Rubbish gays?

Apparently to call something (or someone) derogatorily ‘gay’ is not offensive according to those bastions of taste the BBC Governors.

“Moyles was simply keeping up with developments in English usage.”? More like devolving the English usage, and devolving generally (have you seen a picture of him?!?) – any long-term listeners will know how much I LOVE Chris Moyles and his bigotry and terrible DJing – as a public service provider to pretend that saying ‘that’s so gay’ is not offensive, is well extremely blind to say the least, and I’d say quite shocking.

I’ve corrected or taken the piss out of people who’ve done it at work around me – responding with ‘that’s SO STRAIGHT!’ but really it bugs me as a usage. A good guide is to try different usages and say, well, would those be acceptable? And certainly saying ‘ugh that’s so black!’ or ‘ugh that’s so jewish!’ in a derogatory context wouldn’t be acceptable and rightly so – so why is it OK to make the gay and lesbian population the proverbial butt of the joke?

Or use us as political or religious punchbags?
Sorry, this is utter utter bullshit…or is that discriminating against bulls? OK it’s complete utter Moyleshit.

Relatio Clash

Tim B Written by:


  1. kiki
    June 12

    If you’re positing that “gay” now only means “homosexual” and that anyone using it in any other context is now bastardizing the “proper” usage of this term to mean “lame”….you’re being a bit hypocritical…

    Please go and inform yourself about this word…

    If you want to restrict anyone from using “gay” in it’s child-like form…you suck. If anything the child-like usage of “gay” as synonymous for “lame” or “foolish”…is the most pure and innocent usage of the term (devoid of any sexist/racial/cultural overtones). The homosexual community has sexualized this term…far more than any of its original usage as a derogatory term for “nancy boys”. Prior to the gay community taking this word as their own…the term in public forums (for instance news) was not a sexualized term…but was in its slang usage.

    If anything children have sanitized “gay” as a derogatory term….by using it in a pure…non-biased…sexless…genderless fashion….to express something that , if anything they needed most…a term of derision for a truly marginalized community (children). If you honestly think that anyone who is using “gay” in a derisive way is being a homophobe….then your really are clueless. This term has a history and it’s history has largely been a term of derision over the last 2 centuries…and that derision has not been strictly a homosexually one. You can’t come into a semantic discourse centuries into usage…and be oblivious to the origin and development of the usage of language. Especially when the community that you are part of has usurp this term itself.

    The homosexual community appropriated this term from someone else…they did not invent this term…or have any inherant rights to define the pedigree of its usage. If you want something to be yours and yours alone…instead of reappropriating existing language…create your own language and terminology.

    Frankly, to think that you own language…and that anyone who dares to use this language in a different but conventionally accepted manner is being a “homophobe”…is a self-centered and egotistical act. The world does not revolve aroud you…and this word is not yours….just because you only use it to mean one thing…doesn’t meant that that is it’s formal global mean. Neither you nor any group or community owns the usage of a long standing term that they did not originate.

    Sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

    So with all respect….your line of thinking, and arguement is complete gay. And sadly it makes you sound like you’re in high school and running to complain to a teacher cause someone hit you with a dodgeball. Bitching about perceived banal injustices (like name calling) does now solve the problem…if anything it aggravates the situation as it identifies to your opponents how to best hit your buttons. I would suggest that you let other be…don’t assume that they are trying to personally attack you or your community. If you expect the best from others…they will rise to those expectations. If you would rather act paranoid…you’ll find conspiracy and attackers wherever you look. I suggest that you let the world unfold at its own pace…and injustices and idiocy identify itself. If you misinterpret the actions of the vile as being good-natured…out of spite they will step up to clarify that their intentions are lowly…and in the process you’ll let them debase themselves without having to demean yourself in the process. If Chris Moyles is truly a homophobe (and not just using “gay” in an innocent manner, which you’ve gotten a bee in your bonnet about)….give him enough rope and he will hang himself.

    Trying to control how language is used is just as bad as trying to control morality and sexual preferrences. As a member of the GLBT community, shame on you for behaving like the biggots that have oppressed your community. Of all people you should be even more sensitive to ensuring the rights and freedoms of all (even those who you do not agree with…and especially those that are making assumptions about).

  2. June 12

    Thanks for the copy-pasted ‘arguement’ – I’m going to edit the looooooooooong Wikipedia stuff out since you can see it at the link. Not that Wikipedia isn’t biased or even academically accurate – it’s a slightly dodge position to base an argument.

    But your beloved source says this:

    “Using the term gay as an adjective where the meaning is akin to “related to gay people, culture, or homosexuality in general” is a widely accepted use of the word. By contrast, using gay in the pejorative sense, to describe something solely as negative, can cause offence.”

    Yes it does cause offence. Just as me saying FUCK YOU would cause offence, even if I then explained that FUCK meant Kitten and You meant Cuddle. It would still offend would’nt it. Ahh but I’ve just shifted the usage, so that makes it OK?

