4 ms·
That's an interesting argument. It reminds me of Louis C.K.'s routine about how "no words are bad, but they become bad because people start using them to hurt o
by hawkharris 13y ago
That's an interesting argument. It reminds me of Louis C.K.'s routine about how "no words are bad, but they become bad because people start using them to hurt other people."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcja4WFFzDw
It's exciting to think we can take words like "gay," which are used in some contexts to hurt people, and strip away their negative connotations.
Having said that, I don't see any evidence to suggest that the commenter was trying to innovate on the term. He or she should have written, "PAUL GRAHAM IS GAY, WHICH ISN'T TRUE, BUT IF IT WERE TRUE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS CHARACTER OR VALUE AS A PERSON."
But then again, I guess if you're writing in all caps, you must be very angry and in a hurry. Probably didn't have time to deal with nuances.
- joe_computer 13y agoI didn't write the original comment on the site. I was just commenting on the response to it. In two separate discussions of the use of "gay," people brought up the Louis CK clip. He's also one of my favourite comics and it tickled me that disparate people had the exact same line of reasoning.