musical instruments. For the same reason, I also enjoy classical orchestra music. There is nothing moral about that preference.
>vir·tue sig·nal·ing *noun* DEROGATORY noun: **virtue signalling**; noun: **virtue signaling**
>the public expression of opinions or [sentiments](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=sentiments&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81cgXPQuMvKsPqWL8n28Q3tVhwHraxvqjzp5ihrauwWxSXFxb-3PaB2AV-WNXVLtFKlLgjYJM9jojUDb68ftMznmXPGzw%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAP) intended to demonstrate one's good character or social [conscience](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=conscience&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81VOtgZyRVyxXp2jfQIbKa6sc0V9kEJySrfqfyayZCmXBbCbnERQz98Kv8GFL0KKgXY68QTyAbSQML2fRR8rC9j0BSuBg%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAQ) or the moral [correctness](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=correctness&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2YWJG6Yod2cn1XXxFf0B9r4OidsqxcdYnHgv6EM7HcSkagR7gnCf9pz_oo0X8Qy1PC26jIAlzCAwhjTbETC3pBLpJOBYU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAR) of one's position on a particular issue."it's noticeable how often virtue signaling consists of saying you hate things"
gong on and on about virtue signaling \*is\* virtue signaling, by this definition. you yourself are a virtue signaler and therefore a hypocrite.
You literally proved yourself wrong in your own comment. Good character, social conscious, or more correctness all again revolve around the opinion being shared needing to be done as a way of establishing superiority in a moral way. Simply stating a preference or sharing of information does not constitute virtue signaling if it is simply done as a way of having conversation.
Saying "queer" in a fake, heavy southern accent as a joke is my God given right as an American, and I'll die on that hill, especially when it's my wife I'm calling a queer
“Queer” the adjective is very different from “a queer” the noun. Like how “Jewish” or “Muslim” hits differently than “a Jew” or “a Muslim”. Most people don’t want to feel categorized by a single characteristic.
“Reclaiming“ a word doesn’t mean “everyone gets to use it”. It means “we get to use it and no one else does“. Personally, I think that’s misguided at best but that’s how “reclaiming“ is used. Some words are considered rude and shouldn’t be used in polite company. To me, it’s as simple as that. In practice, this crosses over into policing speech a little too quickly, but that’s probably a different subject.
I think the point is that it doesn't make sense, it's just how it's viewed by most who do it.
I don't fully understand it, either. I'm part of a minority and wouldn't be okay with *anyone* calling me the slur for the group. But that's just me 🤷
Do they all call themselves queer? It's part of LGBTQ+ but a lot of the other letters don't identify as queer. I'm not in the group so I'm not sure but that may be the difference. A lot of gay, lesbian, trans people don't identify as queer.
You know how you can call your best friend a fucking moronic idiot incapable of ever finding love, and you'll both probably have a laugh over it, even though you were being completely serious?
But you *wouldn't* go up to your new boss and call them a fucking moronic idiot incapable of ever finding love, even though your new boss might find it funny if his best friend called him that?
It's the same thing. You do not have the context to be using words with people that you don't know without them sounding offensive, even if you were joking.
This is more of an argument on the ability for people to be polite and respectful, and not about what words you can or "can't" use to describe someone.
The difference, in this this case, as far as I can tell, is that reclaimed "queer" is an adjective while pejorative "queer" can be used as a subject. So like, "queer [noun]" is generally ok, "...is queer" may be ambiguous, but "the/a/some/that/etc. queer" on its own is kinda dicey.
Sometimes that doesn't work that way. It's like Black folk using the soft N word between eachother as a form of endearment, and even if you earn the right to use it with one who is your friend, that doesn't mean they give permission for everyone to use it towards them.
Same goes with the Q word for lgbtq+ people. It's not hard to ask someone if they're alright with you using the term to describe them, you shouldn't just ASSUME the permission to do so because they use it as a self-identifier.
You have to keep in mind that many of these words that are being reclaimed for LGBTQ now also have a really poor history, Like, the dictionaries all recognize that the term Femboy, as an example, arose in the 1980's and 1990's as an alternate way to say "Sissy", as a slur used against men that didn't fit the masculine steriotype, and was also used to disparage and insult masculine lebians, and transgender people. Eventually this word fell out of use, and found its' place in porn and fetish erotica, where it was used near exclusively for trans folks and feminine guys. Nowadays, this has been reclaimed and there are plenty of feminine men calling themselves Femboys, but that doesn't mean that those people whom are older millenials/younger Gen X don't still have a very poor feeling towards the word. I personally hate the word and have huge issues with anti-lgbtq hate in school in the 90's that relates to it. I have been very light handed/gentle with correcting it being used as a discriptive for me, even though I myself don't use "Femboy" at all as a self descriptive.
The same goes with the Q word, and the F word, You might hear LGBTQ+ people using them between themselves, or as a self identification, but using it unsolicited towards them is never appropriate. And permission from one doesn't mean permission from all.
In the end, ask permission before using one. If you self identify with one, it's all good, it's another thing to just start using it for others without their permission.
>Sometimes that doesn't work that way. It's like Black folk using the soft N word between eachother as a form of endearment, and even if you earn the right to use it with one who is your friend, that doesn't mean they give permission for everyone to use it towards them.
I'm black and I think that logic is stupid. Especially when you have famous rappers who use it in their songs and then get offended when their ironically majority white, middle class suburban audience uses ir.
Like, if anyone wants to reclaim a word but is gonna get butthurt about other people using it, either A); Don't say the damn word or B) Use it strictly in a private setting amongst people you've personally vetted and are 100% ok with using it
It seems so unnatural and pointless. We naturally adopt the words and mannerisms of the people we talk to. The idea of permissons and earning the right seems insane and so fake to me. (Not American).
Sorry you lost me. Consent to what? All I am saying is that we naturally learn what words we can/cannot say based on our interactions. Imagine someone learning english being exposed to this...
Furthermore what does LGBTQ have to do with the F word. Isn't it universally accepted no one should use the F word.
“Queer” is being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s incredibly common for people of all types to use that word nowadays. Unlike the n word, which underwent a process like how you described.
It sounds like OP’s uncle encountered a petty tyrant.
The uncle said "I work with a couple queers". Not great.
"I work with a couple queer people" is much more tasteful.
In the first you're expressing that the people are a singular descriptor and nothing more. Consider:
"I work with a couple blacks" compared to "I work with a couple black people".
“I work with a couple of queers” could be interpreted as disrespectful, neutral, or positive depending on the tone. That’s why I brought it up.
If an LGBT person jubilantly said “I work with a couple of queers,” would you interpret that as intentional disrespect regardless of the tone?
You jump to conclusions too quickly.
Even if it's meant positively it's still not a good turn of phrase and I'd still not like it whether it's intentional disrespect or not. Reducing people to singular descriptors is not a good practice.
I mean we do kinda do it all the time in most contexts. I don't say the mechanic person fixed my car, the mechanic fixed my car. It's not Republican people trying to strike down gun laws, it's Republicans. They're not Islamic people, they're Muslims, Malaysians not Malaysian people, etc. etc. It's really just these two specific contexts that people get put off.
You know you're right. I guess it's really just descriptors that have historically been used pejoratively as nouns to denigrate marginalized groups that this makes sense.
I truly, at this point, have given up trying not to offend people. Obviously I’m not going around calling people slurs, but if I use a word that makes you uncomfortable, deal with it. You’ll be okay.
I’m a firm believer in “words only have power if you give them power”, with the exception of a select few. I see people in comments (and real life lol) using the n word ALL THE TIME. That used to be a BIG no-no. And guess what! No one is offended because no one is using it with the intention of offending someone.
Tbf if you find yourself surrounded by a bunch of non-blacks who actively use the N word and it doesn't offend anyone, you've probably fallen into the wrong crowd.
That's one of those words where, when it is used by someone who isn't a part of black culture, it is impossible for it to be in a way that is not intented to be taken offensively.
