That's So Gay

[Snipe]

Anyone see the public service announcement telling people not to say "That's So Gay"?

Shouldn't there be a public service announcement telling homosexuals to stop using the word gay in a manner that doesn't mean happy or joyfull? How gay would that be? Could you imagine the reaction if the PC Thought police tried to tell them to stop hijacking the word gay from all of our Christmas carols?

http://www.thinkb4youspeak.com/

http://www.sdsuniverse.info/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-str-121908-sogay.jpg

Above you can see that the people who are fighting this use know a pretty good definition of the way the word gay is used. And those uses have nothing to do with homosexuals.

But why waste your time trying to use all those words when you can say "That's so gay". It saves time.

Do we really need the thought police to define words that already have a common and shared meaning? Does someone own the rights to the word gay? The whole public service announcement by the PC-thought police is ludicrous, naive, frivolous, irrational, weak, bogus, foolish, goofy, absurd, ridiculous, annoying, asinine, pathetic, and wacky. In a word, it's gay.

[Mark 3 Pointer]

To me this public service announcement does nothing but prove how versatile the word "gay" really is. Hell they give like 20 possible synonyms for a three letter word none of which are more effeceint (all 4,5,6 or more letters).

Which brings me to my favorite Public Service TAG line of all-time.

"...and now you know; and knowing is half the battle."


YOOOOO JOE!

[Jumpy]

Meh... that's pretty gay.

[Juice]

Everytime I have seen that commercial with a group of a people, one person always responds with, "Well, that commercial is so gay."

It is automatic and I love it every time.

[Raoul Duke]

JOHN: The tragically ludicrous, the ludicrously tragic.
HOMER: Oh yeah, like when a clown dies.

[Cheesehead]

This thread is so gay...

Another example of the PC police. It's so ridiculously gay.

[ATL Muskie]

I prefer to say, "That's so Dayton."

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'll admit I use the word gay when I'm talking bad about someone, but I dont think its a bad thing at all to try and get people to stop using the word as a derogatory term. I have a gay relative and it takes a lot of power for me and my brother not to say gay or fag around him but when I do let it slip I feel like a piece of shit. I get that the commercials are just setting themselves up to be made fun of but the basic message I think is a good one.

[GoMuskies]

I find this thread to be very homosexual.

[Emp]

"That's so Xavier Hoops/Musketeer Madness."

"That's so West/East Side."

"That's so Cincinnati."

"That's so Al Gore/Dick Chaney."

"That's so Section 8."

"That's so Title VII."

The assholes want us to stop using the N word, too. Who N-lipped this fag? Why would you go and N-up you car like that?

That's so Eggs-savier.

F*ck em, just F*ck em.
---------------
How could we forget....

That's so jesuit.

That's so catlick.

Other threads keeping us current with jewish stereotying, so I need not repeat here.

[ServiceUnavailable]

http://webpages.charter.net/tdswan/gay_thread.jpg

[StanleyOwnsYou]

Take a listen to this guy's analogy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHYhddJKWTQ

[Snipe]

The assholes want us to stop using the N word, too.

If you are comparing it to the N-Word, Nigga Pleaze! that is gay. The word gay has been around for hundreds of years and it doesn't just mean homosexual. I guess you could argue that the N-word has evolved as well and has it's own spot in the vernacular.




Other threads keeping us current with jewish stereotying, so I need not repeat here.



Jew bashing on X-Hoops? I missed it. Can you email me a link?

[The Artist]

I'm not sure what to think on this topic. I used to say it all the time, until I had an HR professor at X who was gay and explained once how much it bothered him.

Now I just don't say it at all, mainly so that it never slips out and creates an awkward situation.

[XUglow]

Next week: X Hoops discusses "That's mighty white of you."

[Snipe]

I'm not sure what to think on this topic. I used to say it all the time, until I had an HR professor at X who was gay and explained once how much it bothered him.

Now I just don't say it at all, mainly so that it never slips out and creates an awkward situation.

Gay people use the phrase "That's so gay".

From an article in Salon that came out in 2000: (link (http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/09/14/gaygaygay/index.html))


That's so gay! (http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/09/14/gaygaygay/index.html)

Ready or not, America is bringing back an old playground insult -- for the sheer fun of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Nancy Updike

Sept. 14, 2000 | If you live in a decent-sized city and you are gay (or straight with a lot of gay friends), you or someone you know has declared something gay in the last week. Not gay as in homosexual, but gay in that grade-school "That is so gay!" way, i.e. lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense.

This is happening all around you. That woman's hairdo? Gay. That book jacket? Gay. The fact that Dick and Lynne Cheney won't talk about their lesbian daughter? Gay gay gay.

"I use it so much I don't even think about it. It's like coughing," says Jose Mu�oz, associate professor at New York University and author of "Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics."

"Everyone loves it," says Cris Beam, a 28-year-old writer in Los Angeles. "I remember saying it at the Gay Pride Parade this year and it was hilarious -- everyone was so thrilled to have it come back, because we'd all forgotten about it. We wanted to say it again and again and again."

And it's not just gay people who are saying it. Those gay-acting straight men are saying it, as are straight women who either have a critical mass of gay friends or have slept with enough women that they feel they can say whatever the hell they want.

"There are so many boundaries that people my age, especially girls my age, don't really recognize," says 25-year-old Sunny Neater, an artist in Chicago. "The whole labeling of gay, queer, whatever seems looser."

"That is so gay" has made a few pop culture appearances, too. In the movie "Loser," one of the geeky hero's cool roommates tells him not to be "so gay." On an episode of "The Simpsons," Nelson kisses Lisa and his friends say, "Ewww, you're kissing a girl, that's gay." Will, of "Will and Grace," told his best friend that his outfit was "so gay."


So let me get this straight (no pun intended). Eight years ago gay people were reveling with pride that the phrase "That's so gay!" was making a comeback in pop culture. To some of them it represented how far they had come. Eight years later someone decides that this is offensive and pulls out the Ad Council PC Police, and now the phrase "That's so gay" shows us how intolerant we are and how far we still have to go. Tell me that is not rediculously gay. The whole concept of political correctness is mind numbingly ignorant. It can be cool and chic one day and a facist code word the next.

[ATL Muskie]

I hate the offseason. Wait.......

[The Artist]

I don't care about political correctness. It bothers people, so I don't do it.

I realize how that line is setting it up on a tee for someone to respond with a joke.

[XURunner85]

Snipe this is such a gay thread........

[The Artist]

This is such a Snipe thread.

[Stonebreaker]

This thread is so gay...

Another example of the PC police. It's so ridiculously gay.


No doubt. Those who protest too much are probably those who use it the most. I think the same can apply to those who cry racism at every turn.

[D-West & PO-Z]

If you are comparing it to the N-Word, Nigga Pleaze! that is gay. The word gay has been around for hundreds of years and it doesn't just mean homosexual. I guess you could argue that the N-word has evolved as well and has it's own spot in the vernacular.




Jew bashing on X-Hoops? I missed it. Can you email me a link?

Yes, but that is the definition of gay people mean when they are using it as a derogatory word. So that argument is dumb.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Gay people use the phrase "That's so gay".

From an article in Salon that came out in 2000: (link (http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/09/14/gaygaygay/index.html))




So let me get this straight (no pun intended). Eight years ago gay people were reveling with pride that the phrase "That's so gay!" was making a comeback in pop culture. To some of them it represented how far they had come. Eight years later someone decides that this is offensive and pulls out the Ad Council PC Police, and now the phrase "That's so gay" shows us how intolerant we are and how far we still have to go. Tell me that is not rediculously gay. The whole concept of political correctness is mind numbingly ignorant. It can be cool and chic one day and a facist code word the next.

