Things never said by roadgeeks

[hbelkins]

One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.

But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.

[1995hoo]

I indeed saw an article once referring to Lewis Hamilton (a British black man) as an "African-American F1 driver."

I'm sure he would take issue with that characterization.

[Pete from Boston]

One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.

But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.

Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people.  An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?"  But they're not, and words play a role. 

Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority.  That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs.  Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation.  And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words. 

[KG909]

Holy fuck I caused some shit didn't I...

[bzakharin]

One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.

But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.

Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people.  An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?"  But they're not, and words play a role. 

Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority.  That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs.  Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation.  And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words. 

The particular examples you cite are not very good. Homo/heterosexual are really scientific terms normal people wouldn't use (not to mention they are too long). Negro is not originally an English word, nor one original to the people to whom it was/is applied. Some may say "but it just means black, but there is a perfectly normal word for "black" in English, isn't there? Some of the ethnic slurs for Jews are just words for "Jew" in Polish and German.

[Pete from Boston]

One of my high school teachers had the last name of Gay and I don't remember anyone ever making fun of him because of his name.

But speaking of the term "gay" coming into use to mean "homosexual," why do we have to invent words and terms when there are already perfectly good words? Like "African-American" for "Negro." (Are blacks who live in England African-American?) Like "vegetarian" for "herbivore." Or "straight' for "heterosexual." And so forth and so on.

Because words are always political when you're labeling groups of people.  An equally valid question to yours is "Why can't people just be nice?"  But they're not, and words play a role. 

Quite often the words used to describe minority groups within a population are chosen by the majority.  That fact alone can feel disempowering to a group already lacking control over their own affairs.  Quite often seemingly harmless words grow a more and more sinister connotation.  And beyond all of this, language evolves shorthand and slang terms all the time, and their leogitmacy ebbs and flows like all words. 

The particular examples you cite are not very good. Homo/heterosexual are really scientific terms normal people wouldn't use (not to mention they are too long). Negro is not originally an English word, nor one original to the people to whom it was/is applied. Some may say "but it just means black, but there is a perfectly normal word for "black" in English, isn't there? Some of the ethnic slurs for Jews are just words for "Jew" in Polish and German.

Are you talking about me or the poster I quoted?  I didn't make any examples.

"Negro" is an ideal example of what I described, a name chosen by others, and one that was the dominant descriptor during a period of great indignity for the described.  It may be innocuous on the surface, but how words are used is often as important as which words are chosen.

[PHLBOS]

"Roads are gay"

Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.

I believe in that particular context; gay means stupid not homosexual.

Side bar: I've known at least two different people whose first (nick)name was Gay; typically it was short for either Gayton or Gaylord.

[Pete from Boston]

"Roads are gay"

Nobody should say this, because its offensive and roads don't have genders anyway.

I believe in that particular context; gay means stupid not homosexual.

I know folks who think "He tried to Jew them down" isn't offensive when not talking about a Jewish person.  It's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with.  Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."

[english si]

It's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with.  Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."

How so? Isn't conflating one aspect (and a WEIRD aspect at that*) with someone's whole identity that what you are doing, not those who aren't even talking about a person's identity?

*Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich and Democratic. Sexuality was invented as a psuedo-scientific divider about 100 years ago in Western Academia. While its filtered out into the poorer, less educated and non-Western places, its still a minority way of looking at the world in the world today. Sexual behaviour, sure, but until the 1900s, no one was attacked for their sexual orientation.

[hbelkins]

If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?

I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. 

[Pete from Boston]

If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?

I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. 

Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves. 

"Caucasian," for what it's worth, comes from enormously stupidly racist 19th-century "scholarship" that labeled the European as the fairest and prettiest human race on earth, as contrasted to the ugly and morally deficient Negroid (there's your answer in the context of the question as posed) race.  For some reason the exotic people of the Caucasus were decided to be emblematic of this.  More arbitrary nonsense from the era that brought you phrenology.

[1995hoo]

If "caucasian" is the appropriate term for light-skinned, then what would be the appropriate term for dark-skinned?

I think I'll start calling myself "Native American." After all, I was born in Lexington, Ky. 

Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves.

....