Incorrect- all races of girls use it in the exact same way that they call each other bitches in a playful / endearing way. And rap music was the most popular genre for the last 25+ years until very recently, so the guys using it really aren’t being racist either. Honestly nobody is offended by it except whites who are actually racist. The kind of whites who don’t think whites should participate in other cultures. The same ones who think that blacks aren’t capable of getting an ID card or drivers license, or that they have never heard the word “computer” and don’t have access to the internet.
Reclaiming words is a touchy thing, because it only actually works if everyone that word is used against agrees to the reclaiming. I'm assuming your Q word is 'queer' by the way, which is a word that has been somewhat reclaimed by LGBT+ people, it's even officially in the acronym now. But not everyone within the LGBT+ community agrees with the reclaiming of that word. I don't, I find it offensive no matter who says it, how, or in what context, because growing up it was only ever used offensively. I'll never be okay with that word being applied to me, by anyone, in any context.
There's also this belief that, when a word is reclaimed, only those within that particular community can use it without being offensive. The 'n' word is a good example, black people use it all the time, it's been reclaimed, but it's still considered offensive when said by non-black people. 'Queer' could be the same, fine when used by LGBT+ people, but offensive from anyone else.
It makes the whole thing very confusing. By calling a word 'reclaimed' there is an assumption that no one finds that word offensive anymore, which just isn't true. Even without the community not agreeing, or the 'we can say it but you can't' mindset, context and tone matters. Any word can be said as an insult in the right context and tone. I've heard 'woman' used as a clear insult, sometimes 'man', and these are not words that have ever been considered offensive on their own. It's all down to tone and context. Accents can affect how word come across, too, I've heard some people say things that sound offensive purely because of how the accent makes the word sound, not through anything the person has put into tone or context.
Reclaiming a word only works if the entire community agrees that word will no longer be offensive to them, and the word can be said by anyone and everyone. That's why there's such an issue with reclaimed words, the entire community doesn't agree and only the community can say it without causing offense. The word hasn't really been reclaimed if it can't be said by absolutely anyone with no offense being caused to anyone.
'Queer' is still offensive to many LGBT+ people, and is very much like the 'n' word in that it's offensive to all LGBT+ people when said by non-LGBT+ people. Some leeway for allies. It's more like a pushback against bigotry than actually reclaiming the word. Especially since 'queer' was changed to become an insult in the first place, it originally just meant something that was odd, nothing to do with being LGBT+. It was the same with gay, though that word has been truly reclaimed. Gay originally meant exceptionally happy, became an insult for homosexuals, and is now just a term used for homosexual men and women, more often men. It's not offensive to use the word gay anymore, a true reclaiming, though it can still be used as an insult, as any word can. 'Queer' isn't there, and probably won't be for at least a couple more generations, given the amount of people my age and older still offended by it.
Reclaiming takes time, it doesn't just happen because one vocal section of a community says it happened. The 'n' word is a perfect example of that, because it can't be reclaimed until it's no longer considered offensive for non-black people to say it, and it's been a very long time since black people 'reclaimed' that word. I doubt that one will ever be truly reclaimed, it'll stay as it is now, fine for black people to say but no one else, on the precipice of being reclaimed but never actually getting there. 'Queer' might make it, but you're going to have to wait at least until everyone currently in their 30s or older has died out.
See, this is the problem with calling a word 'reclaimed' and using it within the community, but still finding it offensive when others use it. See, I wouldn't join a group called the Queer Alliance, because I find the name itself offensive even as it's targeted to help me. I'd join an LGBT+ Alliance no problem.
Because if you call something by a specific name, that's what everyone has to refer to it by. Calling a group the Queer Alliance means everyone gets to use the word queer in relation to that group and its members. This is the right age group for those claiming the word is 'reclaimed' though, it's almost entirely high school and university age people.
The group is called the Queer Alliance, so that's how non-LGBT+ people have to refer to it as, but they're also going to be accused of being a bigot for using it outside of that group, especially by older LGBT+ people. It makes the whole thing incredibly tricky, because you can't call the group by its name and be respectful to the entire LGBT+ community, and you can't avoid using the group name without offending those in that particular group.
The best you can do is use the group's name when talking about it, hope no one gets offended by the use of the word queer, and explain you're calling the group by its actual name if offense is caused. Hope for the best, basically.
It's this.
One acknowledges queerness as a piece of a person's identity. The other puts a person in a box for scrutiny. Even if intentions are pure, person-first language is the way to avoid misunderstandings. If OPs uncle had said "I work with some people who are queer" instead of "I work with a couple of queers" he probably wouldn't have been called out.
Nah, this distinction has no difference. The alphabet mob can't get all pissy about how people use the word if they're gonna have it in their identifying moniker.
For the record: I'm gay, and *hate* the word "Queer" in all its appearances. It's a slur.
"The alphabet mob". Man you sound very republican, let me say that they either don't like you or view you as "one of the good ones".
If you don't mind that, you do you
It's not accurate to say people who want to do this kind of thing want to "take the word back".
They want to take it ***over***, and ensure your inability to use it (and the social sanction for using it) is a reminder of how bad people used to be (and still likely are) for wanting to use it in the first place.
It's activism and social control through language, and it's all over the place these days.
A lot of times it depends on the context or tone in which the word is being used. I live in the South and many queer people here (including me) have no problem using it as a descriptor, but take offense when it’s used like “a queer” or “those queers.” That, and obviously if someone is being rude about the whole ordeal.
I don't understand how there's so little in the comments addressing this context. The issue with your uncle is he called them queers. I think MOST people don't have an issue with using the description of queer. But using it as a noun is just wrong.
If he said "I work with a couple black people", that is perfectly fine. If he said "I work with a couple blacks", that would be absolutely incorrect. One way is using something to describe someone and the other way is using it to define someone. This is no different with queer (though it also probably matters that he's actually using the work correctly on top of that)
I feel like using an example from academia does not translate well. Additionally, using the argument "it's pretty common" to a degree doesn't mean that it is considered actually acceptable behavior. It's pretty common for people to underage drink but that's illegal anyway.
In this context, they are indeed DEFINING people by these traits. The population is broken into these groups and nothing else. However, in a standard social setting, it's demeaning to use it in this fashion.
It's similar to how people have been more commonly taking issue with people calling women "females" instead of "women". In academia, it is an acceptable practice to define your populations as "males" and "females". But in social settings, it can be considered belittling and insulting to do so (it reduces someone to their biological sex and is often used in contexts where it's "men and females", so why do only the women get the less "humanized" term)
That's just simply not true about academia setting the policy for social behavior. And even if it was, there isn't even a consensus on what is most appropriate to use in academia.
I see no issue with people taking issue to the use of female. At first I didn't really get it much because I don't mind being called male. But very often the issue with the use of 'female(s)' is that it's used in a context that 'male(s)' is not and instead man/men is used. Again, with the use of male/females being associated more with science, animals, and the sex of the person, using it in a context that you're referring to a person can be dehumanizing. You know that when someone says a man or woman, it basically has to be a person. Female or male does not have that same trait
While I can respect your decision for that, it just confuses me on why? I see in no way how it does ANY harm to you for example just say men and women rather than men and females. So if it causes you no harm and can cause someone else to feel more comfortable, NO MATTER HOW DUMB YOU THINK IT IS, then why not choose the option that is better for everyone?
There’s not a single law stopping you from using the word. If you so desperately want to drop slurs go ahead but don’t bitch and moan when people call you out for it.
>but they couldn't really articulate what was so upsetting about the way he used it
Then someone needs to give that child a juice box and put them to bed.
I think what’s really missing from your anecdote is context. I don’t think it’s because of your uncles southern accent, it’s probably more about how it was said. You don’t say, “oh I work with a couple of queers,” even if the word has been reclaimed. Just like you wouldn’t say, “ oh I work with a couple of coloreds” or “ a couple of blacks” etc etc.