That is because when gay people use that phrase about something they are saying it as it is a good thing they are proud to be gay. When you or I are using it it we almost exclusively mean it as a derogatory term. Like something is bad.

Black people use the N word too. I dont.

[Stonebreaker]

If people don't want us to use a phrase, then they shouldn't use it either.
One wrong doesn't make another wrong right. Or one right doesn't make a wrong. Something like that (or not).

[D-West & PO-Z]

If people don't want us to use a phrase, then they shouldn't use it either.
One wrong doesn't make another wrong right. Or one right doesn't make a wrong. Something like that (or not).

I agree. But that was just my take on that particular article Snipe posted. No gay person I know uses that phrase. They are indeed offended by the phrase, since gay is something that they are, and people use the word gay to insult someone.

[Snipe]

Yes, but that is the definition of gay people mean when they are using it as a derogatory word. So that argument is dumb.

That is not true. When I say something is "so gay" I am not saying that it is homosexual. It is already out there and in the vernacular. It has a common and shared meaning among millions of people. You should have seen my seven year old during Christmas Carols when the word gay came along.


That is because when gay people use that phrase about something they are saying it as it is a good thing they are proud to be gay. When you or I are using it it we almost exclusively mean it as a derogatory term. Like something is bad.



That is also not true, at least not by the article in the same post that you quoted me from.


If you live in a decent-sized city and you are gay (or straight with a lot of gay friends), you or someone you know has declared something gay in the last week. Not gay as in homosexual, but gay in that grade-school "That is so gay!" way, i.e. lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense.

This is happening all around you. That woman's hairdo? Gay. That book jacket? Gay. The fact that Dick and Lynne Cheney won't talk about their lesbian daughter? Gay gay gay.

"I use it so much I don't even think about it. It's like coughing," says Jose Mu�oz, associate professor at New York University and author of "Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics."

Those gay people are not using "that's so gay" as a compliment. Gay people use it, it has been in the pop culture and on tv, and once anyone else uses it they are suddenly a bigot?

And like the Emperor you compared it to the N-word. That is so gay ("i.e. lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense")

Notice how they said "queer in the original sense". They hijacked that word too. I can't wait until they outlaw the use of queer. People need to suck it up and get some thicker skin. If people think "That's so gay" is offensive, I would counter that speech codes and political correctness are far more offensive. Then we can argue about who is more offended. Too bad I am not part of a professional victim class so I don't have that card to play. The F'ing man is keeping me down.

[Snipe]

http://www.sdsuniverse.info/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-str-121908-sogay.jpg




To me this public service announcement does nothing but prove how versatile the word "gay" really is. Hell they give like 20 possible synonyms for a three letter word none of which are more effeceint (all 4,5,6 or more letters).

I agree. It is one of the most versatile words in the English language in common use today. Look at the phrase "That's so gay". You can say or type it in an instant and it only has three syllables. Rolls right off the tongue and it is a very efficient use of your time. The meaning is understood by all and is pretty much universal. It isn’t like anyone doesn’t get it. And that is what words are for, to convey meaning. Without meaning they would be useless.

And now someone wants to come along and take this wonderful word away from us (again). They want to have it all to themselves with no sharing. They want to restrict the definition of a commonly used word and if you don’t play along you are violating the speech code at high schools and universities across the nation. We are the ones who should be offended. This is discrimination. I say fight the power and FREE THE PEOPLE!

[D-West & PO-Z]

That is not true. When I say something is "so gay" I am not saying that it is homosexual. It is already out there and in the vernacular. It has a common and shared meaning among millions of people. You should have seen my seven year old during Christmas Carols when the word gay came along.



That is also not true, at least not by the article in the same post that you quoted me from.



Those gay people are not using "that's so gay" as a compliment. Gay people use it, it has been in the pop culture and on tv, and once anyone else uses it they are suddenly a bigot?

And like the Emperor you compared it to the N-word. That is so gay ("i.e. lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense")

Notice how they said "queer in the original sense". They hijacked that word too. I can't wait until they outlaw the use of queer. People need to suck it up and get some thicker skin. If people think "That's so gay" is offensive, I would counter that speech codes and political correctness are far more offensive. Then we can argue about who is more offended. Too bad I am not part of a professional victim class so I don't have that card to play. The F'ing man is keeping me down.

What are you saying? I only know two definitions. Happy and homosexual. Then when people say thats so gay they mean it in a bad way toward a person or an insult. It wouldnt be an insult to say you are so happy or thats so happy, so what people are really saying are thats so homosexual or you are so homosexual.

[Kahns Krazy]

This thread likes to have marital relations with threads of its own gender.

[Snipe]

What are you saying? I only know two definitions. Happy and homosexual. Then when people say thats so gay they mean it in a bad way toward a person or an insult. It wouldnt be an insult to say you are so happy or thats so happy, so what people are really saying are thats so homosexual or you are so homosexual.

Maybe you just didn't read the first two times. This is how people were using it in the year 2000 (and these were gay people):


If you live in a decent-sized city and you are gay (or straight with a lot of gay friends), you or someone you know has declared something gay in the last week. Not gay as in homosexual, but gay in that grade-school "That is so gay!" way, i.e. lame, wrongheaded, queer in the original sense.

This is happening all around you. That woman's hairdo? Gay. That book jacket? Gay. The fact that Dick and Lynne Cheney won't talk about their lesbian daughter? Gay gay gay.

"I use it so much I don't even think about it. It's like coughing," says Jose Mu�oz, associate professor at New York University and author of "Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics."

Maybe you also didn't see this the first two times on this thread:

http://www.sdsuniverse.info/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-str-121908-sogay.jpg


I only know two definitions. Happy and homosexual.

Look at how the PC Police themselves defined it based upon the synonym’s for the word. Look at the graphic above. They said instead of using the word gay we want you to use these words. Those words are synonyms for the way the word gay is used. I can’t see any other logical way around that argument. None of those words mean happy, and none of those words mean homosexual.

To argue that gay means happy is in fact gay as hell. When was the last time that you were happy that you told a buddy you were feeling gay? That just doesn’t happen. That use of the term has been lost in the current vernacular. It is gone and I don’t see it coming back. Kiss that one goodbye. Gay only means happy around Christmas time when the carols are running or when one reads older books when the word was still used. No straight man describes his feelings as gay. What we have here is a battle for only one use of a word that has been hijacked from its original meaning.

Words evolve. Language evolves and this is a process like a process of nature and it can’t be stopped. We shouldn’t have thought police to tell us what is right or what is wrong. We have a First Amendment that gives us freedom of speech. We don’t need public service announcements to tell us how to define words. We don’t need speech codes at high schools and universities to tell us what is politically correct.

Look at the word liberal. 100 years ago a liberal would be a conservative today. Now they call those liberals “Classical Liberals”. Milton Friedman always thought of himself as a Classical Liberal, and he was no liberal as we think of it today. Recently the word liberal itself has undergone more change and many people view it as negative. Politicians on the left then stopped saying that they were liberal and many on the left now call themselves Progressives. If you look back into the 1920s “Progressive” was also used to describe political leanings. Many Progressives back then supported fascism. Do the liberal progressives today believe in fascism? I don’t think they would say yes, but when they trot out speech codes it looks a lot like fascism to me.

The whole nature of political correctness is based upon some designed correct way to think. It scares me and I think it is offensive.

Words come in and out of play and they change in their nature from time to time. As long as those words convey meaning then they are still suitable for use. The word gay is currently in use and it doesn’t just mean happy or homosexual. I would submit as proof the image above with all of the synonyms for the use of the words. ‘You can easily use these words instead of gay….’

[Snipe]

This thread likes to have marital relations with threads of its own gender.


That is so gay.

[Cheesehead]

Wait, we're not talking Gay meaning "happy"?

