Huffpost "Gay Voices" now "Queer Voices"

[TX-Beau]

This view is no different when thrown back at you. And in the case of the HuffPost, it WAS thrown back.

I'm a firm believer in taking responsibility for ones pet offenses. I don't have to go look at storm-front do I. The net is full of far worse things than some hipsters over on Huffpo who in the end WERE trying to be more inclusive.

Frankly "our" acronym is already FAR too "inclusive" but hey, that's another discussion entirely.

 

[Mitchymo]

Re: Huffpost "Gay Voices" now "Queer Voices"

Since I've never heard a hipster use "Queer" in that fashion, I suspect you're right. But that doesn't change anything, for all we know in five years it may be a global phenomenon.

Anything is possible. I highly doubt it though.

Plus WEAK, pretending that somehow either myself or Rolyo was promoting American Exceptionalism.

Forgive me, but, i'm not the one using belittling rhetoric such as 'butthurt' to demean an opposing viewpoint, nor arguing to invalidate that view on the basis of what is offensive or not, IN the US. Especially since it DID cause offence to plenty over there, never mind a more global view.

What is clear is that the decision to change 'gay voices' to 'queer voices' was taken by those whose choice it was to take, and not from a considered approach of gauging public reaction for suitability of the term.
As such, it was an 'elite', who made the decision, not popular consensus. An elite in the US. In a global debate as to the offensiveness of their decision, they have shown american exceptionalism. But its not a global debate, what the US HuffPost does is US interest, but it is still valid, as plenty of americans backlashed the decision.

 

[Mitchymo]

I find it easier to NOT be offended by things rather than being offended by things.

Something more easily done by the emotionally stunted. In your case it is selfishness.

Your lack of offence to the term queer, and subsequent dismissal of those who ARE offended by it as simply getting knickers wadded, fails to negate your own offence, (read, wadded knickers), over the usage of gay, in the non direct insult context of playing a computer game or whatever, whilst others are not offended by that.

This makes your comment nothing more than sanctimonious claptrap.

 

[Rolyo85]

Lol now I'm emotionally stunted. Says the guy who is having a hissy fit over a website column title.

I pointed out that in modern day the word "gay" is regularly used in a derogatory way, while "queer" is mostly abandoned as an insult, even by straight people. Never said any of it offended ME. Just pointing out facts.

Huffpost is full of homos. If they decided the change was appropriate, clearly they're aware that most people who read them won't feel like you do.

 

[Mitchymo]

Lol now I'm emotionally stunted.

Re-read the post.

Says the guy who is having a hissy fit over a website column title.

Do highlight any dialogue that constitutes 'hissy'.

I pointed out that in modern day the word "gay" is regularly used in a derogatory way, while "queer" is mostly abandoned as an insult, even by straight people.

And i point out that your view is not shared. I would say 'gay' is used in a cursary manner rather than derogatory one, a subtle distinction. And 'queer' is most definitely NOT "mostly abandoned" as an insult. It is still used as a slur, and recieved as such.
That you fail to encounter it, does not diminish its status, as pointed out by those who are annoyed about the HuffPost change.

Never said any of it offended ME. Just pointing out facts.

The term gay in the contextual usage we are referring, is ambiguous. Ambiguity does not lend itself well to facts. Hence you are pointing out your perception, not a fact.

Huffpost is full of homos. If they decided the change was appropriate, clearly they're aware that most people who read them won't feel like you do.

This is sure to be true if they retain the title, since only 'queers' will bother to read it. Any gay who refuses to be labelled with such a term that causes anger and revulsion to them, are not gonna click. I know this because i'm one of them. I read 'gay' news, i read 'LGBT' news. I will not read 'queer' news, as it fundamentally undermines my own identity to be seen as equal, to support a term that literally means odd, is a slur, and even sounds vulgar when pronounced, and looks as such when written.

I don't have a problem with gay people, or others, owning the word queer for themselves, but i most certainly do not appreciate being labelled as that which i am not. HuffPost has undoubtedly lost a section of their target audience for that 'voices' section, in the process of trying to be more inclusive. And was that worth it given that they were already inclusive via the subsection?

 

[Rolyo85]

There's no ambiguity in "gay" being used as "lame" in casual straight speech. It is.

And by all means, stop reading Huffpost. I'm sure they'll shed a tear on the subject. Or do you think their marketing team didn't research how this change will be taken?

