The phrase ‘that’s so gay’ is the central issue in a civil lawsuit filed by the parents of Rebeka Rice.
Rice, now 18, was a freshman at Santa Rosa’s Maria Carillo High in California in when some classmates were giving her a hard time about her Mormon upbringing, asking her questions like: “Do you have 10 moms?” Rice’s sharp reply: “That’s so gay.”
She received a warning in her student file and her parents then sued the school claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when they disciplined their daughter for uttering a phrase “which enjoys widespread currency in youth culture,” according to court documents.
When Rice testified in court last week about the 2002 incident, she said the phrase had nothing to do with anyone’s sexual orientation. “That’s so stupid, that’s so silly, that’s so dumb,” she said she meant when she uttered the phrase.
School officials say they took a hard line approach against Rice’s statement after two boys were paid to beat up a gay student the previous year.
I’m curious to know what you think about the phrase ‘That’s so gay’? Is this a case of political correctness gone too far, or should we be teaching our children to use different words and phrases that don’t contain words considered by some, like ‘gay’, to be derogatory?
I think Inigo Montoya said it best: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
I really hate it when “gay” and “retarded” are used as slang. I’m a substitute teacher and I hear it all the time. It may not be intented by the sayer as hurtful to gays and mentally-challenged people, but it is. I don’t allow it in the classroom, or my home.
Brian, that phrase is considered by everybody, not just by some, to be derogatory. The young woman in question said herself that she meant it to mean stupid, silly, and dumb.
Every time a GA in conference or in the Ensign decries homosexual behavior, he also includes the admonition that we reach out and befriend gay people. That fact that we continue to fail in that responsibility is inexcusable, and should be recognized as the ongoing disgrace which it is.
whoever reported her was gay, is gay, and will forever be gay, even in the eternities, that person will forever be gay. that’s just how it is. I mean how gay can you get!
She got a warning. It seems she and her parents are grossly over reacting. Given the issue with recent past violence against gays at the school, I think the school did the right thing to warn her not to do it again. Had they suspended or expelled her, then I’d be on her side. I hope the students teasing her were warned too.
So someone gets their personal religion attacked, gives back a totally un-PC retort, and SHE’S the ONLY one in trouble? I think the PC police need to work for more equal enforcement of their thought policing. I would hate to think they would wait for violence against Mormons.
The real problem I see in this case is really just backlash. I just don’t agree that you can “make” people speak unprejudiced and effectively reduce the prevalence of prejudice. Education, communication, discussion all seem to me much more effective ways to deal with prejudice.
Interesting. I recall that phrase was big when I was a kid, but I thought it had died out. Guess not. I never did like it, myself.
Interesting that Rice gets disciplined, but it was apparently okay (i.e. – non hate speech) to ridicule a Mormon. But that’s typical – it’s still politically correct to insult Mormons.
Sheesh! Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?
So, can we say something like, “That’s so nearsighted!”, or will hoardes of spectacles-wearing, vision-impaired people rise up in outrage?
Everyone is way, WAY too oversensitive these days.
Remember when Bill Clinton had to apologize to the U.S. Welsh community for using the phrase “welsh on our debts”?
( http://www.salon.com/05/departments/verb.html )
Of course, we Mormons can be just as oversensitive as everyone else.
Of course, we Mormons can be just as oversensitive as everyone else.
Maybe someone should try to make a go of the phrase “That’s so polygamist!” in the Salt Lake City area and see if it flies.
I won’t let my kids use that phrase, I’m kind of sensitive to it. Comes from having two gay brothers, a gay uncle, a gay cousin, etc.
Some people spell it “geigh,” I think to take it away from referencing gays.
I feel eminently qualified to answer this question as a former Seminary Teacher, High School coach, and parent of 6 teenagers and 2 gradeschoolers. The phrase in question enjoys a widespread usage among the youth of today. I have no doubt but that this young girl meant to say, “that’s stupid.”
I’ve noticed that phrases that teenagers are using today have a vastly different meaning from what they did in my day. For example, I was horrified to hear my very own children calling each other by the word “mo-fo.” Back in the ’70’s that was an abbreviation for a very bad swear word. When I informed the children what it meant they accused me of having a dirty mind. To them it was a word with affectionate undertones, sort of like calling someone “bro.” They also cannot be cured of repeating the phrase “bite me.” This is another instance where the meaning has changed. I cannot hear these words without instantly calling up a very p0rn0graphic image in my head.