You guys are all a bunch of bundles of sticks (fags). :)

[nuts4xu]

If I had a dollar for everytime I uttered the phrase "that is so gay" I would have retired 5 years ago. It might not be politically correct, but hey, neither am I !

[Jumpy]

I don't care about political correctness. It bothers people, so I don't do it.
I realize how that line is setting it up on a tee for someone to respond with a joke.


Isn't that more or less the definition of politically correct?

SIDE NOTE: I just looked up "politically correct" on urban dictionary. There are 24 listed definitions on the site, and almost every one of them are comedy gold.

[The Artist]

I just don't understand. Apparently there are 50+ people on this board that are DYING to freely use the phrase "that's so gay". It wasn't a big deal to me, and it was to some others (in a negative way), so I stopped using it.

And those 50+ people don't include Snipe, he's just arrogantly arguing for the sake of arguing. I don't buy for one second that he actually gives two sh!ts about this topic.

[xeus]

I hereby declare the bus to Pittsburgh a PC-free zone.

[Cheesehead]

I'm writing a Cease and Desist letter to Notre Dame to demand that they stop using "Fighting Irish". I'm part Irish and I haven't been in a fight in a few years.

I'm offended by it, it hurts my feelings.

[MADXSTER]

I'm writing a Cease and Desist letter to Notre Dame to demand that they stop using "Fighting Irish". I'm part Irish and I haven't been in a fight in a few years.

I'm offended by it, it hurts my feelings.

I'm offended that you're part Irish and haven't fought in a while.

It's high time you get into a fight damn-it. What the hell's wrong with you.

[pickledpigsfeet]

I'm writing a Cease and Desist letter to Notre Dame to demand that they stop using "Fighting Irish". I'm part Irish and I haven't been in a fight in a few years.

I'm offended by it, it hurts my feelings.

It could be argued that their football team hasn't fought in a few years either.

[ATL Muskie]

I hereby declare the bus to Pittsburgh a PC-free zone.

http://images.inmagine.com/img/glowimages/gwp105/gwp105048.jpg

[Emp]

The contention that "that's so gay" isn't offensive because it get used all the time is so circular it's retarded. " Nigger" must also not be offensive, millions of people use it, including some black people.

Eenie-meeney-miney-mo.

[GoMuskies]

http://www.thinkb4youspeak.com/

http://www.sdsuniverse.info/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-str-121908-sogay.jpg




Why isn't queer on this list?

[XUglow]

I was at a very noisy bar last night. I had a date with Miss Muskie, but there was a single male lawyer with us. Anyway, this cute little gal comes up and wants to know if I would dance with her. I told her that I had a date and pointed at Miss Muskie, who was, surprisingly, at the bar. She asked about Vic, and I told her that he was gay. She said, "He is not." I turned to Vic and said in a normal voice, "She wants to know if you really like gay sex." It was very loud, and he shouted, "What?". I went around the table and said, "She wants to know if you think she is pretty." He held his thumb up and shouted, "Yes!" She walked away. He was confused.

Last night, I thought it was funny, but after reading this thread, I realize that I was politically incorrect to mess with Vic in such a manner.

[DC Muskie]

I like how glow uses this opportunity to tell us he went out again with Miss Muskie.

Just keep rubbing it in brother.

[Smails]

The contention that "that's so gay" isn't offensive because it get used all the time is so circular it's retarded. " Nigger" must also not be offensive, millions of people use it, including some black people.

Eenie-meeney-miney-mo.

So it's ok for you to call his contention 'retarded', yet "that's so gay" is unacceptable? Yeah...that makes sense. Personally I don't care about either, but it does make you look quite foolish if not a down right hypocrite to play PC police and then use the term retarded in that manner.

Just sayin

[The Artist]

So it's ok for you to call his contention 'retarded', yet "that's so gay" is unacceptable? Yeah...that makes sense. Personally I don't care about either, but it does make you look quite foolish if not a down right hypocrite to play PC police and then use the term retarded in that manner.

Just sayin

Good point

[XUglow]

The contention that "that's so gay" isn't offensive because it get used all the time is so circular it's retarded. " Nigger" must also not be offensive, millions of people use it, including some black people.

Eenie-meeney-miney-mo.

From the BBC's The Office...

David Brent: "Are there any areas that are off-limits for my humour? Yes, the handicapped. I don't make fun of the handicapped. You see some bloke coming along in a wheelchair, and you go, 'Oh look at the handicapped guy. Blah... blah... blah...' No! You don't do that. Because although his body may be crippled, his mind is still intact. That is unless he is mental, and that is hard to tell because of the wheelchair."

[Snipe]

http://www.sdsuniverse.info/sdsuniverse/images/stories/res300xy-str-121908-sogay.jpg


Why isn't queer on this list?

They hijacked that one too!

[Cheesehead]

I'm offended that you're part Irish and haven't fought in a while.

It's high time you get into a fight damn-it. What the hell's wrong with you.

I know, I know. I must be getting mellow as I get older. I'm mostly German, so I'm a stubborn drunk.

[Xpectations]

The contention that "that's so gay" isn't offensive because it get used all the time is so circular it's retarded. " Nigger" must also not be offensive, millions of people use it, including some black people.

Eenie-meeney-miney-mo.
So it's ok for you to call his contention 'retarded', yet "that's so gay" is unacceptable? Yeah...that makes sense. Personally I don't care about either, but it does make you look quite foolish if not a down right hypocrite to play PC police and then use the term retarded in that manner.

Just sayin

I was going to ask about that too, but then I thought, should I niggle over that?

[BBC 08]

What about 'No Homo'? Nice ass, James. No homo. (http://deadspin.com/5022396/no-homo-the-nfl-joke-of-choice)

[halcyon.days.of.Carter]

Using terms pejoratively is awesome. It makes you appear very intelligent.

[vee4xu]

When I first saw this I misread it as "That's so gary". For those of us who have a history on MM, that has a completely different meaning.

[Smooth]

I was going to ask about that too, but then I thought, should I niggle over that?

Ok, I'll take the bait. I have called the thought police on you.

[Xpectations]

Ok, I'll take the bait. I have called the thought police on you.

Just an oblique reference to one of my favorite political correctness cases of all time (http://www.lindseywilliams.org/index.htm?Editorial_Archives/1999_02-_Niggling_Over_Niggardly_Focuses_Need_for_Word_Cla rity.htm~mainFrame).

[Tardy Turtle]

Don't be niggardly with the mustard, please.

[principal]

I love this thread...no homo.

[XUglow]

When I first saw this I misread it as "That's so gary". For those of us who have a history on MM, that has a completely different meaning.

I like Gary, but if I do something, and someone tells me, "That's so Gary", I am going to tell the to take it back and now!

[Xpectations]

I'm writing a Cease and Desist letter to Notre Dame to demand that they stop using "Fighting Irish". I'm part Irish and I haven't been in a fight in a few years.

I'm offended by it, it hurts my feelings.

Snipe once threatened a similar class action suit against UMass, claiming early ejaculators everywhere were harmed and demeaned by their mascot.

[XUglow]

Snipe once threatened a similar class action suit against UMass, claiming early ejaculators everywhere were harmed and demeaned by their mascot.

Just reminds me of "Business Time" by the Flight of the Conchords

Ooh, makin' love...
makin' love for two...
makin' love for two minutes.

When its with me you only need two minutes, cuz I’m so intense
Two minutes in heaven is better then one minute in heaven

You say sumthing like “Is that it?”
I know what your trying to say,
your trying to say “Ahh yes, that’s it.”
Then you tell me you want some more
Well I'm not surprised...
But I am quite sleepy.

[Xpectations]

Just reminds me of "Business Time" by the Flight of the Conchords

Ooh, makin' love...
makin' love for two...
makin' love for two minutes.