    And OK, I’ll redefine my language – doing a ‘Kiki’ is doing a crap long and boring ranty post that is partly copied from Wikipedia. Happy now?

    Nope, because by the very nature of language, we have widely accepted meanings – see the Semiotics link below. Go read some Wittgenstein on the nature of meaning, or most philiosophy on language. The common accepted meaning is part of the way we communicate – otherwise it’s Tower of Babel all over again. Other meanings might be there, but the most common wins out. School kids know this, so does Mr Moyles when they re-apply words…they are intentionally taking the piss.

    Anyway replying to your comment – and calling my argument ‘gay’ kind of contradicts yourself – yes language shifts over time, but still keeps the connoitations of the previous usages, it’s not an immediate shift. Even the Wikipedia says that – it took 60 years to get to the modern usage…and it was only used cos Queer had become like Nigger an insult. I notice that queer is becoming popular again amongst gay youth – probably cos they are fed up with being associated with ‘rubbish’.

    And gay in a homesexual connoitation was an abbreviation NOT happy, Good As You – remember this is during the time you could be arrested and jailed for being queer/gay/homosexual. So obviously they chose words and language that could be innocently used – most street culture does this now. Also the derivation of gay is disputed – Wikipedia says one thing, but it was so necessarily underground that no-one really knows. It’s guesses.

    Difference is 1) we don’t have to hide our sexuality and 2) when it’s broadcast on radio or TV it has MANY meanings, not just one of a small underground subculture. Or kids in schools.
    Kids and Chris Moyles using the word now KNOW the original usage of the word, and are shifting it to mean rubbish intentionally…it’s recent usage is DIRECTLY RELATED to the old one, rather than a repurposing or a re-definition like BAD meaning GOOD or wicked meaning cool. Check this – you might learn something about the shiting patterns of meaning in language. But then again it might be all crap…hence Wikipedia being not good for sources.

    Oh and Chris Moyles IS a homophobe – see how he treats Aled, he’s talked about things like that enough, I used to be a listener, it was one of the reasons I stopped listening….he puts people down, everyone but specifically women and gay men and women.

    “Trying to control how language is used is just as bad as trying to control morality and sexual preferrences. As a member of the GLBT community, shame on you for behaving like the biggots that have oppressed your community. Of all people you should be even more sensitive to ensuring the rights and freedoms of all (even those who you do not agree with…and especially those that are making assumptions about).”

    Shame on me? That’s absolute dominating total ‘Kiki’ from a hetero or majority standpoint. Just because I’m part of a minority (and a majority, of white males, and a minority of beard owners…we occupy several spaces) that doesn’t mean freedom of speech does not equal me supporting hate speech. I recommend you bother to read up on the subject (and sort out your spelling, it’s atrocious) and find out WHY we don’t support the BNP or homophobes.

    Truly free speech isn’t free, it comes at the price of democracy and diversity.

    Your argument sounds like the ones the Fascist BNP have just trotted out here. It’s not the same as a minority for me to complain as to someone part of the majority in power doing so; and to support someone who trashes my rights or lifestyle, even with a word, for the sake of a false idea of freedom of speech for me is not a ‘right’, it’s wrong.

    I don’t support all types of speech, never have.

    Oh and I suck – that’s a very nice act done between two men. Thank you.

    And by the way I’m NOT trying to control language, just pointing out the hypocrisy of having a DJ on a publically owned radio station making dodgy comments. He can go and buy and run his own station if he wants and spout his obnoxious views and dodgy ZOO radio format there, but not with my and my friends money.

    But the BBC have just sanctioned it – them who is paid with our money. So they do need to watch out, since they are representing me also. That’s not oppression, it’s economic sense, and part of their broadcasting charter. Give it a read sometime.

    And if they were reflecting modern youth and parlance they’d allow swear words – everyone uses those now, especially kids. So why are they censored for that?
    Oh and you’re not one of my listeners, so who are you?

  3. June 12

    Kiki, your argument is like totally fucking spakker, you stupid flid. Stop being such a bloody stani you mindless cock sucker.

    This is the way kids talk. Kiki, if you SERIOUSLY, and HONESTLY believe that when kids talk like this that they are NOT trying to cause offence, then you are obviously not down.

    Two questions for you Kiki:

    1) Where do you think they got these words from?

    2) Why do they use them?

    Your arguement is pure bullshit. These words are not “sanitised” or exorcised of their meaning because they are used by iddle kiddies, fighting the gwown ups… Yeah, that’s why they use them, they are essential componenet in “the age war”. Viva Los Kids, man!

    Offence is in the eye of the beholder. I have the right to get offended just as you have the right to say these words. Tim has the right to post about his offence, and you have the right to make up some bullshit wack pseudo-“arguement” about how he is wrong.

    Daft cunt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *