Quoted from albinopenguin Anyways, sorry to the mods for derailing the thread. Figured someone should call good ol' Dustin out on the matter.

Apology accepted, provided you now cut it out.

Poor Dustin.  Seems he can make trouble without even trying.

One thing that is funny about the boards is how nobody -- ever -- succeeds at changing anyone's mind.  When challenged, one only formulates a response to further cement their position.

As such, rather than a barrage of sarcasm, why not try something like: "Hey Dustin, many members of our community here on Simply are, in fact, gay, and if you could find a different adjective to use in the future, it would be appreciated."

In the past, I have found that Dustin does, in fact -- on occasion -- respond to a polite request.

A little tolerance is good for the soul -- going either direction on the street, eh?

I always respond politely when somebody speaks to me that way. I'm shocked that a simple word should offend people, particularly when the tone behind the word doesn't have anything to do with gays.

Words don't hurt people, people hurt people. Fat is not a bad word, it's just an adjective. However when used with the correct tone the simple word, fat, can take on a whole new meaning. A nasty, meaning.

It's all about tone. Messing with words all the time isn't going to help. People, particularly PC people like albinopenguin should be better educated on that. It's not the words.

Of course Bert. And my sarcasm can be pretty thick at times. I'll try to scale it back. This is a message board afterall and we all communicate through written words. Not tone. Actual written words.

Quoted from albinopenguin This is a message board afterall and we all communicate through written words. Not tone. Actual written words.

Tone is placed on the words afterwards by the reader. Every time. No getting away from it. If you read something in my post that you found offensive to gays then that is because you put it there. So tone plays a HUGE part in every internet conversation.

Also the fact that I used the word and then explained my definition should have halted all argument... but not for you, eh albinopenguin... I mean, you truly are sorry for derailing the thread, but you just had to do it anyway. That's like a guy beating his wife, being sorry afterwards and everything is all OK. Doesn't work like that, mate.

I think the fact that when people associate a term that normally means homosexuality with things that they don't like or are bad, it gives the word negative connotations and that's why it can be offensive to gay people.

It would be like if everyone in the world started calling everything and everyone they didn't like "Bowcott" or anyone else's name for that matter, you or that person wouldn't be too thrilled.

I use the word myself a lot in real life though, so giving someone hell for using it is something I can't do.

Macklemore-Same Love says it all anyways.

But there are names like that... Pratt, Burke... I'm going to google to get some more.

Actually, I'm not sure how true some of those are, LOL. We've got things like, Hardmeat, Nut, Nutter, Bottom... the list goes on.

Should we change the definitions of those words too?

Quoted from DustinBowcot But there are names like that... Pratt, Burke... I'm going to google to get some more. Actually, I'm not sure how true some of those are, LOL. We've got things like, Hardmeat, Nut, Nutter, Bottom... the list goes on. Should we change the definitions of those words too?

These definitions wouldn't be coming from Urban Dictionary would they? lol

Quoted from Neighbour These definitions wouldn't be coming from Urban Dictionary would they? lol

I haven't given any definitions. You mean the surnames? I'm not sure why surnames would be gotten from the urban dictionary. The point is, there are already funny surnames. Like Burke, Pratt, etc.

Burk and Prat are both derogatory terms...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/berk

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prat?q=prat

So, should we also change the definition of those words so as not to offend people with the actual surname?

Quoted from DustinBowcot I haven't given any definitions. You mean the surnames? I'm not sure why surnames would be gotten from the urban dictionary. The point is, there are already funny surnames. Like Burke, Pratt, etc. Burk and Prat are both derogatory terms... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/berk http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/prat?q=prat So, should we also change the definition of those words so as not to offend people with the actual surname?

Well to be honest I've never heard either of those names used in such a manner. I don't think it's to the same extent. It's not on a universally used level. But I don't care man, I'm not really trying to argue anything. Like I said, I use the term all of the time.

Quoted from bert In the past, I have found that Dustin does, in fact -- on occasion -- respond to a polite request. A little tolerance is good for the soul -- going either direction on the street, eh?

I feel like this is treating the original comment as a little bit more innocuous than it was. Shaming of homosexuality is a big problem in most cultures and using "gay" as a pejorative in an online forum contributes to that shaming in every culture from which that forum can be accessed -- from the United States, where LGBT youth are one of the most at-risk groups for suicide, to Botswana, where they just plain ol' throw gay people in jail (I mention Botswana because I was just reading a script on here by a writer from Botswana...).

I think we're lucky to have Will speaking out here, because the silence of the majority is a big piece of social problems like this one. And I don't think Will should be treated like part of the problem for doing so (even if it means potential trouble for the mods...). A little tolerance goes a long way, yes, but tolerance of homosexuality and tolerance of homophobia are not equivalent ideas.