When its with me you only need two minutes, cuz I’m so intense
Two minutes in heaven is better then one minute in heaven

You say sumthing like “Is that it?”
I know what your trying to say,
your trying to say “Ahh yes, that’s it.”
Then you tell me you want some more
Well I'm not surprised...
But I am quite sleepy.

I don't regularly watch the show but the Business Time bit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGOohBytKTU&feature=related)is comedy genius.

[Snipe]

When I first saw this I misread it as "That's so gary". For those of us who have a history on MM, that has a completely different meaning.

Not really.

[vee4xu]

Not really.

Good point.

[Kahns Krazy]

Pittsburgh has a player with the last name of "Gay". I wonder if these PSA's that equate "Gay" and "Pathetic" offend him.

Also, I was watching some original Twilight Zone on Sci Fi, and some woman described an unusual situation as "queer". That's a good word to describe stuff. I'm pissed the homo's ruined it. That's so gay.

[Emp]

So it's ok for you to call his contention 'retarded', yet "that's so gay" is unacceptable? Yeah...that makes sense. Personally I don't care about either, but it does make you look quite foolish if not a down right hypocrite to play PC police and then use the term retarded in that manner.

Just sayin

So thank you for taking the bait and making the case. Rest.

[Snipe]

That is one queer way of making your case.

[Emp]

Jew bashing on X-Hoops? I missed it. Can you email me a link?[/QUOTE]

I of course did not characterize the posting as "Jew bashing," your term, but rather as stereotyping. This is of course a pervasive rhetorical device employed in these threads.

The reference is, or at at least was, in the rambling thread about commercials, and in the particular post about "turn your gold into dollars," a snide characterization about someone sounding like a jewish grandmother.

But why would it even make a difference to you? Are derogatory Jewish stereotypes off limits here, but gay and illiterate black stereotypes OK? How about references to "retards" ? Are you selectively drawing lines?

It's intellectually dishonest to contend that the use of the phrase "that's so gay" is not a derogatory and demeaning put down, a reference to stereotypical limpwristed (and therefore unmanly and not to be credible) homosexuals.

For gay individuals, their friends and family, it's insulting, in the same way "retard" is demeaning to downs syndrome individuals, their friends and family.

From my point of view, the expression should not be banned at all. If, knowing that the phrase is considered offensive, one persists in using it deliberately and publicly and repeatedly just to make a lame joke or insult, express mock indignation about political correctness, or prove "manliness", it serves a purpose, though not necessarily the one intended. The commerical/psa suggests to those who may not have thought about it, how offensive it is to (some) others. Some folks LIKE to be offensive, deliberately so, equating it with virtue. Please, by all means, make your choices. We are better informed for it.

[Snipe]

Who is making illiterate black stereotypes?

What does a jewish grandmother sound like?

Is it ok for you to say limpwristed?

[Smails]

So thank you for taking the bait and making the case. Rest.


Nice try...

[Smails]

Who is making illiterate black stereotypes?

What does a jewish grandmother sound like?

Is it ok for you to say limpwristed?

""Wormser is a master of aerodynamics. He has engineered the javelin to complement Lamar's limp-wristed throwing style."

Comedy before the PC police were born

[nuts4xu]

I think some people made some jewish comments about Andy Furman a few years ago on the other board.

I do not condone these types of comments but do want to point out that Andy Furman is a jackass.

That is all, carry on.....

[Snipe]

I didn't even realize this thread was moved to the House of Smack.

[Emp]

Originally Posted by TheEmperorHasNoClothes
So thank you for taking the bait and making the case. Rest.


Nice try...


smails, I know sublty is in short supply here, but it was a deliberate bait. I even had an over/under of 24 hours for the first poster to take it. congrats.

If you actually imagine that I would use the term in any context other than to provoke, you have absolutely no idea who I am or what my values are.

A bit of history may help. Our dear departed Pablo and I got into it often on the Musketeer Madness board (now there is something you aren't allowed to say out loud "over here"), and at some point he posted a picture of a guy in a beret as a slur. Unfortunately, he copied it off a site where the site owner was pissed about image theft, so it morphed into a picture of a downs syndrome child with the word "retard" under it. All I ever saw was the morph, and copied it with a comment on how low it it was. Pablo was quite upset, since apparently there is such an individual in his family. Hoist on his own, etc. He was furious with me because I wouldn't take itdown for a few days.

[Smails]

Ok........

[Smails]

Originally Posted by TheEmperorHasNoClothes
So thank you for taking the bait and making the case. Rest.


Nice try...


smails, I know sublty is in short supply here, but it was a deliberate bait. I even had an over/under of 24 hours for the first poster to take it. congrats.

If you actually imagine that I would use the term in any context other than to provoke, you have absolutely no idea who I am or what my values are.

A bit of history may help. Our dear departed Pablo and I got into it often on the Musketeer Madness board (now there is something you aren't allowed to say out loud "over here"), and at some point he posted a picture of a guy in a beret as a slur. Unfortunately, he copied it off a site where the site owner was pissed about image theft, so it morphed into a picture of a downs syndrome child with the word "retard" under it. All I ever saw was the morph, and copied it with a comment on how low it it was. Pablo was quite upset, since apparently there is such an individual in his family. Hoist on his own, etc. He was furious with me because I wouldn't take itdown for a few days.


So you ran an over/under. With who?....yourself. Did you post a poll, do you have any validation besides your inflated ego? If so I will proudly announce my role as the hungry fish. Or I can just say that I took your bait to continue the discourse. See how easy that is?

As far as not knowing your values...well there's a revelation. How can anyone know someone's values based on random message board musings? Any chance people come out of character when they post on the internet. No way....never!

As far as the Pablo exchange. Nice read, thanks for sharing.

[Smails]

I think some people made some jewish comments about Andy Furman a few years ago on the other board.

I do not condone these types of comments but do want to point out that Andy Furman is a jackass.

That is all, carry on.....


I thought the term 'jackhole' was exclusively saved for Furman?

[nuts4xu]

I thought the term 'jackhole' was exclusively saved for Furman?

I prefer the term "jackass" while Vee prefers the term "jackhole". Both adjectives are synonymous with Andy Furman.

[XUglow]

Wouldn't "taking the bait" mean that Emperor lured Smails into making a crude and callous non-PC remark? It seems to me that Smails calling Emperor on the situation isn't taking the bait, but rather telling him that the bait stinks, which seems to be a way of not taking the bait.

Maybe Emperor knew that if he tossed the bait out that someone wouldn't take it which means that they did. Sigh. It is all to subtle for me.

[Xpectations]

Perhaps Snipe simply coaxed all of us into taking his bait, which in a somewhat real sense, sounds kinda gay.

[MADXSTER]

Is it okay to say "heterosexually challenged" or is that gay?

[Juice]

Is it okay to tell someone that they remind you of Harvey Milk?

[chico]

Anyone else find it odd that the only person whose screen name is a statement is the one guy on here that takes himself waaaaay too seriously? I mean, his own little personal over/under "bait" competition? A very grown up act by someone who is so far advanced in maturity than all the rest of us poor un-PC saps.

I hope the use of my word "sap" didn't offend any maple trees.

[MADXSTER]

That's so gay

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/content/images/2008/01/03/dirty_dancing_official_1_315x420.jpg

[Kahns Krazy]

Do you think it's offensive to hotdogs when I refer to certain pretentious posters as "assholes"?

Gay didn't always mean homosexual. I have a problem with a group of people that claim a word then get offended when other people use the same word differently. Actually, I don't think it's the same group that's offended.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Do you think it's offensive to hotdogs when I refer to certain pretentious posters as "assholes"?

Gay didn't always mean homosexual. I have a problem with a group of people that claim a word then get offended when other people use the same word differently. Actually, I don't think it's the same group that's offended.