 

[purina]

Anyways, if you're hearing queer voices doesn't that mean there's something peculiar going on?

 

[Mitchymo]

There's no ambiguity in "gay" being used as "lame" in casual straight speech. It is.

The ambiguity exists in that you can interpret with various descriptors how being gay is used in the context of venting frustration.

Lame, wrong, stupid. Yes, can be taken as derogatory.
Unfair, hopeless, harsh. These can be taken sympathetic.

Either way however, the usage is not spoken with homophobic intent.

This makes your position odd, since you claim you find it easier to NOT be offended by things, yet take issue with straight 'bros' using the word to curse with.

What is even more odd, is that whilst having an issue with how 'gay' is being used in an additional context which merely 'could' be construed derogatorily, you shout down your gay 'bros' who take issue with the adoption of a term that is absolutely derogatory in their eyes.

Nobody is stopping anyone from identifying themselves as queer, if they see no offence, that's cool for them. But that 'queer' group cannot monopolise what is and isn't acceptable terminology in application to the whole group of individuals that are 'covered' by the queer interpretation.
HuffPost have decided to apply the term universally, they recieved a rightful backlash for their insensitivity.

Or do you think their marketing team didn't research how this change will be taken?

If they did, they clearly didn't care, but then that IS a cornerstone of queer mentality. The decision at the end of the day was taken by a handful, and if they identify as queer, they want to own the word, they'll do what they want, and did.

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Huffpost "Gay Voices" now "Queer Voices"

The ambiguity exists in that you can interpret with various descriptors how being gay is used in the context of venting frustration.

Lame, wrong, stupid. Yes, can be taken as derogatory.
Unfair, hopeless, harsh. These can be taken sympathetic.

Either way however, the usage is not spoken with homophobic intent.

This makes your position odd, since you claim you find it easier to NOT be offended by things, yet take issue with straight 'bros' using the word to curse with.

What is even more odd, is that whilst having an issue with how 'gay' is being used in an additional context which merely 'could' be construed derogatorily, you shout down your gay 'bros' who take issue with the adoption of a term that is absolutely derogatory in their eyes.

Nobody is stopping anyone from identifying themselves as queer, if they see no offence, that's cool for them. But that 'queer' group cannot monopolise what is and isn't acceptable terminology in application to the whole group of individuals that are 'covered' by the queer interpretation.
HuffPost have decided to apply the term universally, they recieved a rightful backlash for their insensitivity.



If they did, they clearly didn't care, but then that IS a cornerstone of queer mentality. The decision at the end of the day was taken by a handful, and if they identify as queer, they want to own the word, they'll do what they want, and did.

Oh come on, you said no one says "gay" in a derogatory manner, he pointed out that yes in fact they do. Al the rest of this is just dancing around trying to justify the unfortunate fact that you were mistaken.

- - - Updated - - -

Anyways, if you're hearing queer voices doesn't that mean there's something peculiar going on?

..........

 

[TX-Beau]

Re: Huffpost "Gay Voices" now "Queer Voices"

Forgive me, but, i'm not the one using belittling rhetoric such as 'butthurt' to demean an opposing viewpoint, nor arguing to invalidate that view on the basis of what is offensive or not, IN the US. Especially since it DID cause offence to plenty over there, never mind a more global view.

Bullshit, you got owned because you made a silly statement.

 

[Mitchymo]

Re: Huffpost "Gay Voices" now "Queer Voices"

Oh come on, you said no one says "gay" in a derogatory manner, he pointed out that yes in fact they do. Al the rest of this is just dancing around trying to justify the unfortunate fact that you were mistaken.

You are quite right. If the crux of homophobia is about how straight guys vent their frustration playing video games and shit....i'm wrong, but it's not. It's mountain out of molehill territory. I gave examples earlier to show you can't ascertain with certainty how individuals are replacing whatever frustrated word with gay is.
It wasn't me that tried to reduce the offence of the word queer, by bringing up this flimsy 'gay' usage.
Try using gay in a direct insult, in the standalone way that queer is, then i'll admit i'm truly wrong. Can you?

Bullshit, you got owned because you made a silly statement.

There was nothing at all silly about what i said. It came off the back of Rolyo trying to dismiss concerns based on how queer is used in his little corner of the world as if nowhere else matters.