I’m in total agreement that we should teach the youth different words and phrases. But as adults, we must realize the permutation of language and not impute to these teenagers things that they did not mean to say.
The word gay doesn’t mean what it once did, and in the future it won’t mean what it now does. A 13-year-old girl in my ward, irritated with something her father did, said that he was “so gay.” The Inigo Montoya quote is appropriate, but for our teenagers, it’s the oldtimers stuck in 1970 who don’t know what the word means.
re #10: Clearly, the better phrase is “that so fundie!”
I don’t know how it is used now, but when I was in high school along with meaning stupid it was used to call a guy effeminate or wimpy. I don’t like it just like I don’t like people that use the word pussy to mean wimpy or effeminate. Retarded, same thing. There are plenty of ways to describe someone’s actions or character without putting down another segment of the population.
I think I’d like to see us give up this idea that the first amendment applies in public school, since administrators are also expected to control the culture in the school. Everyone expects the school to provide a culture where gay students don’t get beat up.
This so-called schoolyard banter took place in a classroom, where the humanities teacher happened also to be the teacher advisor to the Gay-Straight student alliance club.
I think it must be a factor that the family filed the lawsuit also because they felt under attack. In California we had the Knight-Ridder proposition in 2000, and I think there was another defense-of-marriage campaign of some kind in 2002, that the church has asked its members to campaign about. The family was unPC in substance, and people in the community knew it.
Somehow I left off: if my children said “That’s so gay,” I’d be reprimanding them.
My dad dislikes the use of the word ‘gay’ when it refers to homosexuality. To him, the word ‘gay’ has always meant and will always mean ‘happy’.
I’m sure I used the phrase ‘that’s so gay’ when I was growing up.
Mark IV: We should be friendly and non-judegmental, no doubt about it. That said, I don’t think that Rice’s statement was meant in a derogatory or unkind way. She should now understand and know not to use that phrase (I would hope). Also, I’m not sure that her use of the phrase constitutes a failure of LDS people in general to “reach out and befriend” homosexual people.
Susan: I have relatives and friends who are homosexual, so I try to be more sensitive about speech that could offend.
Bored in Vernal: I once had a seminary teacher who would not let me use Power Stations “Get it on, Bang a Gong” as background music for our seminary video announcements. I didn’t understand or appreciate his objection at the time. I argued that I was only using the intro music and not the lyrics. I can understand his objection now, but I still think the music bed makes great background music. 🙂
Johnna: Agreed on the first amendment not applying in a public school. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of schools on such matters involving speech. I’ll be interested to see how the ruling reads on this case and if the family will choose to appeal if they lose the case.
Oh, and sorry for the duplicate post. My internet connection at work has been spotty and slow today. I will work to restore the 3 comments from the duplicate post that I removed.
re: 13
“We made fun of them in ways that we would be considered abominable by today’s PC standards. Yet, no gay was ever….assaulted in any way.”
Are you so sure? Did you call the black kids the N word too? Would that be OK? Is there no such thing as a verbal assault?
What a disturbing comment.
On a lighter note….
My wonderful sister-in-law (who’s a great friend) will occasionally use the phrase “that’s so queer” when she thinks something is absurd. Watching her turn beet red when she realizes she said it in front of me (the gay brother-in-law) could not be more delightful. She knows I don’t get upset, even though I really don’t think it’s appropriate.
Mike, I don’t have access to an OED, but I believe that ‘queer’ has been a synonym for ‘odd’ for many centuries. It’s actually only relatively recently that the word has begun to be used as a synonym for “homosexualâ€. Thus, one could be offended by its use as a synonym for “homosexual”, but there’s no reasonable reason to disapprove of its proper use.
Mike, I believe that “queer” meant “odd” long before it was applied to queer studies and so forth. Her usage is standard, as far as I can tell. That she thinks it only refers to homosexuals and still uses it is problematic, tho.
It doesn’t matter what the former usage was. Words change meaning. In contemporary English (at least in the U.S.), the word queer is used as a derisive term for homosexuals. It’s exactly like the N- word to Blacks (which is apparently so offensive we’re not supposed to even type it).