How old are you Kahns?

Starting in the 70's gay had started to take over the primary meaning of homosexual. So since I dont know when you were born I cant say for sure that you ever used the word gay as another not meaning homosexual but I would venture to guess that not many people born in the 60's or later ever used it as meaning "happy". My parents were born in '63 and I know for sure they have never described a happy time or moment as gay.

Regardless of how it happened the word has clearly changed definitions many times over many years. Now the most common definition of gay is homosexual. So when I am making fun of something or someone or talking bad about something I try not to use the word gay to do so. I still do it more than I should just because I always had until I found out a family member was gay and he told me to many gay people it was offensive, so I have tried to cut it from my vocabulary. I have never grown up with gay having any other definition than homosexual so I can completely understand how it could be offensive to someone who is homosexual that I am making fun of someone and trying to put them down by calling them gay.

All those other words on the poster that could be used instead of gay are not other definitions for the word, they are considered synonyms only because that is what WE have made them by putting a negative spin on the word gay. Was the word gay looked at as a "bad" word until it gained the defintion of homosexual? I honestly dont know but would guess not.

[Fred Garvin]

http://images.inmagine.com/img/glowimages/gwp105/gwp105048.jpg



I saw Snipe's 7 year old waiving that flag when he was singing carols.

[Fred Garvin]

When I first saw this I misread it as "That's so gary". For those of us who have a history on MM, that has a completely different meaning.

Gary would never be associated with "gay."
In fact he seems miserable to me.

[Emp]

Anyone else find it odd that the only person whose screen name is a statement is the one guy on here that takes himself waaaaay too seriously? I mean, his own little personal over/under "bait" competition? A very grown up act by someone who is so far advanced in maturity than all the rest of us poor un-PC saps.

I hope the use of my word "sap" didn't offend any maple trees.

I find it odd that you have such a hardon for me, chico. You forgot to use "high horse" in your screed, though.

Giving serious thought and comment to social issues, yeah, I'm guilty. I have gay friends, including friends who follow Xavier basketball, and I think "That's so gay" isnt funny at all. Making ad hominem attacks if you don't like the message is totally par for this course.

Of course Snipe is baiting us with thread like this. Along with his preposterous social theories, the most recent of which is that public education in America is a result of WASP reactions to Catholic schools. Howlers, some of them. But it stirs the pot, and that's not a bad thing. Some posters like to use the threads as cover for homophobia, crude humor, or just license to publicly say bad words in some pseudo-legitimate way. Others think the issues are important and want to comment substantively. It is a free world still, right?

[chico]

A "hardon?" Because I replied to one of your posts? Hardly. If I did I likely would have jumped all over your little "social experiment."

No, I just find it - I don't know - strange that you decided to partake in this little "bait" test of yours. It's just a basketball messageboard after all.

I just find it off putting that many of your messages seem to be talking down to most people here, not really engaging in a friendly conversation. The pretentiousness that KK mentioned. Basically telling people how they should think instead of telling them how you think and why you think that way. And I think most of us take a lot of Snipe's non-basketball posts with a grain of salt - maybe he really is completely serious but I think he's oftentimes taking things to extremes to prove a point.

As for the topic of this thread, I've never used the term and I really never plan to. I don't really care what a persuasion a person is, just don't throw it in my face. I'm sure I've had acquaintances and/or friends who were gay - some I knew were, others I really wouldn't know, though because it's not something I'm really concerned about.

[Emp]

Chico, I think we pretty much agree on the underlieng issue, though we get there in our very separate ways.

There is a lot of gotcha on this board. Call me immature for putting out some gotcha bait to make a few points I thought relevant to the thread topic. First, that its pretty arbitrary what each of us find offensive or crude or inappropriate, or humorous, depending on whether we know someone, or are personally in, the stereotyped and demeaned group that has to exist in someone's mind for the "joke" to work. Some of us are more or less sensitive, depending on whose ox is being gored. "Retard" and "retarded" are offensive to some of us, PC off limits for others, just slang for others.

Gay bashing is still a problem in this world of ours, and I mean the literal beating up of students and young persons by hard core bullies. I know two parents with sons who have been beaten up for nothing more than being gay. In Cincinnati. In the last 5 years. I think it stinks, and I think it is a social justice issue. No, I don't believe posters here advocate beating gays. But if one continuously says "that's so gay" as a putdown, I do think that contributes to an atmosphere where treating gays as "the other" , and as inferiors, leads to a whole range of negative treatment, and in the extreme, physical assaults.

I happen to think it is irresponsible to NOT say something when you see discrimination, however casual. I didn't come to this board and start the thread. But when it's there and its treated as a harmless joke and trivialized, I felt compelled to respond. Seems like the "right thing to do" in the Christian ethical system I was raised in, just as I respected Pablo for speaking up in a serious way about the use of the term "retard", despite the fact that it was "just a joke."

[Snipe]

Of course Snipe is baiting us with thread like this. Along with his preposterous social theories, the most recent of which is that public education in America is a result of WASP reactions to Catholic schools. Howlers, some of them.

It is not my theory. I happen to have read history books and books on education. I refered you to a book by Sol Stern. I linked it I think in this thread. His book is titled "Breaking Free".

I googled Stern:

link


Louis Giovino: Now from your experience dealing with all this, have you seen anything specifically anti-Catholic from the unions?

Sol Stern: Of course. Absolutely. I say that in the book. Look, we know historically that the very development of the current public school system starting in the mid-nineteenth century was aimed against the hated Catholic Church and the new immigrants. Horace Mann, who is credited with developing the very idea of the common school, said it openly. So did the person who is credited for creating the New York City public school system at the turn of the century, Professor Nicholas Murray Butler of Columbia. He represented a group of elite Protestant political leaders in New York that wanted to make sure that the public schools had one clear system for educating the immigrating kids in the values of a secular society.

Louis Giovino: We know historically there has been prejudice against Catholics. Do you have any examples today?

Sol Stern: I get comments like this all the time. Look, I live on the Upper West Side and for me coming out for vouchers was an act of betrayal for many, many so-called progressives. One of the reasons that they were very hostile about this issue was this idea that vouchers would undermine the public school system. They were very committed, devoted to the public school system. I have no problem with that. But clearly, in comments that were made to me, there was also this suspicion and hostility to the Catholic school sector, to the values that are taught in the Catholic schools, on all of the social issues. These are people, liberals, on issues such as abortion and gay rights and multiculturalism. They view the Catholic schools as a kind of bastion of regressive social policies. I think they are wrong. I understand that they have their positions, the liberal positions on these social issues. But they're just wrong to want to deny the kids the right to a decent education because of their hostility to the Catholic Church on all these other questions.

For the record, Sol Stern is Jewish and he sent his children to the finest public schools in New York City.

More here (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TBvco5mZrTUJ:www.city-journal.org/html/eon_6_28_02ss.html+Protestantism+%22public+schools %22+%22sol+stern%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us):


For more than 75 years after the American founding, it was commonplace for religious schools of all denominations to receive public funds, and it never occurred to the courts that the straightforward words of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” prevented government from offering such support. The words meant only that the United States should have no state-sponsored established church, on the model of Britain or France.

In fact, religious bigotry and politics, not the Constitution, were the primary factors behind the creation of today’s monopoly public school system. During the mid-nineteenth century, Protestant ministers, regarding Catholic schooling as an abomination, launched a powerful social movement to create exclusive, government-run public schools—controlled by Protestants—that the Catholic kids would be herded into, and where they would be cleaned up and Americanized. The movement succeeded in defunding Catholic schools in New York City, even though the popular, progressive governor, William Seward, stood with the Catholics in demanding equal treatment for religious schools.

