What is offensive to people? And would you download a game that would offend oth

[RickJ]

What if I were to say "The baron is a gay old rogue ..."?  Would/should that be offensive to anybody?

[Questionable]

Pretty much all the negative uses of "gay" are homophobic in origin, so unless you really want to use as a synonym of "cheerful, merry" (which wouldn't be offensive anyway), it's not gays who are to blame that it's offensive.

In my opinion the origin is irrelevant, the modern context is what matters. "Cock" originates from a term describing a male from a bird species, however, if I say that my Cock itches I don't think anyone would believe that I have a Dove in my pocket. Also, culturally words would mean different things: Pulling something out of my Fanny would probably get me arrested in Leeds but would seem completely normal in Orlando.

The word gay has evolved to have MANY different meaning, I think it can accommodate one more. Rick pointed out that it implies someone sexually wonton, by that definition I can see how it could have taken its negative connotations from that. However, I think using "gay" has more in common with "Queer." Queer meaning irregular or unusual. So perhaps the gay barons behavior was queer.

It just doesn't make sense to me that people will try to stop the evolution of slang/language. If I say that "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" is Black Comedy, should that offend the Black Community? Please. It's just selfish and gay people need to get over themselves. If you want to be equals don't act like you're anything special! =P

As a side note, I am a proud support of Gay Rights and Equality for All Humans - even if that means having an oozy grey porridge for a global culture...

But seriously, you can't get more liberal than me, it seems as if nobody is able to understand context, implication and intention.

[Danman]

I also support Happy and Merry Rights and Equality for All Humans. You're quite right is what I always thought.

If you want to be equal don't act like you're anything special! =P

But this also apply to Racism too I think. People make it a big deal to be "special" .

[Snarky]

In my opinion the origin is irrelevant, the modern context is what matters. "Cock" originates from a term describing a male from a bird species, however, if I say that my Cock itches I don't think anyone would believe that I have a Dove in my pocket. Also, culturally words would mean different things: Pulling something out of my Fanny would probably get me arrested in Leeds but would seem completely normal in Orlando.

The word gay has evolved to have MANY different meaning, I think it can accommodate one more. Rick pointed out that it implies someone sexually wonton, by that definition I can see how it could have taken its negative connotations from that. However, I think using "gay" has more in common with "Queer." Queer meaning irregular or unusual. So perhaps the gay barons behavior was queer.

The hypotheticals are moot. When "gay" is used as a negative term or playground insult today, it comes from its use as a term of homophobic abuse.

Kids who use it may not consider it to have any sexual connotations, but the link is clear, and many gay people find it hurtful. Advocacy groups have run big billboard campaigns against its use.

Would you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them? No, of course not. Even "gyp", where the racist origin is more obscure, is now pretty much frowned upon. And why? Because terms of disparagement that arise from negative assumptions about groups of people are now seen as unacceptable. Why should "gay" be any different?

It's similar to slang use of "retarded", which some groups also oppose and which is seen as uncouth at best. (Michael Scott: "You don't call retarded people "retards". That would be in bad taste. You call your friends "retards" when they're acting retarded.") Personally I think this insult is less offensive because, putting aside political correctness, it's not bigoted to believe that being mentally retarded is undesirable. Of course, it could still be hurtful, maybe even more so.

It just doesn't make sense to me that people will try to stop the evolution of slang/language.

Then you might equally well argue that regardless of the background, it's now a term that (when use pejoratively) gay groups regard as offensive to homosexuals and that is widely understood (at least in the adult world) to have homophobic undertones. So even if it was OK to use it as an insult before, now it probably isn't. Hey, that's just the evolution of language!

Though I have to say that I personally use "Bugger!" as an interjection, which I guess has a similar background. The difference? As far as I'm aware, no one actually finds it particularly offensive.

[Danman]

Well that is what slang is like.. Retarded is not really hurtful it has the same meaning has mentally challenged.