My point is this: WE don’t get to decide what should or shouldn’t be offensive to others. I don’t call my Black colleague my negro colleague, because that would offend him. That’s his call, regardless of what “reasonable” people assert is the word’s “proper” historic use.
Gay people are offended by expressions like “that’s so gay” or “that’s so queer” when used in the above-noted context. You can argue all you want about the semantics and related politics, but the real question is this: Are we choosing to use language that offends another group of human beings, or are we choosing not to give offense?
Yeah, kind of like those people who think “wiener” is an inappropriate slang for “hot dog.”
As one who is guilty of using the term “gay” as a synonym for “dumb” or “lame”, I would have to say that they have gone too far. That’s not to say that using the term is a good thing. I am actually trying to stop using it because I really don’t want my son using it. He is in school and I don’t want him to offend anyone.
I think “That’s so gay” is fairly common, and the word “Gay” in that context no longer has any connection with it’s original meaning (being homosexual). After all, Gay used to mean “happy”. That’s so happy.
[Admin note: earlier comment reposted from duplicate post]
I have access to the OED. I’ll get it for you guys tomorrow at work.
MikeInWeHo, you mentioned the following:
What about the pro-homosexual slogan made popular by Queer Nation: “We’re here. We’re queer. Get used to it.” or “We’re here, we’re queer and we’d like to say hello!”, which was used during the opening of the “Queer Shopping Network”?
Queer, by definition, and when used in proper context, is not a derogatory word. Over time, though, I’m sure it will fall out of favor because of the slang definition.
I find it interesting that some homosexuals use the word as part of a defiant slogan, yet bristle when it the word is used properly and in context. When the expression “that’s so queer” is used, it simply means: strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice. I suppose if someone is using the phrase in a disparaging way, in front of someone who is homosexual, then it might be out of place and inappropriate.
Anyhow, I’m not trying to quibble over semantics, just simply pointing out that homosexuals can’t have it both ways. The word queer is either a slang word, or a part of an empowering slogan.
You’re completely wrong, Brian.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Groups however defined use words among themselves that they’d never allow outsiders to use about them. Try the N-word, for example. I think I’ve heard it spoken by a white person about twice in the past 30 years (oops, Michael Richards on YouTube quintupled that), but I’ve heard it countless times from blacks. Their use of it to each other doesn’t give paleface me the right to start using it.
I used to be annoyed at what seemed to be the hijacking of “gay”. But, listen to Cary Grant in “Bringing up Baby” when he’s wearing the frilly bathrobe. The word was on its way to meaning “homosexual” in the 1930’s, at least. And I don’t have any problem finding alternatives.
And, “queer” is pejorative slang when spoken by a straight person. And so is “gay” when used as the girl in the story did. Suppose we replaced the word with “Mormon” in common speech, so those who want to say something is bad just start saying “that’s so Mormon.” Do you suppose you’d accept their saying “Oh, I don’t mean anything about Mormons by saying that. I’m just saying that I don’t like it.”
Completely wrong, but you otherwise agree with me. Gotcha!
Thanks, Mark. 🙂
I’m around high school students every day and I hear the phrase quite often. A few years ago I would have intervened. Now I feel that it’s a reaction to a PR assault and I choose to be a noncombatant.
If I see any unkind words or actions aimed at persons, I will still intervene.
#28 Well stated.
Queer Nation quite intentionally followed the lead of Blacks in “reclaiming” a word that had been used to denigrate them. Now you have younger Blacks throwing out “Nigga” this and “Nigga” that all the time. My impression is that many older Blacks find that troubling. I’ve observed the same thing among gays. Younger gays seem a lot more comfortable using the word queer with each other.
The Wiki entries for the words “queer” and “gay” explore the language issues being discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay
The article points out that there has been some re-definition of the term in the vernacular, so that now there are TV shows like Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, Queer As Folk, etc.
re: 27 So it’s OK to throw around offensive phrases like “that’s so queer” in a disparaging way as long as there are no homosexuals (or perhaps liberals) around to hear you???
That’s so Mormon.