The new public school establishment recognized that the first amendment did not rule out government aid for religious schools. That’s why the movement worked for the passage of a separate constitutional amendment prohibiting public funds going to such independent schools. In 1875 the Blaine Amendment fell short by four votes of the necessary two-thirds margin needed for passage in the U.S. Senate. The movement, joined by the nativist Know Nothing Party and the Ku Klux Klan—their anti-Catholicism the only thing uniting them—took the campaign to the states. Eventually, 29 state legislatures, including New York’s, added Blaine Amendments to their state constitutions.

More here (http://www.illinoisloop.org/catholicschools.html):


"The Blaine amendment was a clear manifestation of religious bigotry, part of a crusade manufactured by the contemporary Protestant establishment, to counter what was perceived as a growing 'Catholic menace' ... contemporary sources labeled the amendment part of a plan to 'institute a general war against the Catholic church.'...we would be hard pressed to divorce the amendment's language from the insidious discriminatory intent that prompted it."

-- Arizona Supreme Court,
Kotterman v. Killian,
January 1999


A full understanding of the legal status of parent choice needs to include the history of the "Blaine Amendments." In the first century of this country's existence, schools were operated by a variety of organizations, including religious ones. But by the 1870s, a wave of immigration from predominanently Catholic countries sparked a hateful backlash.

http://www.illinoisloop.org/american_river_ganges_a.jpg

Full-page Anti-Catholic cartoon in Harper's Weekly, September 30, 1871

Against this backdrop, James G. Blaine, an anti-Catholic bigot and Speaker of the House, proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban funding of schools that were operated by "sectarian" religious entities. In other words, it was perfectly fine to give public funding to a school that taught generalized (i.e., non-sectarian) Protestant Christian beliefs, but funding for a school run by any Catholic organization was to be outlawed. Blaine eventually ran for president after being nominated at a convention that railed against "rum, Romanism and rebellion." (Interestingly, he lost the election by losing a single state, New York, by a margin of only 1,047 votes.)

Blaine and his ilk never did succeed in getting his hate-filled amendment added to the federal constitution. However, the language of the Blaine Amendment was added to many state constitutions, including that of the state of Illinois. It is for that reason that state funding of private schools is rare in this country, although it is commonplace around the world.

You have an uncommon arrogance and you have no idea what you are talking about. Time and time again you are a boundless fool. People take me with a grain of salt but I am not joking about that. You are a fool.

[Strange Brew]

It is not my theory. I happen to have read history books and books on education. I refered you to a book by Sol Stern. I linked it I think in this thread. His book is titled "Breaking Free".

I googled Stern:

link



For the record, Sol Stern is Jewish and he sent his children to the finest public schools in New York City.

More here (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:TBvco5mZrTUJ:www.city-journal.org/html/eon_6_28_02ss.html+Protestantism+%22public+schools %22+%22sol+stern%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us):



More [URL="http://www.illinoisloop.org/catholicschools.html"]here[/URL



You have an uncommon arrogance and you have no idea what you are talking about. Time and time again you are a boundless fool. People take me with a grain of salt but I am not joking about that. You are a fool.

I must say that I find myself to be enriched after reading the comments from both sides. THIS IS what America is about, i.e. debate. Thank you to both of your for the lively, intellectual, point-counter point. It has been entertaining AND very enlightening. The both of you should get your own Forum to discuss the political issues of the day.

When we stop fighting each other in the realm of ideas, we lose our independant democracy. (Brew, '09)

[Fred Garvin]

This post has been deleted due to inappropriate content.

[Snipe]

This post has been deleted due to inappropriate content.

First they move this thread to the smack board and then they delete smack. That is no way to run a railroad.

I think this has a chilling effect on Fred Garvin. This is the longest he has ever posted on a board without getting banned outright. I am kind of looking forward to what screen name he would come up with next. Who can forget Hideous Redhead or AID's Patient?

[Emp]

Whew. I guess my education minor classes at Xavier made me the fool I am today.

But please, Legend in your Own Mind (your quote, not mine) no lectures on arrogance.

Quoting Catholic ed apologist and "pro-choice" (education, not abortion) lit constitutes good sources? I don't think so. You, Mr Stern, and your cut and paste 8th grade term paper have it backwards, my honorable friend.

You are apparently contending that the Blaine Amendment lead to the formation of public school educational system, a logical leap of faith unsupported by the facts.

Movements towards public education began with Jefferson, well before your catholic hordes arrived.

The catholic-protestant battle began with Bishop Hughes...

John Joseph Hughes (1797-1864)

John Joseph Hughes Unshakable faith, political savvy and indefatigable energy were the assets possessed by John Hughes, the first Archbishop of New York. Hughes was born in County Tyrone, Ireland. Soon after arriving in Pennsylvania, he became a priest and started his quick ascension through the ranks of the Catholic Church, becoming Archbishop of New York in 1850.

By the mid 1800s, the immigrant population in New York City swelled with poor Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine that decimated their homeland. Although the public schools were nominally non-denominational, Catholics were taught from the Protestant King James Bible, and many complained that their own religion was mocked. Catholics, and most specifically, the Irish, were frequently vilified in the curriculum of New York’s public schools. Public schools used textbooks that portrayed the Irish immigrants as “extremely needy, and in many cases drunken and depraved…subject for all our grave and fearful reflection.”

After initial failed attempts at finding a conciliatory solution to the problem, Hughes took the offensive in public speeches, sermons and writings during the 1840s, demanding public funds for Catholic schools. Hughes was unsuccessful in obtaining taxpayer dollars for religious schools, but his struggles and the fiery debates between Hughes and members of New York’s prominent Protestant establishment helped to set in motion the secularization of American public schools, a process that began in the 19th century, and continues to this day. (Note that even as late as the 1950s, American schoolchildren were still reciting the Protestant Lord’s Prayer daily in the classrooms of many states.)

-------------
This from Wikipedia....

Because the public schools focused on assimilation, immigrants who were not Protestant organized to develop their own schools. This was also an effort to create a social environment more supportive than the often hostile natives who resented immigration by Catholics. In addition, Catholic communities raised money to build colleges and seminaries to train teachers and religious to head their churches.[10] The most numerous early Catholics were Irish immigrants in the early to mid-19th century, followed by Germans, Italians and other Catholics from southern and eastern Europe. By the time the later groups immigrated, Irish immigrants and their descendants had often built an extensive network of churches and schools in many cities. The Irish dominated the American Catholic Church for generations. Though the private schools met some opposition, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that students could attend private schools to comply with compulsory education laws.

In short, Catholic schools were a reaction to the protestant "public" system, and not the other way around.

More citations available on request.

[Emp]

This from the Catholic Education Research Center, and a book by Fr. Robert Fox on the History of the Catholic Church in America, in easy question and answer format...

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0020.html

Many in the public school system were affected by the false spirit of the Enlightenment in Europe and they did not want the churches to have any influence in the public school system. Catholics came to the support of their bishops and built schools of their own, building one of the greatest Catholic school systems in the entire world. The sacrifice was great because most Catholic parents were poor and they received no help from the state. Instead, they had to help support, through taxes, the public school system.

Archbishop John Hughes, who was made bishop of New York in 1842, did everything he could to defend the Church from this bigotry and intolerance. At first he tried to win public support for Catholic schools. Realizing he was defeated and that, unjustly, Catholics had to pay taxes for education from which they did not benefit, he worked hard to build and staff a Catholic school in every parish.

-----------
It is beyond clear that public schools are assimilationist, and that's from a WASP view of the world. I agree with that premise. You just have the cause and effect backwards.

[nuts4xu]

You guys are gay.

[MADXSTER]

You guys are gay.

Your mama's gay!

Yeah, I went there!

[Fred Garvin]

Did he just denigrate Snipe's sources, and then turn around and quote from Wikipedia?

