Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
In my mind it's on a par with calling me a blasphemer if I say “Oh my God!”
If I'm using a word and you read it as having a different meaning or take it out of context, then that's you misunderstanding or just stirring up trouble. OK I don't know how it feels to be victimised simply because of my sexuality (well, unless being refused entry to a gay club counts) but if no harm is meant, should it be taken in offence? In my mind it's on a par with calling me a blasphemer if I say “Oh my God!” It might technically be true and it might cause offence to a minority, but I don't mean it to and if it did I would consider no longer using it in the presence of those people.
“That's so gay!” - there is a certain intrinsic irony in it that does make it hard to take seriously I think – how homosexual can an inanimate object be? It's wide open to being lampooned: Rainbows are gay! or Homosexuals are gay t-shirts anyone? If anything using the word in this sense should be ridiculed rather than hated.
What started off as a matter of offence to a few in the 70s is now rather a moot point given the current prevalence of usage. Like it or not, the word has changed meaning yet again, not forgetting of course that it used to (and still can) mean carefree amongst many other things. One of the things I consider to be beautiful about language is its constant change. New words come into being, old ones fall out of use. And of course, existing words mutate and change meaning. “It's evolution, baby” even if it's not necessarily of the fittest.
Another thing about this wonderful language of ours, and many others to an even greater degree, is the complete change in meaning that can be made by a change of tone or even undefined, subtle dual-meanings. For example, let's say someone calls me "nice" - it doesn't happen very often, but hey, we're being hypothetical here. I could take that as a compliment, or perhaps I could think they were saying I'm too nice and need to get angry once in a while, or I could think they meant "yeah, you're a nice guy 'n all... but it's a shame about your face." In a language where it's so easy to be misunderstood, surely it's better to play it safe and assume that no harm was meant?
In 2006 there was minor outrage at the BBC over Chris Moyles's use of the word (“I don't want that [ringtone], it's gay”). Auntie's governors eventually ruled that although it might cause offence to a small minority, it is a widely accepted usage. And this is the BBC who generally defecate masonry if someone says “crap” before teatime. Indeed amongst the other definitions currently in the Oxford English Dictionary lies: “Foolish, stupid, socially inappropriate or disapproved of; ‘lame’.”
If of course you're one of the people who are still offended by its use in this sense, then hopefully you accept that it's too late to stop it. Maybe you should consider making your own meanings for words and getting them to spread through your friends - “man that party was so fag - I loved it!” OK it didn't work for “fetch”, but what the hell, it's worth a shot...
#19: I would say that creating debate is one of the primary principles or 'editorial standards' to which The Yorker aspires. And while I would never, ever use that first word - and probably wouldn't think to write a blog about its use - why not write about the way it has been reclaimed in contemporary society and discuss the positive negative effects of that on our culture, if you have something to add to the debate? Sounds interesting, and would probably make us think more carefully about the words we ourselves use casually (as does Mitch's article).
Making something taboo just means that no one ever gets the chance to confront these issues head-on.
Yes, I would feel the same way if someone was to write a blog about the word N*gger. If they were advocating it I would certainly question their perspective (because of the despicable historical connotations) but nonetheless if they felt they had something legitimate to say regarding the term (its reasons for reallocation, anecdotes, description of its linguistic history etc) I would read and take what they said into account when developing my well-informed opinion. Information about other people's perspectives should enrich your own regardless of whether you are opposed or personally affected by it.
These are well documented debates that people have across the world...for somebody to air their side of the story on a public website does not diminish the credibility of such a site. It is pretty clear that writers in any media outlet will have differing opinions and are in no way to be representative of the outlet's views.
To undermine The Yorker's editorial standards because they allowed someone to explain their use of a word (which let's fact it, people often use without second thought to its origins) is just ridiculous. The writer of this piece in no way encourages homophobia, he simply states that he personally (after it seems careful consideration regarding its popular usage) does not find it a discriminatory term.
So The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, The Independent, The Daily Mail...they all produce 'controversial' pieces on numerous topics (many in one-sided blog form such as this) in a hope to spark debate. I suppose they are disreputable too...
From a bisexual reader and fan of The Yorker
PS. Mitch did not write the last anon comment.
As Blog Editorr, I would just like to reiterate the fact that careful consideration was indeed taken before publishing this blog.
I like to think that while this section stirs debates on issues that need to be discussed (the 23 above comments certainly suggest this) it is done in acordance with HIGH editorial standards.
Anyone wanting to defend the "other side of the story" is welcome to email their rants/blogs at blogs@theyorker.co.uk
Meanwhile, blog on!
Marie, Blog Editor
Even in other campus media you'll find equally discriminatory and offensive pieces, often without the intention of creating debate or inviting such debate to occur. Vision's "Campus Playboy" anyone?
I'm wondering if these comments are beginning to detract from the actual issues at hand, which obviously need to be discussed as they are undeniably present in day-to-day life..
All I can say, is that thanks to this new meaning my father now believes I'm a lesbian.
I think some commenters (commentors? commentators???) might be missing the point a little, in that I don't think that people are shocked/offended just because the article discusses the word gay as a negative slur per-se, it is because the way the article is written, and the conclusion it comes to:
'If of course you're one of the people who are still offended by its use in this sense, then hopefully you accept that it's too late to stop it. Maybe you should consider making your own meanings for words and getting them to spread through your friends - “man that party was so fag - I loved it!”'
Not cool.
I think it is awesome that people are discussing this issue and it is an interesting topic, I just think it would be more, dare i say logical for the conclusion to be more along the lines of 'we all say it, but we should realise that, its use affects a lot of peoples lives for the worse, so we should probably stop'.
Also, the article's title.. wtf?!
AND re. the mention of Campus Playboy - so I'm told (I don't tend to read V..I mean 'certain campus media outlets') it's gross every week so the fact that there was a gay one this time around is nothing to organise a Gay Pride march over.
#29 - I believe the title may have been employing a technique commonly known as "irony".
WOW this has had a lot of comments since I last had a look at it! It's certainly a very contentious issue, and if you'd like to know more about it, or about LGBT more generally, please come along to some of the fantastic events that we're putting on next week as part of Sex and Sexuality Week. The details are on our shiny new website:
http://www.york-lgbt.org.uk/
comment deleted by the author Wow, an article that debates freedom of speech, I hope not more than 10 people have joined in (for those of you bemused it is against university rules to discuss such ‘trivialities’ as freedom of speech in groups of more than 10 people, possibly only applies on campus though I’m not sure, another blog perhaps?). Provocative as this article may be, some valid points are made by all. I’m glad to see debate is alive and well.
In response to #4 "to Mitch" something is already part of many St Lawrence Court 04/05 residents, meaning to break/destroy/fuck up/generally render useless.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report