Should use of homophobic epithets be discouraged?
Yes.
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
They serve absolutely no positive function other than personal self-gratification on behalf of those who use them. They are demonstrably detrimental to the well-being of other individuals and populations, with severe consequences ranging from making discrimination socially acceptable to directly contributing to depression and suicide. Side: Yes.
They serve absolutely no positive function other than personal self-gratification on behalf of those who use them. Can't this be said of most modes of expression? Or even many words? The vast majority of the time, someone who says "narwhal" or "defenestration" isn't looking to communicate anything but his own amusement with the language. Conversely, some people actively identify as "faggots" (I'm serious) or derive some comfort from the reclamation of the word. How do you define the positive functionality of a word? directly contributing to depression and suicide. Can someone who would make a decision to end his life over the use of a word really be called emotionally well to begin with? Side: No.
Epithets function differently than other forms of expression, as the form of gratification comes at the cost of someone else. Saying narwhal or defenestration is not hurting anyone, so the the personal gratification derived from saying it is justifiable. In light of their cost, epithets of any kind are not. An individual who commits suicide generally does so as a consequence of experiencing depression, which is frequently caused by feelings of rejection and isolation. Homophobic epithets and other forms of hate speech and discrimination have been clearly linked to a higher risk of depression and therefore of suicide, particularly among youth. I do not see in any way how you could begin to argue that insulting someone does not have a negative effect on them. The end point is that there are no benefits that could possibly outweigh the risks and harms of using homophobic epithets. To do so is bigoted at worst and uncivil at best, and certainly reflects poorly upon the person using them. Side: Yes.
Like many on here said, they SHOULD be discouraged, but never enforced by any law. Private companies can enforce it, signs can be put up, "nigger = faggot" stuff can be put up, to show how insulting it is. But as far as the law goes, I support free speech 100% in every aspect always, no matter what. Censorship is never ok in my opinion, at least as allowable by law and government. But yes, some words or insults are rather mean, and can be safely discouraged from use by private parties. I encourage that. Side: Yes.
1
point
|
Stop saying homophobic words just because it's insensitive to gays? whatever. If you're really going to bitch about what I say, you're a faggot. not a literal gay, just a faggot. Insults are great, and anything that rings as strong should be ENcouraged. Insults aren't meant to make people feel comfortable. Now, faggot has become more casual. Friends call each other fag all the time. but hell, I sometimes call my friends other hateful words... but fag is just the easiest. Eventually as the years go by the younger generation will think of their own shit to call each other. Fag has been used for decades, but now it's becoming commercially mainstream. When fag becomes post-modern, it'll just be forgotten. So just give it a decade and you most likely won't hear "shit's gay" or "don't be a faggot." People will probably be saying "fuck off ya pedo." or something like that. Insults are supposed to be insulting and insensitive. Side: No.
it is hateful and derogatory and entrenches the notion that being homosexual is a negative insult. I say faggot all the time and I do not hate gay people. There are also clear harm to using those epithets, particularly as documented among youth in schools. Is not saying faggot truly going to end homophobia and bullying? Please. Side: No.
See also: the euphemism treadmill. If we really want people to stop using hateful language, we have to eradicate the hatred first; there's no easy way out. Treat the disease, not the symptom. Side: No.
I recognize that hateful language comes from hate (which in turn comes from insecurity). I also understand that stopping hateful language will not eliminate hate. However, discouraging hate speech does create a safer sense of space for targeted populations and I think that is important and grounds enough for discouraging epithets. Furthermore, letting individuals within our society know that society finds the use of hateful language unacceptable is also letting them know that the hatred driving the statements is likewise unacceptable. The euphemism treadmill is only a theory and in my opinion not a very sound one. You can argue that other epithets may take the place of current ones, however a stand against homophobic epithets in general is a viable position. I think it is a fair observation that even though hatred and discrimination continue to target people based on race, differing ability, etc. the public stance against language derogatory to those groups (when coupled with other efforts) has led to a reduction in that language. Side: Yes.
1
point
I'm not talking about any oppressive measures, just casually (or perhaps formally, but privately sponsored--like that Thinkb4uspeak/"Don't Say Gay" campaign that all the Z-list celebrities appear in). Freedom of speech would technically be preserved, but it would be discouraged in the same way that using racial slurs is. Like with Kramer's "nigger" incident. We shamed the shit out of him, but he received no state censure. Side: Yes.
1
point
|