: )
MikeinWeHo:
My only point is this: the “N” word has always been derogatory and never had any other meaning. The word “queer”, however, still retains a dictionary definition with usage other than disparaging slang.
It is never acceptable to throw around offensive phrases.
From Webster’s:
Eric,
Mike,
queer is actually a fairly new word, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It’s first recorded use was in 1932:
queer as a verb means to “quiz, or ridicule or puzzle” and began being used long before that, back in 1790.
However, as an adjective it comes from much earlier: “1. a. Strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric, in appearance or character. Also, of questionable character, suspicious, dubious. queer fellow, an eccentric person; also used, esp. in Ireland and in nautical contexts, with varying contextual connotations (see quots.) Cf. QUARE a.”
Just some examples:
the word “gay” was first used in 1310, and it means the old light-hearted happy definition we know. It’s interesting to see the evolution of the word, and how it came to describe homosexuality. Definition one is:
definition two is:
Part b is:
and the finally part c is:
I don’t think a warning about this kind of thing should be put in a student file. It sounds a bit too official and files have a way of showing up again in a person’s life. This is a very off-the-cuff type of thing to say and the school needs to chill out.
Daniel,
Thanks for the definitions!
I agree, danithew. The statement was off-the-cuff and I don’t believe Rice intended it as offensive.
That said, I don’t want my children using offensive language or expressions (i.e.- “that’s so gay”, “mo fo”, “that bites”, etc.) at home or school.
Anyhow, thanks to everyone for keeping the discussion civil and not turning it into a bashing session!
Thanks for that interesting information, Dan.
“That bites” is offensive?
Reminds me of all the jargon I used back when 19 which someone later informed me was all drug talk from the 60’s. But neither I nor my friends took it that way. (Phrases like, “I’m so stoked.”)
I shall now go about firmly displaying for all the exact point in time and space in which I was old/young enough to be in high school:
— I’ve never even had a hint of “bite me” being bad in any way. I think kids in my elementary school passed it to me, and they probably got it from Bart Simpson. I’m vaguely proud to say that I can’t figure out how it could be seen as blatantly sexual.
— I was always deeply disturbed by kids in my branch (all of whom were from the same family) who used the phrase “that’s so gay.” From what I understand, the phrase was completely endemic amongst teens in our area of Ohio; the kids in Sea Cadets used it, too. However, the upper-middle class Catholic kids at Irish dance never dared do it, at least around adults. Most of my younger friends in California also use it — except for the ones with gay friends (though I do know several homosexual/bisexual men who do use it in the “that’s dumb” sense, which is why MikeinWeHo’s comments confuse me. Maybe it’s because they’re all Disney fans/workers.)
— Kids generally like saying things that irritate adults. It’s one thing for me to ban marathon “pinky swear” episodes in my Primary class, and quite another to permanently mark the academic records of a 16 year old in a public high school for using “that’s so gay” in the heat of the moment.
— Google turns up 89,000 results for the quotation “that’s so gay”, but only 48,400 for “pinky swear.” In case you wanted to know.
There is a lot more to this story than has been mentioned here. Ms. Rice’s parents are active members of Phyllis Schlafly’s ultra-right Eagle Forum. This lawsuit is as much about making a political statement and scoring some points for the Eagle Forum’s agenda as it is about sticking up for the girl.
Karl, that’s interesting. I was not aware of that part of the story. Thank you for sharing that.
Of course, Karl’s comment would be more interesting and believable if he provided a citation and/or proof beyond hearsay.
If the comment in #39 is true it makes this fiasco even more sickening. It means hate crime legislation is being used to attack political views. I am no fan of the Eagle forum propaganda machine but that doesn’t make attacks through the law any more appropriate.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it to the death.”
-Patrick Henry
Here’s a link, Geoff:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=1581
A two second google search could have saved you from that intemperate comment in #41.
Doc,
Except that, as far as I can gather, the hate speech rule at the school was not applied because she was the daughter of Eagle Forum members. Rather, her parents are suing the school to score political points. I don’t see anything that suggests the school wouldn’t have responded in exactly the same way if a daughter of aging hippies had made the comment.
Mark B.,
What exactly is so intemperate about asking for citations and/or proof?
For what it’s worth, there’s a decent chance the daughter of aging hippies wouldn’t have been antagonized about her religion, which is what precipitated the incident.
