'Derogative' use of rainbow

[solmyr]

Ironically, same with the cross.

When did the cross ever have a positive connotation? It never changed from being a symbol of torture and murder and/or the appreciation of those, as far as I know.

I second that

i disagree with baxter

me too sorry baxxy

and rotten, i mean i have been to some amazing and damn right open minded parties, but i had never heard of the rainbow one, nor heard of anyone participating. and i mean, well, lets just say i swing to make it sound nicer. but omg a rainbow party sounds awesome

for some actual intellectual input. this thread is kind of pointless. i understand both sides of the argument and my view is that yes, it is ridiculous how people stereotype, and thats all this is. if you like a rainbow your homosexual. its stupid. flipside though pops is that not everyone thinks that, and most people (at least most worth knowing) will not victimise, stereotype, or change views because of soemthing as simple as appreciating an act of nature.

cant we all just hug

[edit] or is that too gay

[Thriller]

I find it funny how pops goes from this

I'm curious why people focus all the time on the derogative use of what rainbow represents.
It's meant to be something beautiful representing unity and peace, and also something to admire on the sky when you see it, not something negative.
It's been so for hundred of years, and I don't see why it should change. But nowadays, rainbow and its symbols are used for negative meanings and positive ones are constantly avoided.

To this...

Now, if you really bothered to read it, you would have understood that this "derogative" view about rainbows didn't come from me but I witnessed it from outside as I explained in few posts. Some people use this as an insult, or, feel the use of it might be related to 'derogativity' or anything more or less not fitting properly and thus preferable not to be used.
As I said, I don't answer to "I didn't read important parts" like posts, and assume everyone posting did, just as I did with this post.

Any idiot can see that you weren't making a statement on why it's silly to not like rainbows but were more upset that homsexuality had tainted the colour spectrum you admire.

Basically you said something ignorant then tried to back out it, that seems to be a patern with you.

@solym deleted your double post

[Legendary Apophis]

Oh wait, I thought that repeating the same broken record without taking different perspectives was a bad thing.. Now that's good old contradiction coming back.

-----

Freedom of speech should prevail in this world, but only one single point of view should be permitted in this world, and obviously, this point of view, is yours.

Ah well, I will keep my freedom of thinking and disagreeing thank you very much!

You must know that there's a pro side and there's an anti side for every obsessions. And both feed each others pretty well (attention seeking coming from the obsessions usually receives the attention it looks for, whether it's positive or negative attention). And every time there's an obsession about something, well the pro vs anti sides tend to clash and I'd like that the "battleground" of those two sides doesn't extend itself more and more. But well, it would happen, some people would mock the symbol, then others would be offended by the mocking and it would end as demand to withdraw use of the symbol to avoid "forum riots". (it already happend for different subjects in this forum, so it's obvious it would happen again) If that's not a negative/derogative use, then what is it...

That so reminds me of people who see racism everywhere, or conspiracies everywhere. Excepted that in your case, you see homophobia everywhere.
No excess is good, but there's still many people who have yet to understand that.

[Thriller]

Seriously... wow
Remember when we talked about this is that other thread concerning homosexuality and the way you defended yourself was by stating " you guys don't get it" and "You are the ones being a bigot". Everyone just scratches their head and wounders WTH is this guy going on about.

Then you left the discussion, when i brought it up later you called me a nazi. This seems like a continution of your add hominid line of reasoning(except your trying to be nicer i guess this time)

Freedom of speech and logical dichotomies are all well and good but you are only using them as a deflection and do not relate them well to your premise. You are not standing up for freedom through the condemnation of homosexuals or any identifiable group. Doesn't matter you if do the condeming directly or indirectly.

I guess you think i'm picking on you or something, but im juist calling BS when i see it.

[Juliette]

Pops is not a homosexual closet figurine. How dare you imply such a travesty, master Thriller. It is obvious that classical psychology is not correct in this situation. Obviously all the clues we see in this -and other- threads are .. false. Silly Thriller.

Jimmy, how is your girlfriend? Hope she's well.

[Psyko]

That's what I consider as a problem, means rainbow is "reserved" to homos...so if you have a sig which has rainbow in it=> you are homo or you mock something/someone by infering they are homo. That's wrong to me.

I think you are wrong. You have obviously posted throughout the thread (yes, I did read all of it before you accuse me of not doing so) that people can view a symbol or color any way they choose; blue, red, and white do not stand for the USA when you see them, for example. So you have seen posts around the forum that use a rainbow-like theme to stand for homosexuality, that does not mean that the rainbow is "reserved" for that particular group of individuals; it means that there are some people on the forum who see it as an identity symbol for a particular group of individuals.

I don't like to be forced to not use/avoid something just because the masses consider it as negative and avoid the positive meaning(s).

No one is forcing you to do anything. If someone views you as being homosexual simply because you have a rainbow in your signature, that is their problem. I am sorry if you see that as something negative, if that's what you mean by your comment. "The masses" consider the rainbow to be negative? Really? Which masses? If you are talking about North Americans and the rainbow symbol for gay pride (sorry, gay is just easier to say than homosexual and I'm tired of typing it out, despite your sensibilities that "gay" should not mean "homosexual"), then I would disagree with the idea that North American "masses" view it as a negative meaning, and counter that it has a very positive meaning because the symbol allows gays a way to express their sexuality without having to wear a sign that specifically states their orientation. Like one of my roommates says, "It's so much easier to strap on my rainbow belt than worry about wearing a sign or a t-shirt that says, 'I'm gay. Other women, please hit on me.'" But I also have straight friends who happen to love rainbows and will also wear such items; they may sometimes be hit on by someone of their own sex, but they know that is a risk they may take to wear one of their favorite items; it's easy enough to just politely say you aren't interested.

Just as "gay" is now reserved only to homos. While being gay normally means be joyful. Another example alongside rainbows.

And a "fag" is what you call a cigarette in certain parts of the world, not some derogatory term that most people toss around when they are talking down to a gay person. Times change, and sometimes a word from the dictionary will pick up a colloquial definition. It doesn't mean that the other definition no longer exists, it just means that the new definition may now be more widely recognized than the older one. You don't have to like it, but it's not going to change.

If you want a new way to look at rainbows besides pretty colors and a great view after the rain stops, have you ever heard the phrase, "Taste the Rainbow"? Skittles uses that phrase for their commercials, but the colloquialism is someone who has had sexual encounters with someone from every race. Thus, they tasted the rainbow. Now, that can also be taken negatively or positively, depending on who you are. Some people who say, "I tasted the rainbow last night" will either mean they had a bag of Skittles or they screwed a whole lotta people. It depends on who is saying it, and who is hearing it.

Things/Symbols/Colors/Words/Phrases can be viewed however you want to view them. So what if a certain group may interpret it the wrong way; not everyone will look at something and interpret it the same way. It's derogative if you want it to be. My suggestion would be to stop looking at it in a way you find derogatory.