Definition: intellectually limited

or slowed or delayed in development or progress

There is nothing offensive about that. It is just who and what they are. If the word Retard fits a person then it is not offensive. If  the definition is correct how can anyone take offense to it. least that is my say

[Ryan Timothy B]

Would you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them? No, of course not. Even "gyp", where the racist origin is more obscure, is now pretty much frowned upon.

:

I wouldn't say it in a group or crowd of people I didn't know or would judge me for saying it, but I've definitely said both before.
I blame the guys I worked with.   The one guy was 50 years old and would pretend to be racist all the time, but he of course wasn't.  Like a black truck driver would come in and drop something off, he would then leave and my colleague would say "he was a nigger".  It was funny.  It's wrong, but it's funny.  He only said it because he knows you're not supposed to say it, which makes it funny because he did.  But if he ever said it to the man's face, I would be extremely awkward and walk away.

It's like the CollegeHumour spelling-b video of the word "Niggerfaggot".  I found the video hilarious, which obviously I'm not alone since it has tons of views and they of course made the video to be funny.

They had a saying at my old job which was "a black person isn't a nigger unless they're gangsters or thieves, etc".  I seriously have no issue with someone calling a black person who dresses like 50cent with bling up his arse and jeans down to his knees a nigger.  But if someone were to call Obama or a straight up black citizen a nigger, to me that is offensive.
Just like white people who dress like 50cent, pretending to be gangsters, I have no issue calling them Wiggers.  Which has obviously originated from "white-nigger".


Anyway, the big question is: was my post offensive?

[Danman]

I always thought the word "nigger" meant gangster or I guess Black Gangster. The only thing that I never understand is a black person calls a white person a nigger it is not racist. The other way it is. Doesn't make sense that part. But what do I know I live in Africa. With different languages so only racist words are very racist.


I think all our posts are offensive. To Homosexuals,Black people, Retarded people, and also Jews

[Questionable]

The hypotheticals are moot.

Hardly! They illustrate the point and are all valid.

Would you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them?

Actually yes, although this may work diferently because i'm half Jew...  I say "That's jewish" or "I got jewed" to mean "a bad deal" or "getting screwed like a the jews have for most of eternity."  For instance:

Five dollars for a taco?! Well that's jewish.

or

The ref didn't even call that a foul! We got so jewed.

As a side note, getting "gypped" isn't frowned upon in any of the places I've been... well GETTING GYPPED is frowned upon but SAYING gypped isn't, LOL.

It's similar to slang use of "retarded", which some groups also oppose and which is seen as uncouth at best. (Michael Scott: "You don't call retarded people "retards". That would be in bad taste. You call your friends "retards" when they're acting retarded.") Personally I think this insult is less offensive because, putting aside political correctness, it's not bigoted to believe that being mentally retarded is undesirable. Of course, it could still be hurtful, maybe even more so.

This is a funny situation to me. People close to the mentally challenged/damaged communities insist on using the phrases "mentally challenged" or "reduced mental capacity/function" and similar terms to describe the individuals. Also preferred is describing the exact trauma/deformation. Using the word retarded, isn't something they've embraced (like "fat" or "gay" are embraced [in most cases] by their respective communities) and isn't an archaic word not typically used (gay) in general speech. To call someone else is retarded is to imply that they are incompetent... if I call a bar retarded, however, what am I implying? I find it silly.

Then you might equally well argue that regardless of the background, it's now a term that (when use pejoratively) gay groups regard as offensive to homosexuals and that is widely understood (at least in the adult world) to have homophobic undertones. So even if it was OK to use it as an insult before, now it probably isn't. Hey, that's just the evolution of language!

I'm saying that many people in the gay community act as if the word doesn't mean anything BUT homosexual and cannot/should not mean/apply to anything but homosexuals. The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant as no matter how much gay people want people to stop using the word for anything but homosexual isn't going to happen anytime soon. Similarly, people that don't want individuals to say "bollocks" or "stupid" or "felching" probably aren't going to have any influence the words actually being used. I'm not talking about USAGE, I'm talking about acceptance of a word to be defined BEYOND what a small group of individuals WILLS it to be defined as. I'm saying that just as many people use the word gay as a negative descriptor as use it as a synonym for homosexuals and it should justifiably be recognized as having those multiple definitions, why can the two NOT co-exist? Whether or not it is in good taste is moot, as people will ALWAYS have bad taste.