 

[Rolyo85]

Ok, let me explain to you why straight bros saying "gay" when they mean "pathetic" and "lame" (NEVER "harsh", "unfair" or "hopeless") is FAR more damaging than a site changing a column's title using a word that has been reappropriated for over a decade by the community it used to insult.

Reappropriation is a positive move, and using a reappropriated word to try and be more inclusive (whether you like the word or not, today it is a broad term that encompasses gay people, as well as many other non-labeled sexual and gender minorities) is a good thing. Sure, people who need to be offended, will be offended, especially if they have no notion of modern queer culture, as you clearly don't. But in the end, it's an American site and it's reacting to American culture. And HERE the word "queer" is massively accepted as positive.

Straight bros using "gay" as "lame" and "pathetic" is VIRULENTLY wrong, because it promotes the unconscious notion that gay men are pathetic and lame, that being gay is "less than", that it's ok to use a word that describes millions of people as a general term of negativity. Sure, it's not a direct insult, and if you ask them, they won't even realize they are doing it. Many people who use it are very gay friendly. But in the societal gestalt, it ends up empowering the notion that being gay is lame and pathetic.

And again, I don't get why you keep trying to make it as if I am personally super hurt by that use of the word. Am I not allowed to be socially conscious without having my pearls clutched over it?

 

[mightbe]

And HERE the word "queer" is massively accepted as positive.

Within the American LGBTQIABCDEF..+ community, what you say is probably true. Realistically, that entire population is about 10%. For simplicity's sake, let's call it 30 million people.

Now, to the other 280 MILLION people, "queer" means something altogether different and carries a markedly different tone. "Gay", when applied descriptively, is the go-to, not-terribly-controversial word. It can also be used pejoratively. It's also a generic filler for "lame" etc.

In the context at hand, the vast majority of Americans are probably most comfortable using "gay" as the neutral descriptor (they may well use it other ways too, but as TX-Beau says, what's important is intent). "Queer", to the vast majority of Americans, carries a more negative overall tone. As a result, very few non-LGBTQ people will use it confidently in a non-derogatory manner. I'd wager that fewer than 10% of non-LGBTQ people even know that it carries a non-deratogry meaning (when applied to non-heterosexuals).

Now, let's say one of those 280 million people want to pick a slur they know will cause blood to boil--which one will they turn to? The one that's completely pedestrian and normalized, or the one that's tip-toed around gingerly?

As an in-crowd word, 'queer' is completely fine, but how would you like the entire non-straight population to be referred to on CNN? FOX? Would you be a bit uncomfortable? Maybe it'd be okay if Anderson Cooper used it, but not Megyn Kelly?

If a queer identity is projected (rather than an LGBT one), it's a certainty that it will eventually be picked up by groups that you'd prefer not use it.

You've given the counter-argument already. That such usage is empowering. Is it? Would you feel empowered if Bill O'Reilly suddenly began harping about "queer Americans" instead of "LGBT people"? (I'd imagine not. Feel free to disagree)

I think it's best to be careful when reappropriating incendiary words. One should never move 'too quickly', lest you lose sight of the people you're trying to convince. It's like teaching; you don't start with basic numerals and the next week move onto linear algebra.

 

[Rolyo85]

Actually, "queer Americans" sounds pretty cool to me. It definitely feels more inclusive than "LGBT", as it encompasses people that don't have a commonly used letter in the abbreviation, like gender non-conforming and the like.

I didn't say this word is necessarily ok to use outside our culture YET. However, in terms of talking about society and in political language, "queer Americans" definitely does not offend me at all.

 

[mightbe]

Though, interestingly, many from 'backbone' communities feel alienated by this major push to include "everyone under the sun" (except straight people, of course ).

I liken it to a growing city--eventually, after absorbing all nearby towns and villages, the city will have taken on a synthetic character from all its new acquisitions. Eventually, the city will have more influences from its suburbs than from the city itself. What made it distinctive has been lost and subsequently overpowered by the 'blend'. Longtime (or strongly-associating) denizens of the city will feel that they've been robbed of their civic character--that now their city is defined by its ring road rather than its core.

If anything, "queer" is inclusive to the point of desperation. It's the conurbation-from-hell. What was once many communities is now one vast sea of pavement and department stores. Am I wrong to feel nostalgia? To associate with more defined communities?