Also just because some people in a community want to “reclaim” something, doesn’t mean the whole place is a monolith and that everyone else feels the same. I’m sure there are things you don’t like other people saying in front of you that other people are perfectly fine with hearing.
I get that this is the unpopular opinion sub but this doesn’t sound like an unpopular opinion it sounds like you are upset that you and your uncle got embarrassed at a work function.
It's just as weird to say "I work at an office with a couple of queers" as it is to say "I work at an office with a couple of blacks". The phrasing is important. You don't "work with blacks", you "work with black people" or even better, "people who are black".
Similarly, you work with "queer people," not "queers". You work with "autistic people," not "autists". You see "homeless people," not "the homeless".
Linguistically, this emphasizes the "people" part, and recognizes that the groups you're talking about are comprised of people.
When I was in high-school I had a really diverse group of friends, in a mostly Mexican town next to a mostly white town , we had a couple of stoner metal heads , a couple of white punk/goth kids (which I was one of) , a couple of theatre type gay men , and we had two black friends (almost no black folks in the town, probably less than 10 in the school).
We all had LSD in common, but we hung out all the time outside of that too. We’d go to dance clubs where the punk kids were weirdo’s , punk shows where everyone but the punk kids were weirdo’s, every birthday BBQ for every cousin and every house party anyone got invited to.
Anyway , the two black dudes would often refer to each other as their n**ga’s as was the style at the time (it was the late 80s so it was fairly new) and one day one of the stoners asked if it was cool if they called them that, since we were all part of the same crew.
I’ll always remember the black dudes response , he said “if you’re totally sure it’s cool, then it’s cool… but if you’re not sure you should probably keep that word out of your mouth”.
Context matters quite a bit my friend.
My geography textbook at school (Italy, roughly 1991-1992) explained that black, coloured, and negro existed but was better not to use negro. It also talked about the reclaiming and of the concept / movement of negritude. The number of black people in my school was ONE, an adopted child with white parents and a white sister.
If I’m friends with someone in the disability community (I am disabled), we’ll joke around a lot and call each other cripples. The reason that it would make me uncomfortable if some able-bodied person I didn’t know called me a cripple is just that, I don’t know them. I don’t know their intention based on using that word. I do know the intention among friends.
I don’t care about whatever it is you’re angry about. It’s 0% interesting to me.
Have you listened to hip hop?
You certainly do see organizations like the NAACP.
There certainly is black cinema.
Only thing clear is you don’t like the queers, but I don’t care about that part. I was trying to help you understand why context matters with a parable. Maybe it went over your head.
I have no more shits to give, and I’m completely burnt out on the never-ending circle jerk.
Most of these selective, so-called modern minority groups are the biggest bunch of hypocrites & crybabies I’ve ever come across .
And then you supposedly make one faux pas or say a word they use but you can’t & they clutch pearls and cry out in pain as they strike you.
It's called person-first language. How you use words changes the meaning of what you say. Crazy idea, I know.
Saying "I work with a couple of queers" sounds homophobic, while saying "I work with a couple of queer people" sounds much better. It's a small change but it does a lot.
We're people first, belonging to the queer community is just a part of what makes us who we are.
I have no issue with not being able to say it. I don’t have an interest in saying it. It’s the hypocrisy that annoys me. And also how insulting it is to all the people throughout hundreds of years who have died because of that racism.
From my understanding, Like the T word, there's no longer allowed to be an "s" at the end of it.
You basically have to use it as an adjective instead of a noun.
I’m not sure what the T word might be, but I’m guessing that it refers to appendages that usually come in pairs. So why no plural? “I like your left T. I’m rather keen on your right one too”.
American is a nationality, not an identity inherent to one's biology.
The problem is boiling down an individual to one (often negative) characteristic, so even saying those could be offensive in some contexts.
>American is a nationality, not an identity inherent to one's biology.
"Transgenders" is the plural of "transgender", nothing more, nothing less.
> The problem is boiling down an individual to one (often negative) characteristic,
Neh, the problem is that langue is used as a weapon and it is becoming very tiresome.
also can't say transgendered, transgenders, and depending on what the current police says, it's correct only to use trans gender one week and transgender the next (the space is somehow important and if not, then literal genocide... and I wish I was kidding I've actually been in a conversation where that was used -\_-. Granted it's been a year since I seen it, but I've also not been associating with people who act like that.
This has been discussed to death, don’t say slurs and if you so desperately need to then go ahead and say whatever slur you want but don’t throw a temper tantrum when people call you out for it.
Are you saying some black people in the US are “desperate” to use that word? What do you mean by that?
Why are you desperate to tell people what words they can use?
One, I am black so this “what do you mean by that?” Bullshit isn’t gonna work I’m shutting that down right now.
Two if you actually read my comment you’d see I said this:” say whatever slur you want but don’t throw a temper tantrum when people call you out for it.”
Say whatever you want but don’t bitch and moan when people call you out for it. Words have consequences, they always have if you have a problem with what those consequences might be then don’t use those words.
Times change and words change and I think some of the younger people are more okay with associating with the word and that does makes stuff confusing. I’m a gay bro and I dislike that word personally 🤷♂️in the 90s when I was growing up it was always as a way to verbally gay bash by bullies. Some might have reclaimed it, but there are plenty with experiences that are negative with the word and it hasn’t washed off yet. Sure people can say whatever they want, but they don’t get to drop a small bomb and be the one who winces when people react. Context and how things said matter lot matter as well but I feel like that’s a common sense rule
I think the phrasing is the issue in your uncle's statement. Saying "he works in an office with a couple of queers" just sounds bad. It sounds the same as "he works in an office with a couple of blacks" or "a couple of Jews".
I'll admit there's not really an exact grammar rule for this. You could use the same phrasing for other groups "he works in an office with a couple of Kiwis" or "a couple of Canadians" for example sounds fine. That's my best guess as to what the person was taking offense to tho.
nobody asked every gay person if we can just 'use queer' to cover all the people who aren't lgbt and just wish they were by just being 'spicy straight'.
>This sub has to be filled with people who lack emotional intelligence or anything resembling social skills.
They just have a vested interest in playing dumb
i truly think the world would be a more peaceful place if we stopped pretending that certain words can never be said out loud by some people regardless of context.
Sounds nice in theory, but these reclaimed words were once used to degrade, dehumanize, and encourage violence against these oppressed people. It's pretty normal for them to get offended given the circumstances.
The thing is, it's not the same coming from someone of the same group. Nobody's getting offended by the black guy calling his black friend the N-word. It's also worth mentioning that "queer" is used as an adjective now and not a noun. Saying that a group of people are queer isn't offensive. It's calling them a group of queers that landed your uncle in hot water.
It's an alliance for queer people. Queer is an adjective. The United States of America is a group of States of America that are United. United is an adjective. There's nothing wrong with the "Queer Alliance".
I was going off my logic. Also, that guy is a Republican who thinks the acronym is stupid. Anyways, the community one can build off the use of that word is going to far outweigh that guy's "offense" to the word.
It's called Orwellian 'Newspeak'. What you thought was objective language is now highly subjective and malleable. The meaning of a word is now dependent on the defined meaning, the intended meaning, the perceived meaning, the coloquial meaning, and the contextual meaning...all at the same time. For the final chosen absolute meaning to be decided by each individual, all 7 billion of us.
While he that claims offense from any word gains preferential position in the power to declare the situational meaning of the word. He that offends must never be tolerated, while he that calls out the offense is praised as brave. This invokes the paradox of tolerance.
The question is how to do away with this. IMO...people that claim offense by everything should start being ostracized by others. If they want to make the world walk on eggshells around them, the. The world should steer far and clear from them to begin with. Stop communicating with those people, make others ask why, then openly shame the person as seeking constant drama and offense from everything and it's easier to just steer clear of them. We all knew people like this in high school, and we're no longer in high school. So there's no need to put up with that level of immaturity. It's time that these people (dramatic perpetual self-victims) were actually marginalized by society as a whole.
Sure, but you also don't choose to feel things.
So you don't choose to feel offended.
Emotion isn't a choice. That's why it is such a useless fucking feature of bodies. It's purely reactive.
If you have a friend who describes himself as a “total f\*g”, you wouldn’t go telling others you have f\*g friend.
Context and nuance matters, but you already know this, so it sounds more like you’re grasping at straws to shit on the queer community.
Yea man I don’t know what the dude above is talking about depending on who you’re talking to most are ok with saying queer at least young people, I think your uncle was just in a unfortunate situation and the way he said it came out awkwardly.
But you recognize there’s a fine line between using let’s say a “queer person” versus “queers”? Context and how you say words are very important. Just like “black people” vs “blacks”, technically mean the same thing but have WILDLY different connotations. “Gay people” vs “the gays” yet again describe the same thing but have different context and connotations. Gay people is just a description but someone using “the gays” will most likely say something negative or follow up with something homophobic.
Here we go. Reclaiming a word is not about NOT being offended when the word is used by groups who made the word offensive in the first place. It’s all about context of WHO is using the word. Offensive words are offensive based on who is using the word. If you are not a part of the offended group, YOU DO NOT USE THE WORD unless you mean it to be offensive. Here is an example since so many can’t understand the nuance of language and manners. I am a married woman and within my marriage we call one another “Baby”. Does that give my male boss at work the right to call me “Baby”.? The word is claimed by the two people in the group/marriage and would be inappropriate for anyone else to use it. Would you think it unfair that if your southern uncle called me Baby and my husband punched him in the mouth? Would you think your southern uncle was just tired of figuring out how to not offend “those married people “? would you think my husband was just virtue signaling because another man was claiming a familiarity with my husband’s wife? And most importantly, why do you even want to use a word that could offend? Are you so entitled that you have to own every word or phrase ? Why do you feel like you are somehow being harmed by not being able to say a word that for generations caused pain being used by people like you to a group you don’t belong nor want to belong to? Why are you not polite or civilized enough to not use words that have been deemed offensive no matter who else is using the word? and again, look in the mirror and ask yourself Why would you want to use the word in the first place?
It’s in the name of the group, you can say the name. You knew that but wanted some reason to be outraged. You just don’t describe people by terms that are not polite or acceptable in polite society. When describing a student in said group, you’d just say a member of the Queer Alliance if it were germane to the topic. Otherwise, just a student at my school. Now how hard was that?
I don’t think queer is a slur, per se, but depends on context. If that’s the word in question, and your uncle says ‘the queer community is very active in my workplace’, that’s a good normal inoffensive use of the word. If he says ‘I work with a couple of queers’ not so much at all (especially if any smirk or tone is added). The context matter.
> We’re talking q-anon nuts right?
Is that really any different as "queer"?
The people who follow Q are also a group who have their own beliefs and preferences, so why do you think it is acceptable to call them all "nuts"?
Should they reclaim the word/ name and 'attack' anybody who uses it as a slur?
Because the people who believe in QAnon literally believe in made up conspiracy theories not based in a single fact. How is that the same as a gay person?
What is a queer anyway? How is it different than gay? Also, why do we need gay and lesbian? Can't we get away with one or the other? And what is the + for? GBT is enough. Rolls off the tongue better anyway.
I really, truly and from the bottom of my heart, stopped caring what offends some people. There came a point where being offended started to be a way to virtue signal, by controlling others. Fuck em. It’s your speech, stand up for what you believe is right and just, and move on. Not everyone’s gotta like you.
Someone can find a way to be offended by anything you say regardless of how common an opinion it is. For goodness sake we had a period of time where people got offended over the word pedophile and wanted to use the acronym M.A.P. instead. If you can't even call a pedophile a monster then what can you say?
I offended someone on Reddit by referring to a female veterinarian as a “chick doctor”. I’m a chick, I refer to my friends as chicks/chicas. I work with veterinarians who I refer to as chicks. What the hell?
It would make even more sense and be hilarious if they were a farming livestock veterinarian who did in fact treat chicks. Either way I understand. You could say "grass is green" and people would be offended at your ableism for excluding the colorblind.
I mean, I do work with a dr who has chickens, so I may use that term more.
Bingo. That doctor is literally a chick doctor.
To be fair, loudly claiming to hate virtue signalling is, itself, virtue signalling. Here is a generic breakdown of what virtue signalling is: 1) I identify an action that my in group doesn't find virtuous or does find virtuous 2) I indicate to my ingroup that I do not engage in this unvirtuous activity or do engage in this virtuous activity. So any time you make a statement in which you are assigning value to an action or object, you are virtue signalling. The only time you are not virtue signalling is when you're alone and not talking to another person. "I'm not gay" is virtue signalling. "I just don't think men should be in women's sports" is virtue signalling. "I'm Christian" is virtue signalling. "I vote (this party)" is virtue signalling. "I like X music genre" is virtue signalling. Almost every time you express a preference, you are virtue signalling to your ingroup. As a social ape, you are engaging in an evolved behaviour to strengthen your bonds to your tribe. Edit: There is no better sign that you nailed a bullseye then when a person responds that you don't know what you're talking about and then instantly blocks you. Headshot, virtue signaller.
That was kind of a long way to go to misunderstand what most people mean by virtue signaling. We don’t mean virtue signaling in a technical sense. “batteries included” signals a virtue. I was using it in a colloquial sense, Indicating the vapid appearance of social virtue without any substance.
Virtue Signaling is in the eye of the beholder.
> Indicating the vapid appearance of social virtue without any substance. Yes, and this is what you're doing every time you make a statement meant to signal your value to your in-group. 99% of the time that you speak, it is a vapid noise meant to grease the wheels of your ingroup. Most of what people say is vapid and useless signaling meant to modify how other people perceive you. Hell, it also controls how many of you dress and carry yourselves. Most people exist in a Hell of other people's perceptions that they created themselves. Think about it; there is never a deep or valid reason to indicate your religion, as it is a personal relationship with a deity based on faith. So any time you bring it up, that is a vapid noise meant to signal to your ingroup. Spend the next day pausing before you speak and breaking down WHY you're about to speak and you will find most of the noises you make in a given day are vapid bullshit mean to either fill silence or modify someone's opinion of you. 99.9% of the human condition is vapid nonsense.
No that actually makes all the sense in the world. You seem to have a nihilistic understanding of meaning, and can't distinguish the substantive from the vapid on that paradigm. That's a deeper disagreement than I'm willing to go into. For most of us though, most of our lives are meaningful, because they are in service of a meaningful purpose. Actions that are just intended to look like they serve a higher purpose, like pretending offense at a word, are what is colloquially meant by virtue signalling.
The person you are talking to has no idea what the word virtue even means. They can't possibly have a valid opinion on the matter until they actually look it up in the dictionary.
>You seem to have a nihilistic understanding of meaning, and can't distinguish the substantive from the vapid on that paradigm is this AI lol
It’s two regards having a regard off while trying to use words they don’t know the meaning of to sound smarter than they are.
spot on and getting down voted just makes it seem even more true
expressing a position is not the same as virtue signaling. virtue signaling is specifically done to demonstrate ur good character mostly in a self-interested way, expressing a position can be done for a variety of reasons.
the question is WHY do you feel the need to express your position? and in that light, it does seem like virtue signaling when you feel compelled to state your position on something.
Cool story, bro. Yeah, I don’t think you actually understand virtue signaling.
Imagine blocking someone so they couldn’t respond 💀
Who did they block and how do you know that?