This Eagle Forum seems to be somewhat influential in the west, but I’m not familiar with it at all; judging from the fact that their website doesn’t even give an email for their Ohio contact, and their “annual Ohio conference” lasts all of three hours, I probably shouldn’t be surprised by that. Anyway, what’s the difference between her parents suing in part thanks to their Eagle Forum membership, and other organizational courtroom moves such as Brown v. Board of Education, and the atheist father who tried to use his daughter’s school to get the USSC to end the use of the Pledge of Alliegance? One of the textbooks I had to read for a class said that that (using court cases to further an organization’s work towards its own definition of social justice) was one of the great innovations of Thurgood Marshall — and in the NAACP cases I’m thinking of, plaintiffs went around deliberately doing things to give themselves standing (trying to get themselves or their children into segregated schools they knew they’d get rejected from, so that they’d have an actual injury they could then sue over.) This girl received sanctions based on a spur-of-the-moment potentially (but probably not) sexual-orientation based statement, and from the articles I’ve seen, her classmates did not receive similar sanctions for their own definitely religiously-based statements. It’s like the school district was doing the hard work for her parents’ lawyers without even being asked, and the lawyers aren’t even bothering with that aspect of the case (and instead arguing the narrow “it’s not meant to be sexual orientation harassment” argument that’s harder to prove.)
Come to think of it, I can’t see how the Eagle Forum is involved at all. It’s like impugning their suit on the grounds that they attended NRA firearms training: even if you hate the NRA, the reader is forced to respond with “umm, so what?”
The Eagle Forum membership is a classic red herring. It’s an attempt to change what is at stake. It also amounts to an ad hominem attack. It’s basically irrelevant to the facts of the case.
From the comments above, it seems many commentators see nothing wrong with active, deliberate ridicule of a religion, but seem to think accidental, unthinking ridicule is an exception to the first amendment.
Both types of comments were wrong, but the case basically tells schoolkids that attacking Mormons is fair game.
Mark to Geoff B, “A two second google search could have saved you from that intemperate comment in #41.”
Mark, it is incumbent upon the one making an assertion (such as Karl
Zanhem in #39), not those challenging it, to cite references.
(Ummm, and no, I’m sorry that I don’t have a reference to back up _my_ assertion. It’s, uh, “common knowledge.” Yeah. That’s the ticket.)
Or as G. Gordon Liddy liked to say “Gratuitous assertions may be just
as gratuitously denied.”
And let’s not forget:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggard
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/niggardly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dastard
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dastardly
I’ve been interested in this story ever since I read it in my newspaper on Tuesday.
The one thing that teachers at the girl’s school failed to realize is that the girl blurted out something while being attacked herself.
The teachers, as well as most outsiders making analysis of the incident are all ignoring this key and crucial element! Intent and context are always, ALWAYS just as important as words; context and intent are actually more important than words spoken in an impromptu spoken word. Set aside your dictionaries for just a minute. Lexicographers and in-depth studies of fifteenth-century-through present word usage are not at all needed to judge this case. The meaning of the word ‘gay’ is quite irrelevant.
Consider this: what if, instead of verbal abuse, this girl was taking physical abuse at that moment? What if five girls ganged-up on her and started throwing body blows to her… and what if at the instant the teachers caught her receiving punches, the poor girl had oh, let’s say, extracted herself out of her sweater being held, and accidentally exposed a breast? Would the teacher have pulled her out and got her disciplined for illegal exposure? Would we then need to conduct a detailed analysis of modest dress?
Or would we recognize that the girl was in a difficult and painful situation and intent and context was all important?
re: 46 -47 So it’s OK because she was being picked on for being Mormon?
3 Nephi 12:39, anybody?
There were lots of other ways she could have responded to being picked on besides using the gay slur. For what it’s worth, I think she probably had no idea that she was being offensive and could have been given a warning…end of story. This probably has everything to do with her parents Eagle Forum-views. Once again some poor kid gets caught in the crossfire of the culture-war. The original reprimand was probably traumatic enough for the girl, and now the parents are dragging her into a politically motivated lawsuit against the school district???