And Bowcott, the Dictionary definition argument don't fly. The fact that homophobia is so widespread that the pejorative use made it into the dictionary is evidence of the problem, not a defence of the thinking that created it. Dictionary definitions aren't infallible, anyway; they arise from culture (usually centuries-old culture), and as your careful wording suggests, you are very aware that the current culture of most nations is not very nice to gay people. I understand that you were very careful about your use of the word and intending not to cause offence, but regardless of the intent it was irresponsible usage and I think Will was right to speak up about it.

I don't feel too bad being "off topic" in this thread because it's just a movie review thread, but I won't comment in here again anyway.

…except to comment on the film! I uhm…hate this movie.

SPOILERS

Ethan Hawke definitely takes credit for having the dumbest family of the damn decade. I don't know which one I hate the most but I definitely know that I hate them all. I haven't wanted this badly to see the main characters die since ATM.

Props on the premise, a reasonably attractive look and feel, and a likeable performance from the always likeable Hawke.

Otherwise, this was half an hour of aggressively irritating rich white ennui, followed by half an hour of an irritatingly shallow attempt to expand thematically on the central premise combined with the ramblings of an utterly embarrassing bad guy, followed by half an hour of just basic old crap and the gutless choice to not even have the damn family slaughtered by the neighbours. Oh good, they saved the "homeless" black guy and he saved them, now all is right in the world.

And just so we're clear, the main bad guy in this movie says the line, "Send out he, or that will be thee."

I haven't seen a movie so aggressively squander its potential in a good long while. Yes, it didn't make perfect use of the premise, but it also didn't make good use of its misuse of the premise. The idea of the kid killing the dad so he could date the daughter was great -- then it got used as a twist instead of being interesting. The main "him or us" moral question driving the middle third was great, but the flick was either gutless with it -- Hawke "becoming a monster" fell utterly flat -- or just downright stupid, like when we were watching a bunch of assholes wandering around their own damn house with the lights off for ten minutes. The final twist of the neighbours killing them was great, except it didn't happen.

I'm all for stupid horror movies and I'm all for clever social commentary in horror movies, but for the love of Zuul don't split the difference and pretend you have a film. This was worse than Society and it was worse than Trespass, for gosh sakes.

Three enjoyable moments: Hawke shooting his daughter's idiot boyfriend (though I wish it had been more, and in the head), someone shooting that idiot who danced down the hallway with machetes, and -- and this one's legitimate -- I really appreciated that after killing those two people with melee weapons, Hawke took care to shoot their apparently dead bodies with the shotgun to make sure.

Terrible.

Quoted from Heretic And Bowcott, the Dictionary definition argument don't fly. The fact that homophobia is so widespread that the pejorative use made it into the dictionary is evidence of the problem, not a defence of the thinking that created it. Dictionary definitions aren't infallible, anyway; they arise from culture (usually centuries-old culture), and as your careful wording suggests, you are very aware that the current culture of most nations is not very nice to gay people. I understand that you were very careful about your use of the word and intending not to cause offence, but regardless of the intent it was irresponsible usage and I think Will was right to speak up about it.

I was about to agree with you, and then I remembered why I started saying the word in the first place. I got it off my kids.

It's no good telling them what gay means to me, because to them and all their friends at school, gay means pathetic or weak. The reason the word made it into the dictionary is because words change over time and there isn't a thing we can do about it.

Here is a list of words that have changed meaning: Literally, once meant 'in a literal way or sense', it now also means to stress a point, and the definition in the dictionary has been changed to represent this fact. Yes, there are certain sections of the society (language purists, but who cares about them, right?) that resent the change in definition, but words are not owned by people, they are subject to change depending on societal trends.

Some more words: Abandon now means to leave completely, at one time, in the 14th C, it meant to subjugate, like give yourself to a king or country.

Addicts were originally slaves.

Awful used to mean full of awe or wonder.

Bully was similar to darling or sweetheart.

Cute meant perceptive and shrewd.

Decimate used to mean to only kill one in ten, it now means to completely destroy.

Husband literally meant, home owner

Nice used to mean foolish or silly.


I could go on and on, obviously. I feel that it is society's fixation with labels that segregates us and forces people with lesser mental capabilities to concentrate on differences.

I don't see gay people, I see people.

Society needs to wake up and throw aside all of this bullshit that holds us back from truly being honest with each other. The conspiracy theorist in me (haven't we all got a little one?) thinks that labels are given deliberately to keep us realising the differences. Constantly pointing them out. Pushing us into certain moulds. Then, once people realise what mould they are in they act accordingly... which is pretty much where stereotypes comes from.

Just watched this tonight. Actually, I'm still watching, but this was a BAD BAD movie IMO. First of all they should be ashamed calling this a horror. It's NOT. It's a lame thriller at best. A lame thriller with an unbelievable premise that is nothing different than a Panic Room type idea. AND they're making a sequel???????????????

IMHO, Scream For Me is a better more unique concept, but who the F knows what they will do with it.  

This seems to have got an awful kicking. I watched it and thought it not too bad. Wasn't too good either but I've been far more bored and far more annoyed for letting certain other films in the house.

I'm not quite sure having an unbelievable premise in a horror film is so bad. Ain't that kind of the point -  'what if?'