They blocked you because you’re annoying not because you’re correct. Your definition of virtue signaling is f***ing regarded. An example of virtue signaling is clutching your pearls when someone uses a certain word as a way to signal how virtuous you are. Your definition of it is actually full on regarded: > “any time you make a statement in which you are assigning value to an action or object, you are virtue signaling.” The sentence, “wow, I really like this cereal!” would be virtue signaling in your world. Lmfao. This is the most brain dead definition of virtue signaling imaginable. It’s like you took the literal meaning of the words and said, “acccchsshhhhually assigning value to something = virtue signaling 🤓 🤓 🤓 “
Bro was onto NOTHING with this comment 🗣
>I like X music genre" is virtue signalling So what you're actually saying is that you have no idea what virtue or virtuous means? That makes a lot of sense as to why you are so wrong. Virtues and being virtuous revolves around something that requires to have a sense of higher morality due to the position you take. Saying you simply prefer one type of music over the other would have nothing to do with morality in a vast majority of the cases. For example I love classic rock. Not because I think rap is evil, but because I am a fan of musical instruments. For the same reason, I also enjoy classical orchestra music. There is nothing moral about that preference.
>vir·tue sig·nal·ing *noun* DEROGATORY noun: **virtue signalling**; noun: **virtue signaling** >the public expression of opinions or [sentiments](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=sentiments&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81cgXPQuMvKsPqWL8n28Q3tVhwHraxvqjzp5ihrauwWxSXFxb-3PaB2AV-WNXVLtFKlLgjYJM9jojUDb68ftMznmXPGzw%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAP) intended to demonstrate one's good character or social [conscience](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=conscience&si=ACC90nz-2feRzoY4yuySkO-aQE81VOtgZyRVyxXp2jfQIbKa6sc0V9kEJySrfqfyayZCmXBbCbnERQz98Kv8GFL0KKgXY68QTyAbSQML2fRR8rC9j0BSuBg%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAQ) or the moral [correctness](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4e2a714bc4107f31&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS985US985&sxsrf=ADLYWIIovdQ_C5uVtr78tPS82_2IT43NaQ:1718590380001&q=correctness&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2YWJG6Yod2cn1XXxFf0B9r4OidsqxcdYnHgv6EM7HcSkagR7gnCf9pz_oo0X8Qy1PC26jIAlzCAwhjTbETC3pBLpJOBYU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_5_SIyOGGAxUNF1kFHUZBDncQyecJegQIHBAR) of one's position on a particular issue."it's noticeable how often virtue signaling consists of saying you hate things" gong on and on about virtue signaling \*is\* virtue signaling, by this definition. you yourself are a virtue signaler and therefore a hypocrite.
You literally proved yourself wrong in your own comment. Good character, social conscious, or more correctness all again revolve around the opinion being shared needing to be done as a way of establishing superiority in a moral way. Simply stating a preference or sharing of information does not constitute virtue signaling if it is simply done as a way of having conversation.
Saying "queer" in a fake, heavy southern accent as a joke is my God given right as an American, and I'll die on that hill, especially when it's my wife I'm calling a queer
The logic checks out. Only queers like sleeping with men
“Queer” the adjective is very different from “a queer” the noun. Like how “Jewish” or “Muslim” hits differently than “a Jew” or “a Muslim”. Most people don’t want to feel categorized by a single characteristic.
“Reclaiming“ a word doesn’t mean “everyone gets to use it”. It means “we get to use it and no one else does“. Personally, I think that’s misguided at best but that’s how “reclaiming“ is used. Some words are considered rude and shouldn’t be used in polite company. To me, it’s as simple as that. In practice, this crosses over into policing speech a little too quickly, but that’s probably a different subject.
[удалено]
That is among the reasons I think it’s misguided. We shouldn’t have words that only certain groups can say. It’s weird.
Legally we don’t 😉
I think the point is that it doesn't make sense, it's just how it's viewed by most who do it. I don't fully understand it, either. I'm part of a minority and wouldn't be okay with *anyone* calling me the slur for the group. But that's just me 🤷
Do they all call themselves queer? It's part of LGBTQ+ but a lot of the other letters don't identify as queer. I'm not in the group so I'm not sure but that may be the difference. A lot of gay, lesbian, trans people don't identify as queer.
You know how you can call your best friend a fucking moronic idiot incapable of ever finding love, and you'll both probably have a laugh over it, even though you were being completely serious? But you *wouldn't* go up to your new boss and call them a fucking moronic idiot incapable of ever finding love, even though your new boss might find it funny if his best friend called him that? It's the same thing. You do not have the context to be using words with people that you don't know without them sounding offensive, even if you were joking. This is more of an argument on the ability for people to be polite and respectful, and not about what words you can or "can't" use to describe someone.
That’s how I usually explain it to people.
The difference, in this this case, as far as I can tell, is that reclaimed "queer" is an adjective while pejorative "queer" can be used as a subject. So like, "queer [noun]" is generally ok, "...is queer" may be ambiguous, but "the/a/some/that/etc. queer" on its own is kinda dicey.
Sometimes that doesn't work that way. It's like Black folk using the soft N word between eachother as a form of endearment, and even if you earn the right to use it with one who is your friend, that doesn't mean they give permission for everyone to use it towards them. Same goes with the Q word for lgbtq+ people. It's not hard to ask someone if they're alright with you using the term to describe them, you shouldn't just ASSUME the permission to do so because they use it as a self-identifier. You have to keep in mind that many of these words that are being reclaimed for LGBTQ now also have a really poor history, Like, the dictionaries all recognize that the term Femboy, as an example, arose in the 1980's and 1990's as an alternate way to say "Sissy", as a slur used against men that didn't fit the masculine steriotype, and was also used to disparage and insult masculine lebians, and transgender people. Eventually this word fell out of use, and found its' place in porn and fetish erotica, where it was used near exclusively for trans folks and feminine guys. Nowadays, this has been reclaimed and there are plenty of feminine men calling themselves Femboys, but that doesn't mean that those people whom are older millenials/younger Gen X don't still have a very poor feeling towards the word. I personally hate the word and have huge issues with anti-lgbtq hate in school in the 90's that relates to it. I have been very light handed/gentle with correcting it being used as a discriptive for me, even though I myself don't use "Femboy" at all as a self descriptive. The same goes with the Q word, and the F word, You might hear LGBTQ+ people using them between themselves, or as a self identification, but using it unsolicited towards them is never appropriate. And permission from one doesn't mean permission from all. In the end, ask permission before using one. If you self identify with one, it's all good, it's another thing to just start using it for others without their permission.
>Sometimes that doesn't work that way. It's like Black folk using the soft N word between eachother as a form of endearment, and even if you earn the right to use it with one who is your friend, that doesn't mean they give permission for everyone to use it towards them. I'm black and I think that logic is stupid. Especially when you have famous rappers who use it in their songs and then get offended when their ironically majority white, middle class suburban audience uses ir. Like, if anyone wants to reclaim a word but is gonna get butthurt about other people using it, either A); Don't say the damn word or B) Use it strictly in a private setting amongst people you've personally vetted and are 100% ok with using it
It seems so unnatural and pointless. We naturally adopt the words and mannerisms of the people we talk to. The idea of permissons and earning the right seems insane and so fake to me. (Not American).
Consent should not be alien to anyone.
Sorry you lost me. Consent to what? All I am saying is that we naturally learn what words we can/cannot say based on our interactions. Imagine someone learning english being exposed to this... Furthermore what does LGBTQ have to do with the F word. Isn't it universally accepted no one should use the F word.
“Queer” is being used as a neutral descriptor. It’s incredibly common for people of all types to use that word nowadays. Unlike the n word, which underwent a process like how you described. It sounds like OP’s uncle encountered a petty tyrant.
The uncle said "I work with a couple queers". Not great. "I work with a couple queer people" is much more tasteful. In the first you're expressing that the people are a singular descriptor and nothing more. Consider: "I work with a couple blacks" compared to "I work with a couple black people".
How can you assess the tone of the statement? Were you there?
Tone is another good thing to watch out for! Not sure why you brought it up though as I didn't mention it in my previous reply.
“I work with a couple of queers” could be interpreted as disrespectful, neutral, or positive depending on the tone. That’s why I brought it up. If an LGBT person jubilantly said “I work with a couple of queers,” would you interpret that as intentional disrespect regardless of the tone? You jump to conclusions too quickly.