Though I have to say that I personally use "Bugger!" as an interjection, which I guess has a similar background. The difference? As far as I'm aware, no one actually finds it particularly offensive.

Because it isn't found offensive doesn't mean that your usage of it prevents it from being defined properly! Also, probably because there really aren't many ways to use the word "bugger!" =P

My argument isn't that it should or shouldn't be used, that's an endless debate because we all walk lines and sometimes the lines that we walk hurt others, it's non-resolvable. However, recognizing that the word gay can ALSO be a negative descriptor, coexisting with being sexually liberal, being bright and showy and flashy, being merry, participating in social pleasures AND ALSO being homosexual.

[Snarky]

The hypotheticals are moot.

Hardly! They illustrate the point and are all valid.

That a word "could have" originated one way is completely irrelevant when (a) it didn't, and (b) everyone knows that it didn't.

Would you use "to jew someone" to mean cheat them or underpay them?

Actually yes, although this may work diferently because i'm half Jew...  I say "That's jewish" or "I got jewed" to mean "a bad deal" or "getting screwed like a the jews have for most of eternity."

When I first heard the term "Indian giver", I assumed that it came from the way the settlers constantly reneged on their treaties with the native Americans, taking land they had previously "given" them. But just because someone might have a naive interpretation that makes it seem inoffensive doesn't make it true.

I'm saying that many people in the gay community act as if the word doesn't mean anything BUT homosexual and cannot/should not mean/apply to anything but homosexuals. The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant as no matter how much gay people want people to stop using the word for anything but homosexual isn't going to happen anytime soon. Similarly, people that don't want individuals to say "bollocks" or "stupid" or "felching" probably aren't going to have any influence the words actually being used. I'm not talking about USAGE, I'm talking about acceptance of a word to be defined BEYOND what a small group of individuals WILLS it to be defined as. I'm saying that just as many people use the word gay as a negative descriptor as use it as a synonym for homosexuals and it should justifiably be recognized as having those multiple definitions, why can the two NOT co-exist? Whether or not it is in good taste is moot, as people will ALWAYS have bad taste.

I have no idea what you're arguing here. "The social acceptance of the word is irrelevant"? It's exactly the point! Look, kids may not know or consider what the words they use mean, but adults have to be a bit more reflective. And anyone who thinks about it for a moment has to realize that "gay" as a general pejorative is based on its use as a homophobic insult. This is not even moderately obscure, like the fact that "dork" comes from a slang word for penis.

And I think you're wrong that affecting how people use it won't work. Activist groups seem determined to raise awareness of the homophobic implications of its pejorative use, and there's been a very clear trend in modern English for bigoted language to be increasingly considered beyond the pale and hateful. It doesn't mean people will stop using it completely (and certainly kids will continue to use slang that is derogatory to gays and others), but when it causes their listeners to wince they might think twice.

Also, probably because there really aren't many ways to use the word "bugger!" =P

Oh, there are quite a lot!

My argument isn't that it should or shouldn't be used, that's an endless debate because we all walk lines and sometimes the lines that we walk hurt others, it's non-resolvable. However, recognizing that the word gay can ALSO be a negative descriptor, coexisting with being sexually liberal, being bright and showy and flashy, being merry, participating in social pleasures AND ALSO being homosexual.

Apart from the first slang use, all those other senses have been crowded out by now, and have to be considered archaic. I don't think you'll find anyone using it innocently (i.e. not as an act of defiance or for a double entendre) for those meanings.

[Calin Leafshade]

The point is that you associate the term with a negative.

A few months ago Jeremy Clarkson got introuble for calling Gordon brown something like a "blind scottish prat"

He IS partially blind AND scottish but the fact is that Clarkson used this terms as an insult with negative connotations.