Mike –
3 Nephi 12:39, like the Eagle Forum thing, is a red herring here.
It has no bearing on the question of why active, deliberate insults are protected speech, and unconscious, unintended slurs aren’t. You’re ducking the issue – we all pretty much agree the girl in question said the wrong thing. But turning the other cheek does not entail staying out of the discussion entirely, unless you’re arguing Mormons should just shut up and stay out of the larger cultural debate entirely.
If “two moms” are “gay”, then certainly “ten moms” are five times as “gay”.
I suppose we’re supposed to turn the other cheek when our religion is insulted, but we’re not all perfect, and a teen’s truthful response shouldn’t be penalized.
Brian D.
Nothing is wrong with asking for evidence. To say that a comment would be more interesting or believable if it weren’t mere hearsay is not simply asking for evidence.
And don’t be so blasted disingenuous.
I would certainly hope that the kids who picked on her for being Mormon were warned/penalized as well. Any information on this? Never meant to imply that insulting someone based on their faith was acceptable in any way.
Mark B, you’re probably right that I could have asked for references in a nicer way. This is a classic case of something coming across in written form completely differently than I intended it. I really meant to say, “wow, that is an interesting twist. Could you provide some citations to back it up so it is more than hearsay?” Sorry if anybody was offended.
However, I also agree with Ivan and Sarah’s comments that the Eagle Forum membership is not the most relevant issue to this discussion.
Mike –
well, all the newspaper reports that are more than two or three paragraphs long include this:
“Rice’s parents, Elden and Katherine, also claim the public high school employed a double standard because, they say, administrators never sought to shield Rebekah from teasing based on Mormon stereotypes.”
{ http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_5324412 }
That pretty heavily implies the only person penalized in this case was Rebekah. However, it does seem like none of the reporters in question are even asking about this angle.
I wish to clarify what I said earlier…
I think it is wise to “take a grain of salt” or otherwise discount anything said by anyone in duress.
For example, (as an extreme example) confessions obtained by extreme interrogation or torture are worth only a penny on the dollar to a willful confession.
Likewise, someone cornered and mocked by a group of peers is likely to utter something reflective of their distressed feelings.
A wise teacher would have urged all of the students to quit and disperse with a reprimand. But of course, this was at a government school where bureaucratic mindsets and non-thinking “zero-telerance” policies for the masses are the norm.
I remember when gay became the word for queer. AIDS was coming to the public consciousness then and my kids would call each other AIDS victim. I scolded them, of course, but still, it was awful.
I sort of resent that I can’t use gay like I used to, like feeling happy, or a bright gay color, or a gay daffodil. Why didn’t the gays pick another word?
Wendy, my best friend’s daughter is retarded. I’ve used the word “retard” referring to myself twice in our conversations. I worry about it now and I’ll probably do it just because I’m thinking “don’t say retard, don’t say retard.” I feel quite gay about it.
So, the story continues. Now Katie Coric, the darling of left-wing media, has taken it out of context and directly related this abused and harassed girl’s knee jerk comment to the religious persecution she was experiencing, to Anne Coulter’s use of the word ‘faggot’ against John Edwards. Basically saying this girl is a hate mongering sensationalist like Anne Coulter. I think that constitutes another law suit for her folks. The basic facts were clearly cover by the gay newspaper link above. The Bay Area Reporter did a good job with their factual coverage of the case and clearly state that the girl was being harassed by the boys in her class IN FRONT OF THE SAME TEACHER WHO ONLY INTERVIENED when the ‘gay’ comment was made. As was mentioned before, I guess it is ok to purposely harass religion, it’s just not ok to accidentally harass homosexuality. I wonder, if she were wearing a burka and those same classmates were harassing her for being Muslim, would this have happened? Would the teachers have been turning a blind eye to THAT persecution, or only the persecution of a Christian-based religion. Hmmm.
When did Katie Couric mention the case? More info please.
We are in the 21st century now. We have a much broader perspective about the many different people, cultures, and lifestyles that exist in the world today.
Things that were regionally “acceptable” for my grandfather to say are no longer acceptable: we know better. We know that our words can be hurtful, and we know when it is not right to say a particular word.
If one is aware that his/her words may offend others, one should use a different word, so as not to give the impression that he/she is gay, retarded, a mo-fo, a N*****, or most importantly, IGNORANT.