Fun talk:Faggot/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 24 September 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Trash

Thanks for helping out Trash on this wholesome family friendly topic. Yummy. 06:08, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Mmmmm, offal and fillers, makes the mouth water just thinking about it Trashbat 06:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Definite candidate for featured article status now I think. Trashbat 06:18, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Time for an article on "fag" I think. You know - British slang for cigarette. An in "I'm dying for fag." --Bob_M (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Already started. Mad Min 06:32, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, just noticed that. Should be more awake. Sorry.--Bob_M (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

I love faggots

Haven't tried the sausages though they sound tasty.~ Cracker 08:13, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Companion Article

I just created dyke as a companion to this one. Just thought we needed some even-handedness here. =P --Kels 09:59, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

If I put my smutty thinking cap on then I can see where you are coming from with this. But rationally, what have earth embankments got to do with pork foodstuffs? Mad Min 10:46, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Earth embankments are where you sit to eat your pork foodstuffs, of coruse. Unless, of course, you prefer entrails. --Kels 11:02, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't really like this series...

Hey there, I don't mean to bother, but I really don't like this article or its companion. I get that the point is to make fun of the slurs, but I'm really opposed to even using these words prominently at all. On CP, I would've deleted them... but that's not how we do things at RW. Could they perhaps be combined into a "British Terms" article or something like that?-AmesG 09:46, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, this is the point then, eh? Not every word that is verboten in the USA is "offensive" elsewhere. When a society fears using certain words they have already given the power of those words greater meaning than anything someone pushing an offensive POV could have ever hoped for.

I see your attitude AmesG here as the "what will the neighbors think" syndrome.

It's tongue-in-cheek, National Lampoon type of double entendre, sarcaordy: it finds itself in good company with the likes of Lenny Bruce, George Carlin et al, IOW, with past defenders of true "free speech". Carlos Mencia is the latest version of such; yes, I am offended by many of his skits and jokes and I am glad for him as he shows us the vaingloriousness of our attempts to appease every single group of people for whatever god unknown reason.

Please, let us not hide from words; let us instead parse out the prejudice and hatred hiding behind them expose them to the good, clean air and light and watch as the words become a little more than syllables strung together.

~~ Cracker 10:18, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

P.S. Yes I made up the word "sarcaody". It'll mean "men who like putting on vestments for the fun of it" in 200 years and will be "offensive".~ Cracker

The point of the article is to present the term in a strictly neutral way, leaving aside the offensive side. There is nothing offensive about the word itself. It may have developed an unsavoury connotation (despite faggots being very savoury) in America but this is a recent use. Personally, I regret that I can no longer use gay in its proper context. We should stand up to the language Gestapo who deprive us perfectly useful words. Some of these usages will undoubtedly move on, "fairy" was also used as a term for homosexual in the UK, should we not write articles on fairies? The article on faggots was deleted on CP because it was deemed to be offensive. But it is only offensive to someone who thinks they know what the word means or what they want it to mean, the content is actually educational. Mad Min 10:41, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I definitely see what you're going for, and I think it's interesting. But perhaps you should include that commentary on the article page(s), just so as the goal can be clear? I think, based on what you've written, that you could make the argument very well, but I think that the argument should be made clear on the article page. Is that okay? I don't want to be the language police :-( -AmesG 10:45, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe this could go into some sort of disambiguation because if we start deviating from the non-offensive terminology it undermines the article's wholesomeness. Perhaps we could put "Faggot (US slang) See Conservapedia". Mad Min 10:52, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Mad Min on this one, the articles present the words as they were originally (and still are) used. Many perfectly good words have been rendered hors de combat by people giving them unintended meanings. Imagine the look of horror I'd get in this day and age if I said I was taking children up the back passage to look for faries. This defilement of perfectly good words needs to be clear. Trashbat 10:53, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Here I am going to be incredibly controversial, and maybe even the first RWian to get a ban, who knows, but here goes. I have been standing back from this, because I could not see the point; however, now I realise that this was banned on CP, there is a point; what is more, the fact that people seem to be offended here, makes it even more pointed, and therefore we should keep it. By the same tokem we should have the following articels: Shit, Wank, Fuck and especially Cunt. I am old enough to remember when Kenneth Tynan said "Fuck" for the first time on British TV, and tt is only recently that the last in my list of expletives has invaded terrestrial television, and when Jonny Lydon called the viewers "You fucking cunts!" all hell broke loose. We should have some serious article debating the use of these terms together with their derivations. That's not all, we should, as RationalWiki go further. I was watching the Dambusters film the other day, and I noticed that the dog was called "nigger". That got me thinking. How on earth did a term which was a corruption of "negro" come to be so redolent with hatred that no-one is allowed to use it any more, except "people of race" in 50's and 60's films ironically to each other. There aought to be an article on just that. BE. There are loads of other words that I could mention, but you get the point. I for one vote we keep faggot, but that we address these issue on the article page, rather than hiding them on the talk page.--CatWatcher 10:54, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Cunt would make one hell of a redirect page. Or am I just being evil...! XP Trashbat 10:57, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

ROTFL--CatWatcher 10:59, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Concur with CatWatcher. Address the point of the article on the main page, and it'll be very interesting and in line with our goals.-AmesG 11:39, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm voting that we keep the "wholesome" versions, but add Foo(slang) versions that get into the etymology of the "dirty" (or as they were once called, "Anglo-Saxon") words and how they came to be considered so vile. --Kels 12:03, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I've never really been able to appreciate why the "Anglo-Saxon" words were so taboo but Latin was OK. While never filling my sentences with "fuck" or its participles, in many instances it is a better term than the long-winded euphemisms such as "sexual intercourse" or "making love". I'm still not convinced of putting it on the main article page, different meanings could one page could get confusing and would eventually lead to separate pages. Perhaps someone could produce a WRITING PLAN, in the meantime this article is locked! ;) Mad Min 12:15, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

I added some info, but perhaps someone could add a diambiguation link and separate the two.--PalMD^-Talk 12:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Derogatory

You note the reclaiming of terms like "faggot" as non-derogatory, but my experience has been that terms like "fag", "dyke" and so forth are certainly used with pride within the various queer communities (although some still find them shameful), but they still have irony at their core and a consciousness that they have been and often still are derogatory terms aimed at people like them. So it's not quite a matter of fully reclaiming the terms but turning them around. --Kels 12:33, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Add it, my sisterDocSock 12:34, 26 May 2007 (CDT)