[Fred Garvin]

And it was Snipe who posted as AIDS Patient. I didn't care for it; not because it's offensive, it is. I didn't care for it 'cause it's not funny.

[Juice]

AIDS is funny now. It has been 22.3 years.

[Snipe]

Did he just denigrate Snipe's sources, and then turn around and quote from Wikipedia?

Yes he did.


And it was Snipe who posted as AIDS Patient. I didn't care for it; not because it's offensive, it is. I didn't care for it 'cause it's not funny.

I never once posted as AIDs patient.

[XUglow]

Did he just denigrate Snipe's sources, and then turn around and quote from Wikipedia?

Wikipedia on Wikipedia...

Critics of Wikipedia target its systemic bias and inconsistencies[11] and its policy of favoring consensus over credentials in its editorial process.[12] Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[13] Other criticisms are centered on its susceptibility to vandalism and the addition of spurious or unverified information.[14]

[Emp]

Snipe's premise that the rise of universal public education arose from a WASP reaction to Catholic schools is, with the exception of the learned Mr Snipe and the learned Mr Stern, contradicted by most any reliable educational source from the low brow (Wiki, irony anyone) to the Catholic educational establishment to the pretty much universal (Britannica to cite just one.) Citing from a wide range of sources pretty much in universal agreement on the issue, as opposed to the vested-interest agenda of a single issue source, seems more reliable to me.

I have heard nothing from Snipe on his unsupported and totally incorrect factual assertion that black literacy rates are lower now than a century ago. How did black literacy rise from 45% in 1900 to almost universal? Public schools? Catholic schools? Divine intervention?

[Snipe]

Whew. I guess my education minor classes at Xavier made me the fool I am today.
...
Quoting Catholic ed apologist and "pro-choice" (education, not abortion) lit constitutes good sources? I don't think so. You, Mr Stern, and your cut and paste 8th grade term paper have it backwards, my honorable friend.



I don't know what you have against Mr. Stern or where exactly you think he has it wrong. Stern talks about Horace Mann and the founding of our modern public school system. The articles that you cite also credit Horace Mann.

I find it interesting that you often don't link to the articles that you cite and that you criticize my articles while quoting from Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia by the way.




You are apparently contending that the Blaine Amendment lead to the formation of public school educational system, a logical leap of faith unsupported by the facts.

Movements towards public education began with Jefferson, well before your catholic hordes arrived.



I am not contending that. I am contending that Horace Mann's Protestant "Common Schools" led to the formation of what we now call our public schools.

From a different part of the wiki article you quoted:

"The school system remained largely private and unorganized until the 1840s. In fact, the first national census conducted in 1840 indicated that near-universal (about 97%) literacy among the white population had been achieved".[3]

Notice we had a private school system until the 1840's and that we also had near-universal literacy rates (better than we have today).

Also from that article:

"Education reformers such as Horace Mann of Massachusetts began calling for public education systems for all. Upon becoming the secretary of education in Massachusetts in 1837, Mann helped to create a statewide system, based on the Prussian model[6], of "common schools," which referred to the belief that everyone was entitled to the same content in education. These early efforts focused primarily on elementary education. The common-school movement began to catch on in the North. Connecticut adopted a similar system in 1849, and Massachusetts passed a compulsory attendance law in 1852."

Horace Mann was the founder of our modern pay public schools. Mann was anti-catholic. His "common schools" were Protestant schools. They taught the Protestant bible and the children sang protestant hymns. He wanted every child to have a Protestant education and he was behind the compulsory attendance law of 1852.




The catholic-protestant battle began with Bishop Hughes...



As for your PBS bio of John Joseph Hughes, how does this dispute the fact that our public schools were formed by Protestants, staffed by Protestants, and had a curriculum that was decidedly Protestant?

And look at your timeline wish Bishop Hughes. The public schools were forming at the same time. Private Catholic schools already existed. The first Catholic school in Cincinnati came in the 1820s.

Bishop John Carroll was the first Bishop in the United States. Here are more quotes from YOUR sources:

"When Archbishop Carroll died in 1808 at the age of 81, there were 200,000 Catholics in the United States and the Church showed signs of growing stability."

and

"8. Did Catholics in the early years of the United States labor to establish schools?

Yes. From the beginning, Bishop Carroll and other bishops of the country labored to provide schools for Catholic children. The bishops met in Baltimore in 1829 and held the First Provincial Council. They declared: "We judge it absolutely necessary that schools should be established in which the young may be taught the principles of faith and morality while being instructed in letters." "

These are from your sources. We had hundreds of thousands of Catholics in this country and they were already establishing schools before we had public schools, or Horace Mann's Protestant "common schools", which are the forbearer to our modern day system of public education.



-------------
This from Wikipedia....

Because the public schools focused on assimilation, immigrants who were not Protestant organized to develop their own schools. This was also an effort to create a social environment more supportive than the often hostile natives who resented immigration by Catholics. In addition, Catholic communities raised money to build colleges and seminaries to train teachers and religious to head their churches.[10] The most numerous early Catholics were Irish immigrants in the early to mid-19th century, followed by Germans, Italians and other Catholics from southern and eastern Europe. By the time the later groups immigrated, Irish immigrants and their descendants had often built an extensive network of churches and schools in many cities. The Irish dominated the American Catholic Church for generations. Though the private schools met some opposition, in 1925 the Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that students could attend private schools to comply with compulsory education laws.



Notice that Catholics had to take a case to the Supreme Court to win the "right" to attend Catholic Schools to comply with compulsory attendance laws. And who was the first person to Champion and get a compulsory attendance law? Horace Mann.

Mann is basically the father of our public schools. Another point where YOUR sources agree with me. Mann was anti-Catholic. He wanted the public to fund Protestant schools, where the Protestant Bible was taught. And not only were these schools funded with public money, states passed laws to force Catholic children to go to them. The Society of Sisters had to take the case of Catholic education to the United States Supreme Court.




In short, Catholic schools were a reaction to the protestant "public" system, and not the other way around.

More citations available on request.

As I already noted, hundreds of thousands of Catholics predated modern public schooling in America, and Catholic Schools and a private school system (with 97% literacy rates) predated the public school system. I got this from YOUR sources.


This from the Catholic Education Research Center, and a book by Fr. Robert Fox on the History of the Catholic Church in America, in easy question and answer format...

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0020.html

Many in the public school system were affected by the false spirit of the Enlightenment in Europe and they did not want the churches to have any influence in the public school system. Catholics came to the support of their bishops and built schools of their own, building one of the greatest Catholic school systems in the entire world. The sacrifice was great because most Catholic parents were poor and they received no help from the state. Instead, they had to help support, through taxes, the public school system.

Archbishop John Hughes, who was made bishop of New York in 1842, did everything he could to defend the Church from this bigotry and intolerance. At first he tried to win public support for Catholic schools. Realizing he was defeated and that, unjustly, Catholics had to pay taxes for education from which they did not benefit, he worked hard to build and staff a Catholic school in every parish.

-----------
It is beyond clear that public schools are assimilationist, and that's from a WASP view of the world. I agree with that premise. You just have the cause and effect backwards.



I don't see where I have the cause and effect backwards, and I don't see why anything that you have stated proves me wrong.

1) Before 1840, we had private education in this country.
2) Before 1840, we had hundreds of thousands of Catholics and we had Catholic Schools in this country.
3) The public education movement in this country was spearheaded by Horace Mann, an anti-Catholic.
4) Our first public schools were devised and developed by Protestants. They taught a Protestant curriculum with a Protestant bible. The teachers were Protestants, and the school boards were packed with Protestants.
5) Protestant schools were considered Public Schools and were given tax dollars. Blaine amendments made it state law that Catholic Schools could not receive funding.
6) Not only did they cut funding for and make it illegal for the state to give money for Catholic education, compulsory attendance laws forced people to attend Protestant public schools. The right to have a Catholic education was eventually decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1925.

