Hi Matthew.

I think you should set the forums to change the word "homophobic" to "I'm gay!". There are two reasons for this:

1. It is incorrect English. A homophobic person would be afraid of anything without variety (homogeneous) and/or anything that has the 'homo' suffix. In fact, to assert that 'homophobic' is correct English implies that 'homo' is a correct synonym for 'homosexual'; it is actually a derogatory synonym. The person that coined this phrase surely should have known that. It would be like saying 'poofterphobic' or 'faggotphobic'. The suffix 'phobic' is incorrectly applied, as it represents an extreme. It's like cracking a walnut open with a sledgehammer.

2. It is a pseudo-intellectual piece of tripe, used by feminazis, stunt-journalists, stunt-lecturers and anyone trying to score points with those tossers.

EDIT: Ok, there's another reason.
3. It would be funny to see the homophobic reaction of people that use the word 'homophobic' when they see "I'm gay!".

From dictionary.com:

It is not incorrect english, it is the right word whether or not you agree with the way the suffix is used.

That's quite an ignroant generalization you've made there, I'm sure many people here are none of those and still might use the word.

Probally nothing because they have nothing to fear from "homophobia" unlike yourself.

SSC, you've already made your point in another thread. No need to cross-post.

I didn't put up an argument in other post so this gave me the chance!

Then you should have put up an argument in the other post.

The other thread was not intended for an argument about that, no need to hijack it.

I started the other thread so I will hijack it as I see fit. Please abstain from hijacking this one.

Are you homophobicphobic?

Why William, are you homophobicphobicphobic??

http://olympus.olf.sgsnet.se:9660/crawling.jpg

X-G: What the crap is that? It's funny, but I don't quite get it (other than irony and making fun of Linkin Park?)

*English

Seriously though: In a strict sense, he's correct. In a more modern sense, where the meanings of words change, he's not.

But, SSC, if we're going to bust out dictionaries:

So it's either offensive, using offensive slang; or just flat out wrong.

Unless, again, you go by the modern "it means whatever the hell I say it means." In which case, I will add mine: Fruit loops. Impling that someone eats fruitloops means they're gay. Fruit loops being fruity, fruity implying gay. Thank you. I expect to hear it on CNN tomorrow.

I agree completely!

Just because it's in the dictionary, commonly used, and logically constructed (homo(sexual)phobia), doesn't mean I have to like it!

I would also like to extend the list of words we should ban from the forum.

We should change "Communism" to "I'm a traitor to the United States!" I mean, what is communism anyways? The belief in communes? It's totally ill-constructed. Plus communism is evil.

I also think that we should change "SDL" to "I hate allegro." SDL isn't even a word, and anyone using that trash on the allegro forum shouldn't be here anyways.

We should also change "Femminism" to "I hate men!" This is another ill-constructed word that just means you think women are better than men, obviously. Femminism is sexist!

We should also ban the word, "Holiday." Listen, there's a war on Christmas that we need to address. Calling "Christmas" a "Holiday" is just another win for the liberal secularlists. Just replace, "Holiday" with "Christmas."

I'll add more words later.

Thanks for the support, Steve.

Homo, meaning man, is Latin.
Homo, as in `homosexual', is Greek, meaning `same' or `identical.'
Refering to a homosexual as a homo is just shortening the longish word. So I don't see how that is insulting in any way.
`Homo' also happens to be the normal Dutch word for refering to homosexuals, just to mention that as well.

So, what is this thread about anyway?

Evert, there's a difference between denotation and connotation. Homo may have a logical denotation, but also has a negative connotation. That's why it can be insensitive to use it.

The real argument is how does one define a word. Obviously languages evolve over time and the meanings of words change but it's rather interesting when you see words changing/being invented before your eyes.

I entriely agree that the word 'homophobic' does not make any sense if you take it apart, but I think it's safe to say that mostly anyone will know what you mean if you say it because of it's common use. But is it good enough to call it a word just because it's commonly used? I would say yes, however much I may dislike it.

There are a lot of words that are commonly used in ways contrary to their actual meaning. For example: the common misunderstanding of the meaning of the word irony. If enough English speakers think a word means something how long does it take for the word to actually mean that? since afterall language is just a means to express ideas to each other.

Keeping in the theme of the thread, for example the word gay used to mean mainly happy, but now most peoples' initial definition would be homosexual. I would expect some people would have disliked how that word slowly changed meaning.

I know.
I still don't share it though; for me it's the normal word.

It's not the word, it's your intended meaning behind it. Homophobic can be used in a good way, or a bad way. It is entirely up to you.

My only concern is what we should do about the word homoerotic? And if it is banned, how will we discuss Top Gun in future?

So, you guys wanna go shower and towel off and play some volley ball?

While we are at it, lets make it so you cannot use the negative form of any english word (convert the forum to Orwellian Newspeak). Double Plus Good, Double Plus Ungood, and the like.

Steve++, its called a misnomer, there are plenty of them in the English language. I could break down many of the words you use everyday to their Latin roots to show that you are completely incorrect in using them and then provide a more logical alternative every few paragraphs, but I won't because it is a waste of time to try and make the English language make sense to people who have been for thousands of years. Besides, it is just a language, as long as the message clearly gets through, the choice of words should be of no concern.

Let's all use Esperanto.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The obvious solution to this controversy is to make the spell checker notice when you mean "homophobic" in a bad way. If Matthew uses Allegro 5 mind reading module it can be ready for Monday!

http://www.loserzcomic.com/comics/20020201.gif

Wouldn't heterophobic(Meaning fear of different things) fit better then. Homophobic does actually make sense as most people who use it are only afraid of seeing part of themselves in a homosexual person.