 

[Rolyo85]

Disagree. While the term "Queer" identifies everyone of alternate sexuality and gender identity, it does have its own specific *culture* that is not all inclusive. It's not exclusive either, but it's specific, which makes it - like every other culture - something you don't have to partake in. I don't, although I do associate with some of its aspects.

 

[mightbe]

And there you finally say it--it is not truly inclusive, merely specific.

Ultimately the mark of a good umbrella term is not one that relies on association with the word itself but not what the word is associated with (in this case, a specific subculture).

For the precise reasons you state, "queer" fails as a general term in a general context. It doesn't manage to convey substantial meaning in itself, and relies on the far-subtler in-crowd dialogue.

"Queer" in the sense you propose would be completely lost on someone from outside the conversation, even fellow gays whom you'd like to be a part of the group.

Why again, does this make it at all suitable? It's extremely complex for general usage. I doubt many would understand the significance of these vital details. Hell, one would almost have to be an expert on queer semiotics to explain it well. (And yes, there I use queer specifically)

 

[frankfrank]

Straight bros using "gay" as "lame" and "pathetic"

But in the societal gestalt, it ends up empowering the notion that being gay is lame and pathetic.

The societal gestalt is an undercurrent kind of thing, and the connotations are somewhat subtle and perhaps almost subconscious, but that can strongly affect and carry over these perceptions and indeed cause people to see gays as "pathetic." It's almost a conditioned, Pavlovian type of reaction. This is sort of Queer-in-reverse, which started out as a word meaning something negative, and ended up being appropriated by [some] people from "our community" - just as only [some] people who use GAY in this newer sense.

I see the effects as similar on both. Whether something is ORIGINALLY negative...or becomes negative after the fact...the connotation of negativity will almost always stick to it.

"Queer", to the vast majority of Americans, carries a more negative overall tone. As a result, very few non-LGBTQ people will use it confidently in a non-derogatory manner.

If a queer identity is projected (rather than an LGBT one), it's a certainty that it will eventually be picked up by groups that you'd prefer not use it.

Would you feel empowered if Bill O'Reilly suddenly began harping about "queer Americans" instead of "LGBT people"?

To me, "queer" is like when black people use "nigger" (or, often, "nigga" which is nearly the same to ordinary ears) - I am definitely uncomfortable with both. As strange as this may sound, I'm actually more comfortable using the word "fag" than I am using "queer" - however, I WILL NOT USE THE LONGER VERSION OF "FAG" which to me is the worst of all the often-used terms.

Queer, to me, associates with something similar to "a stinky surrounding aura, a miasma, maybe something that is rotting..." - it's not a very pleasant thought, and one that is probably not shared by a lot of other people. I'm not even sure where that connotation came from, because it's not in any known definition.

But also to me, using "queer" to describe our community (or the "nigger/nigga" thing above) may be understood as a term of endearment to insiders, but the end result is that people who wish less than well for us will "re-appropriate" that word AFTER we do, and use it as a pejorative against us, and come up with the excuse that "it's OK to use that word - THEY do." NO, IT ISN'T.

I HAVE heard that verbatim argument used for "nigger" before, and I am not pleasant to be around when I hear that being justified.

 

[Rolyo85]

And there you finally say it--it is not truly inclusive, merely specific. Ultimately the mark of a good umbrella term is not one that relies on association with the word itself but not what the word is associated with (in this case, a specific subculture).

That's not what I said. There's a distinction between the word and the culture that uses it as a designation.

Furthermore, that culture exists EXACTLY because "LGBT" doesn't include many people. And clearly huffpost feels that queer more adequately represents their readers.

 

[mightbe]

"Queer" identifies everyone"--"it does have its own specific *culture* that is not all inclusive. It's not exclusive either, but it's specific, which makes it--something you don't have to partake in.

I'm sorry. That is precisely what you said. A word which relates to a specific culture but also tries to encapsulate the whole (assuming you momentarily forget its existing usage).

This is either a. "dumbing down" like how most people refer to "classical music" when really that period only lasted ~50 years, or b. A pendantic version of doublethink, requiring users to be intimately familiar with the precise semantic limits of each (including the possible overlap).

It's its own culture because LGBT didn't necessarily include them, that's true. Hence "LGBTQ(+)". It doesn't apply universally to everyone within. It can most certainly apply *additionally*, but asserting it as the dominant identity is annoying and potentially offensive. You're telling people what they can and can't identify as, in the same way that people are conditioned into associating "gay" with "lame".