I do firmly believe that the founding of our public school system in the United States was initially an anti-Catholic reaction to a flourishing Catholic population and the advance of Catholic education. You can choose to agree or disagree.

I didn't have an education minor in college. I have read up on the subject. While I don't mind disagreement, I do mind when you act like it is outlandish or whacky to hold my beliefs. I wonder what sort of history of public education they teach in that minor. I also wonder how much the education curriculum is influenced by the teachers unions and the public schools themselves. Don’t teachers need to be certified? Don’t they need to study study at accredited programs? The people that are behind certification and accreditation (the unions) would have quite a say in the curriculum.

[Kahns Krazy]

This thread is so kahns.

[Emp]

Snipe, I've read enough of your ramblings to infer that you believe that, aside from what people "believe" or feel, there are objective, historical facts. You do not have a high opinion of relativism.

You can agree or disagree about my opinions, but aside from that, public education in America either did or did not actually arise as a reaction to Catholic schools. There is simply no creditable historical evidence, as distinguished from your rhetorical pyramid. I am surprised that you won't credit the Catholic Educational Research sources, but then again not so surprised. It suits your social and educational philosophy to believe something in this case, whether it is true or not.

Your speculation that the teacher's unions wrote the education curriculum or the texts for Xavier's education department in the 60s, or brainwashed our Jesuit and lay professors is ... let me be gentle.... not you finest flight of rhetoric. You did go to Xavier, right? Did you find it to be a hotbed of liberal, free thinking, public education supporting faculty or students?


Similarly, you want to believe that black literacy rates declined over the 20th century, because that "fact" , if true, would support your view that public schools are not good for anyone, including black students. Unfortunately, you were just totally wrong on that fact.

[Emp]

Oh, for the record. I trained to be a teacher in the Catholic school system. I was a dedicated teacher in a Catholic school for 5 years. I was in Catholic educational institutions of one sort or another from age 6 to 30. I believe that a dual system of private and public schools is in the best interests of both individuals and the society as a whole.

I am appalled by the incidence of failure to educate in (some) public and charter schools, especially those serving poor students. I am also appalled by the unwillingness of (many) Catholic schools to deal with marginal and special needs children.

That said, mainly, though not totally, opposed to vouchers, the abolition of public schools, and the diversion of public funding to private schools as solution to the educational needs and the remedy for poor teaching in public schools.

[Stonebreaker]

Until public schoolsand their teachers have true accountability, I don't see it getting much better. I've heard that some kids have watched the Al Gore Global Warming love fest movie 5 times in different classes, among doing other wasteful things ad naseum.
They can teach everything about sex and the environment and nothing about writing, science, and math.
I know a lot of good teachers, but I also have seen many that need to go.
Get rid of the bad ones, please.

[Cheesehead]

Blah, Blah, Blah... you are all guilty of hijacking this thread. It was not even close to being about a debate on the american educational system. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Snipe]

Blah, Blah, Blah... you are all guilty of hijacking this thread. It was not even close to being about a debate on the american educational system. ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I apologize for my contribution to this.


Snipe, I've read enough of your ramblings to infer that you believe that, aside from what people "believe" or feel, there are objective, historical facts. You do not have a high opinion of relativism.



I confess I am not really sure what you mean by this. I have put out some facts and my beliefs. I have referenced other people and other sources that back this up. I am not sure you had much of a clue what I was even talking about when you went to google wikipedia and pbs. I doubt you had read much at all on the subject after debating with you.




You can agree or disagree about my opinions, but aside from that, public education in America either did or did not actually arise as a reaction to Catholic schools. There is simply no creditable historical evidence, as distinguished from your rhetorical pyramid. I am surprised that you won't credit the Catholic Educational Research sources, but then again not so surprised. It suits your social and educational philosophy to believe something in this case, whether it is true or not.



As for the Catholic Educational Research Center (CERC), you quoted one article by Robert J Fox. There are other articles available at CERC such as this one (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0111.html) by Jason Boffetti that tell a history of American public education that is more in line with my position. And I did credit the article you referenced, I even quoted some of it back to you when I used "your sources" to make my argument.

Besides Sol Sterns book, you can also reference Market Education: The Unknown History (http://www.amazon.com/Market-Education-History-Studies-Philosophy/dp/1560004088)by Andrew J Coulson.

Xenophobia and religious intolerance did play a part in the origin of legally mandated public schooling in America. Our early public schools were Protestant. They taught the Protestant bible. People enacted laws that forced children to attend. Catholic children were forced to read and recite the Protestant Bible. In cases where they refused, they were beaten.

"Catholic children were occaisionally whipped or beaten by their teachers for refusing to read from the Protestant Bible, and legal actions against the teachers generally came to naught. In one case from the 1850's, the Supreme Court of Maine declared it legal for all students in the government schools to be compelled to read the Protestant Bible". (Coulson)

"Public School textbooks routinely denigrated immigrants and Catholics, with one claiming that America was becoming "the common sewer of Ireland"." (Coulson)

In Philadelphia after some protests from the Catholic Church, the Catholic version of the bible was allowed in some select community schools. The resulting Protestant reaction was the "Philadelphia Bible Riots" of 1844, which left 13 dead and a Catholic church burned to the ground. Religion was a hot issue in our first public schools, and those schools were Protestant schools.





Your speculation that the teacher's unions wrote the education curriculum or the texts for Xavier's education department in the 60s, or brainwashed our Jesuit and lay professors is ... let me be gentle.... not you finest flight of rhetoric. You did go to Xavier, right? Did you find it to be a hotbed of liberal, free thinking, public education supporting faculty or students?


Consider this:

"In the US, roughly four fifths of the states have some kind of alternative certification program. Access to these programs is so strictly limited, however, that 99 percent of all teachers still must pass into the profession under the auspices of government-approved programs at schools of education." (Coulson, Market Education).

If you don't think that the Government and the Teachers Unions have a say in the curriculum and the the texts for the education of teachers you and I are on a different planet. For one thing, these programs are government approved. You have to be certified and get a government license to teach. And you don't think the most powerful union in American (the teacher's union) has some clout in determining what it takes to be a teacher?

If you want anything else please start a new thread. If you want to discuss literacy in America start a new thread. I would be glad to do so. We should not dilute this proud board of smack any longer.

[Strange Brew]

I agree. It is one of the most versatile words in the English language in common use today. Look at the phrase "That's so gay". You can say or type it in an instant and it only has three syllables. Rolls right off the tongue and it is a very efficient use of your time. The meaning is understood by all and is pretty much universal. It isn’t like anyone doesn’t get it. And that is what words are for, to convey meaning. Without meaning they would be useless.

And now someone wants to come along and take this wonderful word away from us (again). They want to have it all to themselves with no sharing. They want to restrict the definition of a commonly used word and if you don’t play along you are violating the speech code at high schools and universities across the nation. We are the ones who should be offended. This is discrimination. I say fight the power and FREE THE PEOPLE!

What I find ironic about the ad that you posted is that the word eccentric has commonly been used as a way to describe homosexuals such as Liberachi (sp?), Elton John, etc. It has also been used to describe individuals who are odd and by people do not want to openly speak of them in a negative light. The point, if this banning of words becomes more common place I am sure that eccentric will make the list. Just like you can't say that is retarded, which in most cases is the correct usage of the word which means slow, dimwitted, lethargic, etc.

I'm tired of the brown shirted, goose stepping morons who spend their time attempting to ban words. For over 200 years in this country you could say anything and if someone was upset, you could say something along the lines of, "tough, it's a free country". You can't say that anymore and the country is more like Orwell's Farm everyday.