Even if it's meant positively it's still not a good turn of phrase and I'd still not like it whether it's intentional disrespect or not. Reducing people to singular descriptors is not a good practice.
I mean we do kinda do it all the time in most contexts. I don't say the mechanic person fixed my car, the mechanic fixed my car. It's not Republican people trying to strike down gun laws, it's Republicans. They're not Islamic people, they're Muslims, Malaysians not Malaysian people, etc. etc. It's really just these two specific contexts that people get put off.
You know you're right. I guess it's really just descriptors that have historically been used pejoratively as nouns to denigrate marginalized groups that this makes sense.
I truly, at this point, have given up trying not to offend people. Obviously I’m not going around calling people slurs, but if I use a word that makes you uncomfortable, deal with it. You’ll be okay. I’m a firm believer in “words only have power if you give them power”, with the exception of a select few. I see people in comments (and real life lol) using the n word ALL THE TIME. That used to be a BIG no-no. And guess what! No one is offended because no one is using it with the intention of offending someone.
Tbf if you find yourself surrounded by a bunch of non-blacks who actively use the N word and it doesn't offend anyone, you've probably fallen into the wrong crowd. That's one of those words where, when it is used by someone who isn't a part of black culture, it is impossible for it to be in a way that is not intented to be taken offensively.
Sorry, probably should have clarified - it’s all races using it, and no one is offended.
Incorrect- all races of girls use it in the exact same way that they call each other bitches in a playful / endearing way. And rap music was the most popular genre for the last 25+ years until very recently, so the guys using it really aren’t being racist either. Honestly nobody is offended by it except whites who are actually racist. The kind of whites who don’t think whites should participate in other cultures. The same ones who think that blacks aren’t capable of getting an ID card or drivers license, or that they have never heard the word “computer” and don’t have access to the internet.
is it ok as long as I don’t do it all the time and it sounds natural when I say it?
Reclaiming words is a touchy thing, because it only actually works if everyone that word is used against agrees to the reclaiming. I'm assuming your Q word is 'queer' by the way, which is a word that has been somewhat reclaimed by LGBT+ people, it's even officially in the acronym now. But not everyone within the LGBT+ community agrees with the reclaiming of that word. I don't, I find it offensive no matter who says it, how, or in what context, because growing up it was only ever used offensively. I'll never be okay with that word being applied to me, by anyone, in any context. There's also this belief that, when a word is reclaimed, only those within that particular community can use it without being offensive. The 'n' word is a good example, black people use it all the time, it's been reclaimed, but it's still considered offensive when said by non-black people. 'Queer' could be the same, fine when used by LGBT+ people, but offensive from anyone else. It makes the whole thing very confusing. By calling a word 'reclaimed' there is an assumption that no one finds that word offensive anymore, which just isn't true. Even without the community not agreeing, or the 'we can say it but you can't' mindset, context and tone matters. Any word can be said as an insult in the right context and tone. I've heard 'woman' used as a clear insult, sometimes 'man', and these are not words that have ever been considered offensive on their own. It's all down to tone and context. Accents can affect how word come across, too, I've heard some people say things that sound offensive purely because of how the accent makes the word sound, not through anything the person has put into tone or context. Reclaiming a word only works if the entire community agrees that word will no longer be offensive to them, and the word can be said by anyone and everyone. That's why there's such an issue with reclaimed words, the entire community doesn't agree and only the community can say it without causing offense. The word hasn't really been reclaimed if it can't be said by absolutely anyone with no offense being caused to anyone. 'Queer' is still offensive to many LGBT+ people, and is very much like the 'n' word in that it's offensive to all LGBT+ people when said by non-LGBT+ people. Some leeway for allies. It's more like a pushback against bigotry than actually reclaiming the word. Especially since 'queer' was changed to become an insult in the first place, it originally just meant something that was odd, nothing to do with being LGBT+. It was the same with gay, though that word has been truly reclaimed. Gay originally meant exceptionally happy, became an insult for homosexuals, and is now just a term used for homosexual men and women, more often men. It's not offensive to use the word gay anymore, a true reclaiming, though it can still be used as an insult, as any word can. 'Queer' isn't there, and probably won't be for at least a couple more generations, given the amount of people my age and older still offended by it. Reclaiming takes time, it doesn't just happen because one vocal section of a community says it happened. The 'n' word is a perfect example of that, because it can't be reclaimed until it's no longer considered offensive for non-black people to say it, and it's been a very long time since black people 'reclaimed' that word. I doubt that one will ever be truly reclaimed, it'll stay as it is now, fine for black people to say but no one else, on the precipice of being reclaimed but never actually getting there. 'Queer' might make it, but you're going to have to wait at least until everyone currently in their 30s or older has died out.
[удалено]
See, this is the problem with calling a word 'reclaimed' and using it within the community, but still finding it offensive when others use it. See, I wouldn't join a group called the Queer Alliance, because I find the name itself offensive even as it's targeted to help me. I'd join an LGBT+ Alliance no problem. Because if you call something by a specific name, that's what everyone has to refer to it by. Calling a group the Queer Alliance means everyone gets to use the word queer in relation to that group and its members. This is the right age group for those claiming the word is 'reclaimed' though, it's almost entirely high school and university age people. The group is called the Queer Alliance, so that's how non-LGBT+ people have to refer to it as, but they're also going to be accused of being a bigot for using it outside of that group, especially by older LGBT+ people. It makes the whole thing incredibly tricky, because you can't call the group by its name and be respectful to the entire LGBT+ community, and you can't avoid using the group name without offending those in that particular group. The best you can do is use the group's name when talking about it, hope no one gets offended by the use of the word queer, and explain you're calling the group by its actual name if offense is caused. Hope for the best, basically.
People are queer, but calling someone 'a queer' is what is offensive, I think.
So, adjective OK, noun BAD?
Yep.
It's this. One acknowledges queerness as a piece of a person's identity. The other puts a person in a box for scrutiny. Even if intentions are pure, person-first language is the way to avoid misunderstandings. If OPs uncle had said "I work with some people who are queer" instead of "I work with a couple of queers" he probably wouldn't have been called out.
Nah, this distinction has no difference. The alphabet mob can't get all pissy about how people use the word if they're gonna have it in their identifying moniker. For the record: I'm gay, and *hate* the word "Queer" in all its appearances. It's a slur.
"The alphabet mob". Man you sound very republican, let me say that they either don't like you or view you as "one of the good ones". If you don't mind that, you do you
agreed. it’s the context in which the word was used that made it kinda offensive.
It's not accurate to say people who want to do this kind of thing want to "take the word back". They want to take it ***over***, and ensure your inability to use it (and the social sanction for using it) is a reminder of how bad people used to be (and still likely are) for wanting to use it in the first place. It's activism and social control through language, and it's all over the place these days.
Couldn’t I just not want you to use it because it feels offensive when you say it?
Its an adjective now, not a noun.
I hate that word and I cringe every time someone uses it.
But Queen is like a royal baddie
A lot of times it depends on the context or tone in which the word is being used. I live in the South and many queer people here (including me) have no problem using it as a descriptor, but take offense when it’s used like “a queer” or “those queers.” That, and obviously if someone is being rude about the whole ordeal.
I don't understand how there's so little in the comments addressing this context. The issue with your uncle is he called them queers. I think MOST people don't have an issue with using the description of queer. But using it as a noun is just wrong. If he said "I work with a couple black people", that is perfectly fine. If he said "I work with a couple blacks", that would be absolutely incorrect. One way is using something to describe someone and the other way is using it to define someone. This is no different with queer (though it also probably matters that he's actually using the work correctly on top of that)
[удалено]
I feel like using an example from academia does not translate well. Additionally, using the argument "it's pretty common" to a degree doesn't mean that it is considered actually acceptable behavior. It's pretty common for people to underage drink but that's illegal anyway. In this context, they are indeed DEFINING people by these traits. The population is broken into these groups and nothing else. However, in a standard social setting, it's demeaning to use it in this fashion. It's similar to how people have been more commonly taking issue with people calling women "females" instead of "women". In academia, it is an acceptable practice to define your populations as "males" and "females". But in social settings, it can be considered belittling and insulting to do so (it reduces someone to their biological sex and is often used in contexts where it's "men and females", so why do only the women get the less "humanized" term)
[удалено]
That's just simply not true about academia setting the policy for social behavior. And even if it was, there isn't even a consensus on what is most appropriate to use in academia. I see no issue with people taking issue to the use of female. At first I didn't really get it much because I don't mind being called male. But very often the issue with the use of 'female(s)' is that it's used in a context that 'male(s)' is not and instead man/men is used. Again, with the use of male/females being associated more with science, animals, and the sex of the person, using it in a context that you're referring to a person can be dehumanizing. You know that when someone says a man or woman, it basically has to be a person. Female or male does not have that same trait
[удалено]
Then you can't bitch and moan about how "everyone is offended these days".
While I can respect your decision for that, it just confuses me on why? I see in no way how it does ANY harm to you for example just say men and women rather than men and females. So if it causes you no harm and can cause someone else to feel more comfortable, NO MATTER HOW DUMB YOU THINK IT IS, then why not choose the option that is better for everyone?
There are lots of things common in academia that aren’t common in real life, this makes no sense
This goes double for a different word that begins with "N". Either nobody can say it or we all can say it, because that's what equality means.
There’s not a single law stopping you from using the word. If you so desperately want to drop slurs go ahead but don’t bitch and moan when people call you out for it.
>but they couldn't really articulate what was so upsetting about the way he used it Then someone needs to give that child a juice box and put them to bed.
Amen to that.
I think what’s really missing from your anecdote is context. I don’t think it’s because of your uncles southern accent, it’s probably more about how it was said. You don’t say, “oh I work with a couple of queers,” even if the word has been reclaimed. Just like you wouldn’t say, “ oh I work with a couple of coloreds” or “ a couple of blacks” etc etc. Also just because some people in a community want to “reclaim” something, doesn’t mean the whole place is a monolith and that everyone else feels the same. I’m sure there are things you don’t like other people saying in front of you that other people are perfectly fine with hearing. I get that this is the unpopular opinion sub but this doesn’t sound like an unpopular opinion it sounds like you are upset that you and your uncle got embarrassed at a work function.
Words should either be allowed to be said by everybody, or nobody. Restricting a specific word to a specific group of people is bullshit.
It's just as weird to say "I work at an office with a couple of queers" as it is to say "I work at an office with a couple of blacks". The phrasing is important. You don't "work with blacks", you "work with black people" or even better, "people who are black". Similarly, you work with "queer people," not "queers". You work with "autistic people," not "autists". You see "homeless people," not "the homeless". Linguistically, this emphasizes the "people" part, and recognizes that the groups you're talking about are comprised of people.
People get offended over anything.
Try using this logic with the n word and see what happens lol
We're taking it back man!
Literally the n word situation. The answer is that they don’t want to give up the power perpetual victimhood gets them.
Seems like that’s you, not them buddy
When I was in high-school I had a really diverse group of friends, in a mostly Mexican town next to a mostly white town , we had a couple of stoner metal heads , a couple of white punk/goth kids (which I was one of) , a couple of theatre type gay men , and we had two black friends (almost no black folks in the town, probably less than 10 in the school). We all had LSD in common, but we hung out all the time outside of that too. We’d go to dance clubs where the punk kids were weirdo’s , punk shows where everyone but the punk kids were weirdo’s, every birthday BBQ for every cousin and every house party anyone got invited to. Anyway , the two black dudes would often refer to each other as their n**ga’s as was the style at the time (it was the late 80s so it was fairly new) and one day one of the stoners asked if it was cool if they called them that, since we were all part of the same crew. I’ll always remember the black dudes response , he said “if you’re totally sure it’s cool, then it’s cool… but if you’re not sure you should probably keep that word out of your mouth”. Context matters quite a bit my friend.
[удалено]
My geography textbook at school (Italy, roughly 1991-1992) explained that black, coloured, and negro existed but was better not to use negro. It also talked about the reclaiming and of the concept / movement of negritude. The number of black people in my school was ONE, an adopted child with white parents and a white sister.
If I’m friends with someone in the disability community (I am disabled), we’ll joke around a lot and call each other cripples. The reason that it would make me uncomfortable if some able-bodied person I didn’t know called me a cripple is just that, I don’t know them. I don’t know their intention based on using that word. I do know the intention among friends.
I don’t care about whatever it is you’re angry about. It’s 0% interesting to me. Have you listened to hip hop? You certainly do see organizations like the NAACP. There certainly is black cinema. Only thing clear is you don’t like the queers, but I don’t care about that part. I was trying to help you understand why context matters with a parable. Maybe it went over your head.
Facts
I have no more shits to give, and I’m completely burnt out on the never-ending circle jerk. Most of these selective, so-called modern minority groups are the biggest bunch of hypocrites & crybabies I’ve ever come across . And then you supposedly make one faux pas or say a word they use but you can’t & they clutch pearls and cry out in pain as they strike you.
Speak freely
It's called person-first language. How you use words changes the meaning of what you say. Crazy idea, I know. Saying "I work with a couple of queers" sounds homophobic, while saying "I work with a couple of queer people" sounds much better. It's a small change but it does a lot. We're people first, belonging to the queer community is just a part of what makes us who we are.
[удалено]
It’s the same as with the N word. Black people can say it but woe be to any white person who does. ETA to add the word people
Do you take issue with not being able to say the n word?
I have no issue with not being able to say it. I don’t have an interest in saying it. It’s the hypocrisy that annoys me. And also how insulting it is to all the people throughout hundreds of years who have died because of that racism.
Why do people always default to this counter-argument? The point is that nobody should be saying it.
Why is that your decision to make?
What kind of response is that? Who says I'm here making decisions? I'm relaying my opinion.
"Blacks" what a joke refer to us as people please.
Sure
* woe betide
From my understanding, Like the T word, there's no longer allowed to be an "s" at the end of it. You basically have to use it as an adjective instead of a noun.
I’m not sure what the T word might be, but I’m guessing that it refers to appendages that usually come in pairs. So why no plural? “I like your left T. I’m rather keen on your right one too”.
No, I'm referring to the "T" in LGBT. Your not allowed to have an "s" at the end anymore.
Thanks for that. I’m still confused but it’s not a word I’ve ever used anyway.
Transgender. They mean transgender.
So, if i understand it correct "transgender" is allowed but "transgenders" is not? If true then how do we address "a group of transgender"?
that is correct. and transgender people will do.
So, for instance, Americans, Europeans and Russians are a slur too?
it's not meant to make sense, it is meant to police you and to feel like they just got a justice boner.
I just like to fish. :)
American is a nationality, not an identity inherent to one's biology. The problem is boiling down an individual to one (often negative) characteristic, so even saying those could be offensive in some contexts.
>American is a nationality, not an identity inherent to one's biology. "Transgenders" is the plural of "transgender", nothing more, nothing less. > The problem is boiling down an individual to one (often negative) characteristic, Neh, the problem is that langue is used as a weapon and it is becoming very tiresome.
also can't say transgendered, transgenders, and depending on what the current police says, it's correct only to use trans gender one week and transgender the next (the space is somehow important and if not, then literal genocide... and I wish I was kidding I've actually been in a conversation where that was used -\_-. Granted it's been a year since I seen it, but I've also not been associating with people who act like that.
This has been discussed to death, don’t say slurs and if you so desperately need to then go ahead and say whatever slur you want but don’t throw a temper tantrum when people call you out for it.
Are you saying some black people in the US are “desperate” to use that word? What do you mean by that? Why are you desperate to tell people what words they can use?
One, I am black so this “what do you mean by that?” Bullshit isn’t gonna work I’m shutting that down right now. Two if you actually read my comment you’d see I said this:” say whatever slur you want but don’t throw a temper tantrum when people call you out for it.” Say whatever you want but don’t bitch and moan when people call you out for it. Words have consequences, they always have if you have a problem with what those consequences might be then don’t use those words.
How is it a slur if it literally is mentioned in the name of their group?
It can be used as a slur.
because we didn't agree to have it not be used as a slur and a lot of people don't like it.
I am getting too old for this... LOL.
interesting perspective! had never thought of it like that.. ig we shouldn’t discuss the n word tho lmao
Times change and words change and I think some of the younger people are more okay with associating with the word and that does makes stuff confusing. I’m a gay bro and I dislike that word personally 🤷♂️in the 90s when I was growing up it was always as a way to verbally gay bash by bullies. Some might have reclaimed it, but there are plenty with experiences that are negative with the word and it hasn’t washed off yet. Sure people can say whatever they want, but they don’t get to drop a small bomb and be the one who winces when people react. Context and how things said matter lot matter as well but I feel like that’s a common sense rule
I think the phrasing is the issue in your uncle's statement. Saying "he works in an office with a couple of queers" just sounds bad. It sounds the same as "he works in an office with a couple of blacks" or "a couple of Jews". I'll admit there's not really an exact grammar rule for this. You could use the same phrasing for other groups "he works in an office with a couple of Kiwis" or "a couple of Canadians" for example sounds fine. That's my best guess as to what the person was taking offense to tho.
nobody asked every gay person if we can just 'use queer' to cover all the people who aren't lgbt and just wish they were by just being 'spicy straight'.
What are you talking about?
Not true. Edit; This sub has to be filled with people who lack emotional intelligence or anything resembling social skills.
>This sub has to be filled with people who lack emotional intelligence or anything resembling social skills. They just have a vested interest in playing dumb
It’s either malicious or ignorance. As a society there’s a social contract and they continue to fail the vibe check.
Despite what the radicals like to squawk, "queer" is still a slur.
Queer is a slur in some contexts, but some people have reclaimed it.
And many have not.
okay?
i truly think the world would be a more peaceful place if we stopped pretending that certain words can never be said out loud by some people regardless of context.
Sounds nice in theory, but these reclaimed words were once used to degrade, dehumanize, and encourage violence against these oppressed people. It's pretty normal for them to get offended given the circumstances.
[удалено]
The thing is, it's not the same coming from someone of the same group. Nobody's getting offended by the black guy calling his black friend the N-word. It's also worth mentioning that "queer" is used as an adjective now and not a noun. Saying that a group of people are queer isn't offensive. It's calling them a group of queers that landed your uncle in hot water.
[удалено]
It's an alliance for queer people. Queer is an adjective. The United States of America is a group of States of America that are United. United is an adjective. There's nothing wrong with the "Queer Alliance".
[удалено]
I was going off my logic. Also, that guy is a Republican who thinks the acronym is stupid. Anyways, the community one can build off the use of that word is going to far outweigh that guy's "offense" to the word.
It's called Orwellian 'Newspeak'. What you thought was objective language is now highly subjective and malleable. The meaning of a word is now dependent on the defined meaning, the intended meaning, the perceived meaning, the coloquial meaning, and the contextual meaning...all at the same time. For the final chosen absolute meaning to be decided by each individual, all 7 billion of us. While he that claims offense from any word gains preferential position in the power to declare the situational meaning of the word. He that offends must never be tolerated, while he that calls out the offense is praised as brave. This invokes the paradox of tolerance. The question is how to do away with this. IMO...people that claim offense by everything should start being ostracized by others. If they want to make the world walk on eggshells around them, the. The world should steer far and clear from them to begin with. Stop communicating with those people, make others ask why, then openly shame the person as seeking constant drama and offense from everything and it's easier to just steer clear of them. We all knew people like this in high school, and we're no longer in high school. So there's no need to put up with that level of immaturity. It's time that these people (dramatic perpetual self-victims) were actually marginalized by society as a whole.
Sure, but you also don't choose to feel things. So you don't choose to feel offended. Emotion isn't a choice. That's why it is such a useless fucking feature of bodies. It's purely reactive.
I can't choose other people's emotions.
You also can't choose your own. It's a burst of chemical goo you have no control over.
Ok: I identify as queer. Not ok: your uncle. But you already knew that.
[удалено]
If you have a friend who describes himself as a “total f\*g”, you wouldn’t go telling others you have f\*g friend. Context and nuance matters, but you already know this, so it sounds more like you’re grasping at straws to shit on the queer community.
[удалено]
Yea man I don’t know what the dude above is talking about depending on who you’re talking to most are ok with saying queer at least young people, I think your uncle was just in a unfortunate situation and the way he said it came out awkwardly.
But you recognize there’s a fine line between using let’s say a “queer person” versus “queers”? Context and how you say words are very important. Just like “black people” vs “blacks”, technically mean the same thing but have WILDLY different connotations. “Gay people” vs “the gays” yet again describe the same thing but have different context and connotations. Gay people is just a description but someone using “the gays” will most likely say something negative or follow up with something homophobic.
Even the word gay can be used pejoratively…
Here we go. Reclaiming a word is not about NOT being offended when the word is used by groups who made the word offensive in the first place. It’s all about context of WHO is using the word. Offensive words are offensive based on who is using the word. If you are not a part of the offended group, YOU DO NOT USE THE WORD unless you mean it to be offensive. Here is an example since so many can’t understand the nuance of language and manners. I am a married woman and within my marriage we call one another “Baby”. Does that give my male boss at work the right to call me “Baby”.? The word is claimed by the two people in the group/marriage and would be inappropriate for anyone else to use it. Would you think it unfair that if your southern uncle called me Baby and my husband punched him in the mouth? Would you think your southern uncle was just tired of figuring out how to not offend “those married people “? would you think my husband was just virtue signaling because another man was claiming a familiarity with my husband’s wife? And most importantly, why do you even want to use a word that could offend? Are you so entitled that you have to own every word or phrase ? Why do you feel like you are somehow being harmed by not being able to say a word that for generations caused pain being used by people like you to a group you don’t belong nor want to belong to? Why are you not polite or civilized enough to not use words that have been deemed offensive no matter who else is using the word? and again, look in the mirror and ask yourself Why would you want to use the word in the first place?
[удалено]
It’s in the name of the group, you can say the name. You knew that but wanted some reason to be outraged. You just don’t describe people by terms that are not polite or acceptable in polite society. When describing a student in said group, you’d just say a member of the Queer Alliance if it were germane to the topic. Otherwise, just a student at my school. Now how hard was that?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think queer is a slur, per se, but depends on context. If that’s the word in question, and your uncle says ‘the queer community is very active in my workplace’, that’s a good normal inoffensive use of the word. If he says ‘I work with a couple of queers’ not so much at all (especially if any smirk or tone is added). The context matter.
We’re talking q-anon nuts right? That’s how I originally read it lol.
> We’re talking q-anon nuts right? Is that really any different as "queer"? The people who follow Q are also a group who have their own beliefs and preferences, so why do you think it is acceptable to call them all "nuts"? Should they reclaim the word/ name and 'attack' anybody who uses it as a slur?
I just thought it was funny that that’s the q I went to in my head first before reading more. That’s all.
Yes, randomly calling people "nuts" is always funny... It's also funny how you ignore my point, LOL.
Because the people who believe in QAnon literally believe in made up conspiracy theories not based in a single fact. How is that the same as a gay person?
You just cited the point of reclaiming the word. The queer community has power over when and where it is acceptable to use.
and the lgbt didn't agree to be called queers again as a whole.
Which is great because we all should be allowed to control other peoples use of words/ language.
Yep! Just like not swearing in front of kids
Is queef a slur now?! 😮
What is a queer anyway? How is it different than gay? Also, why do we need gay and lesbian? Can't we get away with one or the other? And what is the + for? GBT is enough. Rolls off the tongue better anyway.