Based on some of the things I've heard blacks call each other, I think the suggestion in boldface is probably not necessarily the best idea for white people to follow!

[Pete from Boston]

It's worse, IMO, because you're no longer just denigrating someone, you're reducing their whole identity to this one characteristic you're associating them with.  Same with "gay = lame, stupid, etc."

How so? Isn't conflating one aspect (and a WEIRD aspect at that*) with someone's whole identity that what you are doing, not those who aren't even talking about a person's identity?

It's doing that, too.  But it's attaching some big negative to the term identifying a group, and then taking that one step further and using that term only to imply that negative quality in other contexts (as in our friend's jesting "Roads are gay" usage above).

*Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich and Democratic.

Usually the group that doesn't get what the big deal is.

[cjk374]

Listen, just call people what they like to be called, or better yet call them what they call themselves. 

Just don't call me late for supper!    

[formulanone]

In before Gay Street in Baltimore and Gay Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee.

[Pete from Boston]

What the hell does "in before" mean anyway? It doesn't even mean "in before," it means "I, right now, am the one that thought of saying this."  Sometimes I just don't understand the internet.

[NE2]

in before someone links Urban Dictionary

[Bickendan]

in before someone links Urban Dictionary

Well, there goes *that* idea...

[Pete from Boston]

No need, I get it.  It says, "The predictable thing here is X," like it's some kind of cover for saying predictable thing X because the person "totally called it." 

[kphoger]

I once knew a rather nerdy, very white gentleman from South Africa. Upon receiving his U.S. citizenship, he started referring to himself as an African American.

And, by the way, it becomes perfectly socially acceptable to call something "gay" as long as you tack on "not that there's anything wrong with that" (in before someone links to a Seinfeld clip). Better yet, just use the term "retarded".

[vtk]

I know someone called "in before Gay St", but how about Gay Rd? I think there's one in southwest Franklin or southeast Madison county...

Also, this might belong in Funniest Road Names, but it also seems to fit this current sidetracked discussion: I recently noticed in Bucyrus OH, Gay St is located between two streets with guys' names.

[Pete from Boston]

There's a Gay St. in the West Village.  Kind of like having Chinese St. in Chinatown. 

[kphoger]

Out in the higher elevations (i.e. Colorado), "Regular" octane is 86, with mid-grade at 87 octane.  My car does just fine with the 86 in the tank, even though the manual says 87.  I'm not going to spend the 15-20 cents difference for the 87.

Guatemala and other Central American nations, dispense regular gasoline at 87 octane [RON], which is 83 octane in USA-speak. Guatemala City is at lower elevation than Denver, and the region does have population centers at low coastal elevation.

Somehow, all those people's cars aren't blowing up or shutting down on the road.

[Brandon]

I once knew a rather nerdy, very white gentleman from South Africa. Upon receiving his U.S. citizenship, he started referring to himself as an African American.

And he's technically right.  To be frank, he's more "African" than many who wear the term, having actually come from there recently (as are immigrants from Nigeria or Liberia).

And, by the way, it becomes perfectly socially acceptable to call something "gay" as long as you tack on "not that there's anything wrong with that" (in before someone links to a Seinfeld clip). Better yet, just use the term "retarded".

I prefer "fucktard" when discussing people though. 

[dfwmapper]

Out in the higher elevations (i.e. Colorado), "Regular" octane is 86, with mid-grade at 87 octane.  My car does just fine with the 86 in the tank, even though the manual says 87.  I'm not going to spend the 15-20 cents difference for the 87.

Guatemala and other Central American nations, dispense regular gasoline at 87 octane [RON], which is 83 octane in USA-speak. Guatemala City is at lower elevation than Denver, and the region does have population centers at low coastal elevation.

Somehow, all those people's cars aren't blowing up or shutting down on the road.

Modern engines have anti-knock systems that will retard timing or decrease pressure in order to prevent knocking, at the expense of performance. Also, the vehicles sold in third-world countries typically don't use engines that require higher octane in the first place.

Lower octane gas is sold at higher elevations because the lower air pressure decreases the potential for knocking. Using 85.5 or 86 at elevation in an engine designed for 87 is fine.