Links for 2005-10-22

25 replies on “Links for 2005-10-22”

and i’m not gay, don’t work for the bbc (although i do live in london) and i think they look quite nice.
still get pissed off with adults using gay as term of abuse though – as you say, no shortage of fuckwits…

The thing is, I read that blog- Idiot Toys- quite a lot, and actually apreciate the way they take the piss out of the horrible, soulless lifestyle branding that goes with modern hi-tech stuff…but it’s frustrating when they go over the edge with the gay jokes. It’s like they get bored of doing proper satire and go for the easy target.

it’s frustrating when they go over the edge with the gay jokes. It’s like they get bored of doing proper satire and go for the easy target.
I agree. They could have gotten a better effect saying ‘Nathan Barley’ instead.
I can see this from the point of view that ‘gay’, as an epithet, is so overused that its derogatory effect is virtually invisible to the user – but that, obviously, is no excuse.

Ok, let me get this straight, gay used to mean happy, joyful, bright, sunny etc. Then somewhere at the start of this century the homosexual community adopted the word for themselves and now online trolls and kids start using the word for meaning boring.
So nothing new then? Old word once again changes it’s meaning. I wonder who will claim gay next.

come on, people have been using ‘gay’ to mean homosexual since the 80s. possibly before, but i wasn’t alive.

Since way way before the eighties. But that’s not the guy’s point – he’s suggesting it’s just a change of meaning and that it’s completely normal. Unfortunately, it’s clearly not just meant as ‘boring’ – it’s also directly supposed to imply gay people and (in this example) being unmanly, over designy or whatever. So it’s using gay as a term of abuse again, after gay people spent a long time trying to use it for affirmative reasons. It’s a direct insult to gay people and people who deny that are fooling themselves.

Yeah, that had occurred to me as well, but I decided after not that much thinking about it that it was probably egotistical to assume they were referring to me. I know several other people who are gay and live in London and have a blog and are gay – Vaughan for a start. And flambingo.

It’s funny that the first result in google search that Tom suggests for the idiot toys site is a story mocking Christians who try to un-gay people.

Yeah I noticed that, and tried to work out whether it indicated a gay-friendly attitude or not. Thing is, it ridicules Christians for thinking that they can change gay people, but it doesn’t make any comments about what gay people are like – whether they’re repulsive or cool, effeminate and flouncy or generally pretty normal. And given the evidence of everything else they’ve written, the only conclusion I could come to was that they were quite clear that gay people couldn’t be changed by Christians, and that they also thought gay people were effeminate, ridiculous, limp-wristed little queers worth mocking.
I really did look quite hard around the site to check that I wasn’t being unfair on them, but after reading every post they’d written (and every reply they’d not argued with) in which ‘gay’ was used as a term of ridicule/abuse, I couldn’t find any evidence that they didn’t think gay people were – to a man (or woman) – ridiculous, queeny, high-pitched bitches. I think that’s pretty dodgy, and I’ve said so. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong, frankly.

clearly, anything which doesn’t show gays in a positive light should be denounced, for all gays are beyond reproach.

The link sucked, and not because of their gay stereotyping – but because they incorrectly identified the product as being aimed at a gay audience.
It’s not. It’s obviously aimed at women.
Anyway – your comment about “ridiculous, queeny, high-pitched bitches” really that’s your problem with gay culture.
This image exists becase these people exist, and if you want this behavior not to be associated with homosexuality, then have a stern word with your gay brothers and tell them to grow beards and play with Mecano or something.

Actually no, I won’t. I have no problem with effeminate or camp gay men. To be honest, I don’t think they equate to the image of ridiculous, queeny, high-pitched bitches that people use to describe them, but that’s not the point. The point is that while it’s quite conceivable that there are gay people that are like that, gay people as a whole are not like that. Your contention is as ridiculous as someone saying “all straight men are stupid” on the evidence of the existence of some excruciatingly stupid straight men in the world.

And to pandamiles, your statement is ridiculous and you know it. By that rationale a statement that all men are rapists would be defendable on the basis that some men rape.

Ah, I love the smell of moral equivalence in the morning.
Please let’s ignore the ludicrous assumption that everyone with links to an organisation is guilty for all the misdeeds of that organisation, and instead focus on the *actual* actions of individuals.
Do the commenters defending Idiot Toys (disclaimer: I read it regularly) see absolutely nothing wrong with using “gay” as a pejorative for anything remotely flamboyant or feminine? Point is, it’s a sweeping generalisation that is intended to offend people. And offending people can be very funny… I certainly enjoy it. But at least have the guts to say that’s what you’re doing – because that is what you’re doing, isn’t it? – instead of trying to make a case for the defence that just doesn’t stand up.

You know, sometimes, I forget that bigotry of that sort exists. I guess I’m lucky to live in a relatively accepting community where, for the most part, your sexual orientation doesn’t matter (though, I’ve been gay-bashed for wearing a boa…on Halloween…and I’m straight…so I can only imagine what it must be like to ACTUALLY be gay and get attacked like that; luckily, it was only a verbal assault). But, Christ, what a bunch of fuckwads on that site. Good on ya for trying to “show them the light” Tom, though I don’t think that particular bunch will ever see your point.

Since I have been namechecked 🙂 I thought I ought to confirm the following. Live in London. Work for BBC. Am gay. Have blog. Oh, and hate those phones. Definitely. Would not touch one with particularly large bargepole (and no, that’s not an innuendo).

Wow, read that whole comment thread on idiottoys – How frustrating it must be to have responses like theirs to deal with.
Honestly, I don’t know how you can stand it; I can only hope that their response on reflection will be more considered than the invective of the comments. Not optimistic.
Not gay, like the phones. What’s wrong with me?

It seems that the meaning of “gay” is evolving. It is increasingly a term used (especially by geeks) with a liberal helping of self referential irony… alluding more to Wayne’s World type insults like “wuss” then to homosexual tendancies of men. Many people i know choose to write “ghey” to make the distinction explicit.
I do understand the comparison with racist comments though, and perhaps you’re right; Idiot Toys’ humour may age as well as Jim Davidson’s “Chalky” jokes.

“It seems that the meaning of “gay” is evolving”
Is that evolving? Or is it just being used as a term of abuse because of its current meaning? After all, if I am a Jew that’s one thing, but if somebody calls me “Jew”, that’s entirely different. Is that evolution, or appropriation?
Doesn’t seem like anything new to me, either: I’ve certainly seen “gay” – referring to something that’s not very good – used ever since I was trundling around the playground.

this has nothing to do with being gay but someone mentioned nathan barley….i like nathan barley

Comments are closed.