N.B. homosexual is a description not a noun. A person is not a homosexual but rather practices homosexuality.

It's a misnomer with an holier-than-thou agenda.

There are many adjectives that are also nouns in unmodified form.

Matthew, thank you for hijacking this thread.

Did you mean to say most people who use the word homophobic, or most people who are described as homophobic? because the former would be an absurd generalisation considering how widespread the use of it is. The latter is probably most certainly true (conjecture on my part), and also (agin conjecture) most homophobic people are also afraid that they might somehow be mistaken as being homosexual.

It may have been conceived with a holier-than-thou agenda, but now its simply a term, just like any other. The only holier-than-thou attitude in this thread is yours: "It is a pseudo-intellectual piece of tripe, used by feminazis, stunt-journalists, stunt-lecturers and anyone trying to score points with those tossers."

It does not imply that, you've simply inferred this for yourself.

Homosexualphobia is very cumbersome however, which is probably why whoever coined the the term homophobia did so. I guess they simply didn't take into account how anal some people are about demanding that terms be perfect. Kinda ironic really.

Oh, and homo is a prefix, not a suffix.

It's your definition of 'phobic' that is incorrect. Phobias are irrational and/or extreme, not irrational and extreme.

Oxford's dictionary disagrees with you. Homosexual is an adjective as well as a noun.

Since when was any book written infalable?

In this case, I would agree with Oxford. They do a very good job at reflecting usage, and my impression of the usage of the word is in line with Oxford's.

I dunno, any book that is revised as much as a dictionary can't be reputable. Get it right the first time

Yes, by all means, lets trust that whatever random forum post shows up supporting something has more weight than a printed book, because hey, the book could be wrong!

But if you want to go for the majority argumen, my van Dale Engels-Nederlands says the same thing, as does dictionary.com.

Rubbish.
Languages changes. What's right (or wrong) today can be wrong (or right) tomorrow.

Books have a way of becomming out of date rather quickly.

I think Tomasu's joking now.

Rubbish

The Bible?

"If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them." Lev: 20:13

Looks like God didn't use the word homophobia anywhere. Nyah~

What about two women? That's still considered holy, right?

Anyways, you spelled 'infallible' wrong. I'm just saying.

Please tell me you're kidding.

It's NyanKoneko. 'nuf said.

no, in Romans is says not to do that either... anyways it's not mentioned a whole LOT in the bible, but when it is, they say it's bad... however most of the purity code in leveticus isn't followed by modern christians as it's supposed to be one of those things that Jesus died for (so you'd be forgiven and not stoned to death) but the romans part is written by christians who understood that, and said even tho you can be forgiven, don't be gay anyways...

Ummm, are you on crack? Yes it does imply this....

homo = man, phobic = irrational fear --- homophobic == irrational fear of gay men and women (however, homo does imply the human race, so maybe the emphasis should just be on the word gay...) -- where did gay come from again? certainly not phobic, hence homo... calling a gay person a homo, in the US at least, is very derogatory...

I'm all about replacing a bunch of random words to things like "I'm stupid" -- especially SDL... those creeps...

You should totally change "homophobic" to "afraid of rainbows"

You really need a new catch phrase, 'are you on crack' is getting really tired.

I doubt that the original author of the term intended for it to be considered 'correct'. It's just a term. In case you hadn't noticed (perhaps you've had too much crack yourself), but many terms we use are not 'correct'. Some are coined because they sound catchy, some are coined because they are simplifications of an otherwise awkward terminology... I hope you're catching my drift, or has the crack not worn off yet?

It doesn't take much brain power to understand that the 'homo' in this instance is not being used as a 'correct' synonym for homosexual, but that it's used more like an abbreviation.

The homo in homophobic (which is really a shortened form of homosexualphobic is usually considered to be homo = same, not homo = man.

Who is calling anyone a homo?

In Latin, yes. In this case, the origin is Greek, so it means `[the] same' or `similar'.

I don't follow your ethymology at all. `homo' is short for `homosexual', not `homophobia'.

The term homo (when used as a shortened form of the noun homosexual) is generally considered derogatory slang, at least in the US.. ie. "Are you a homo?" is generally taken as offensive. When used as a noun, I think homosexual is the only word not considered offnsive. Adjectives, though, have a bit more leeway. "Are you homo?" isn't quite as offensive, though not quite politically correct, either. "Are you gay?" is typically what you'll hear in non-offensive speech.

Guys.. This is a pointless debate.

I have a problem with this statement:

Just what mail-order catalog did you pull "gay" and "and women" out of?

According solely to the above: If homo means man, and phobic is irrational fear, that would make homophobic an irrational fear of men. Which could refer to someone who was raped by a man and is now terrified of men in general.

I don't know. It's best not to refrain from talking about things just because they're taboo, at least on the Internet.

And besides, there's all kinds of interesting facts you find in these discussions like:

That's not the reason it's pointless, though... it's pointless because you're getting your panties all in a bunch about the etymology of a god damn word. Seriously, this whole thread is downright ridiculous.

Yes, X-G understands what I meant to say.

fags!

smoking is bad, k?

I'm scared of homo sapiens

Why? A discussion is a discussion and you learn things. It could very well have come to a powerful conclusion that the word should be dropped. I know, it's extremely unlikely, but still possible. Why put a damper on entertainment because the initial premise is stupid? I know a guy who would argue cheese. That's right. Cheese. One guy said to him, "I think munster is a good cheese." And the guy immediately started, "Well, I guess it's good on sandwidges, but I think swiss is much better suited for [...]"

It's fun to discuss and argue, even if there's no point in doing so. It's entertaining.