[Atelier]

It makes me upset when I see people like Jeremy Clarkson visit other countries. If somebody asked me to think of the worst ambassador in the history of the world for this country, it would be him. Richard Hammond is just as bad. Plus, he has an... annoying... presentation style... where he has to... pause, and then... add a "but hey"... joke at the end. And he has annoying hair and a stupid trench coat which I want to ritually burn.

Sorry if I offend any Top-Gear fans!

[Calin Leafshade]

James May is where it's at... fact

[Questionable]

James May is where it's at... fact

I think its a tie between him and Clarkson, may is a bit too dull and Jeremy is a bit too over the top but between the two of them they have GENUINE passion and interest! And in James' case, Knowledge.

Hammond, only the other hand, should be legally required to only host children television.

[Dualnames]

Gee, every country has goodfballs. I really like Top-Gear because of those guys, they may be goofballs, but they're funny. I think it's the epitomy of idiocy, to actually consider England from:

A. A popular show
B. A popular's show host/s.

[auriond]

Top Gear is my happiness, Jeremy Clarkson included, despite the fact that I pretty much agree about the presentation style and the bad hair and all. I devour episodes like potato chips.

But since the "gay" debate somehow got fired off here... I was specifically using the "gay" example negatively. I doubt anyone would protest against the use of "gay" in its original meaning of cheerful or happy. But when it's used to mean "weak" or "bad"? That's where it gets offensive. Same with "lame" or "retarded". Those were once socially acceptable terms, until they got flung around as insults ("that haircut is lame" - gee, when did it grow legs that couldn't walk?)

Or how about "moron/idiot/imbecile"? All these were once actual, acceptable terms to describe various degrees of mental retardation. Now? I doubt it's acceptable to call even a really mentally retarded person an imbecile or idiot. Probably because some morons thought it was a good idea to use those terms negatively.

See what I did there?

Calin's point was what I meant - that it all lies in the intent. Same with games.

[xenogia]

I doubt there's anything story or theme wise that would offend me - I'm a Chuck Palahniuk and Bret Easton Ellis fan, and while some scenes in their novels do disgust or shock, if that was their purpose, more power to the author!

What would WOULD offend me however, is disturbing images displayed suddenly and without warning (like prank screamers in youtube videos). I have a good visual memory and really can't visit shock sites like rotten.com because the images will be stuck in my mind for a very long time. If something like that happened in a game, I would simply quit it and never play it again. A word of warning: I was doing research on Commedia Del'Arte characters, and I strongly advise you to never, ever do a google image search for "harlequin" without the exclusions "-baby -fetus -ichthyosis" - you WILL be scarred for life.

Personally I hold R-rated movies and cable TV shows as a standard of how far to go in terms of violence and sexual content. If David Cronenberg would put it in a movie, it's probably alright to put it in a game.

Looked it up, quite disturbing but not offensive.  It's just a genetic disorder.

[Tuomas]

What a gay thread. I feel like jewing it all the way to the chambers.

If only we had more gay jews on this forum, we could ask them if it's offensive. I think it's silly working out what's offensive and what's not. I find that games that concentrate on interaction and say, the literal side of it should know better than to use words like shitmonger. The whole usage of the word takes the game down 5 steps on the intelligent bar. There's a wolrd of difference to how civilised people and pirates talk, using cursewords and offensive words in a sentence of just a regular character really makes the creator sound like a chav or a brat to me. People should really consider before they apply bad language. Of course, one could do it for the idealistic sense of the freedom of speech, but that train has really passed and we don't alll need to be punk rockers. Most of the cursewords like shit, sexual words like fuck, racial words like nigger stand out, but do really not give the character the edge needed.

[Questionable]

If only we had more gay jews on this forum, we could ask them if it's offensive...

Well as only part of a jew (1/2... does that make me a Je or an Ew?) I don't think my opinion counts for much. Dave Gilbert made "The Shivah" AND he live sin New York, right? He's gotta be full-on Jew... somebody PM him.