Saturday, March 29, 2014

So gay

++Addition++Wm Jas notes that when it comes to "homosexuals" vs "gays", the latter has probably only just finally pulled ahead in the last couple of years. Also, "same-sex marriage" (yes, I know that's the proper way to write it, but I thought including the hyphen would cause "same sex marriage" to be missed since most punctuation isn't included unless specified) gets more searching than gay marriage does (though as far as I know "same-sex marriage" isn't offensive. Might be incorrect on that).


Via Steve Sailer, an article in the NYT illustrates depressingly well how the Cathedral's cultural marxism demands call for nothing less than total compliance in thought, word, and deed:
Consider the following phrases: homosexual community, homosexual activist, homosexual marriage. Substitute the word “gay” in any of those cases, and the terms suddenly become far less loaded, so that the ring of disapproval and judgment evaporates. 
Some gay rights advocates have declared the term off limits. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or Glaad, has put “homosexual” on its list of offensive terms and in 2006 persuaded The Associated Press, whose stylebook is the widely used by many news organizations, to restrict use of the word.
If one hailed from another planet, he might be forgiven for presuming from this that "homosexual" is not only a foundational part of the sociological and psychological nomenclature, but also the vernacular term that dominates everyday conversations among ordinary people discussing the subject.

First, let's look at the formalized end of the spectrum. To ensure an apples-to-apples comparison (ie, avoid capturing "gay" as Mr. Burns would employ it), the following graph from nGrams shows the percentages of books published by year in the US that contain the phrases "gay marriage", "homosexual marriage", and "same sex marriage" (the last because, descriptively-speaking, it is the most accurate--homosexuals/gays have always been allowed to marry just as heterosexuals have been able to; the former's issue is with the way marriage is defined, not with who is allowed to partake):

Okay, so that war was won two decades ago. But we've heard rumors that there are some Pompeians holed up somewhere out there in the mountains of Hispania, so now is not the time for complacence.

The elites' Newspeak has been correctly updated and internalized for decades now, but how about the proles? Google search volumes for the same three phrases (gay marriage, homosexual marriage, same sex marriage) over the ten years that the company has been tracking user searches:

Gay marriage is used 27 times as frequently as homosexual marriage is, and over four times as frequently as same sex marriage is. For those incorrigible few who use either of the latter two phrases, know that you and your disapproving, judgmental disapprovals and judgments place you firmly on the wrong side of history!


Anonymous said...

I keep reading about references to "the Cathedral." Roissy uses it.

Please illuminate me. To what does the Cathedral refer?

Anonymous said...

Scratch that. I just found Urban Dictionary.

Thanks, anyway.

Audacious Epigone said...

That's a useful definition. Those who find it so should give it a thumbs-up. Raise awareness!

Gubbler of the Society of Reformed Chechenistics said...

Jewish power is behind this homo business.

Jews want to normalize the abnormal since it's abnormal for Jews, who are 2% of the US population, to be ruling over the 98%. So, Jews are invested in changing our mentality so that we become accustomed to minority rule.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Since Roissy was brought up, I have to point out that "homosexual" is also inferior to "gay" as a one-word reply to a girl's text.

Wm Jas said...

Actually, "same-sex marriage" (with a hyphen) beats out even "gay marriage" on Ngrams. (See here.)

Wm Jas Tychonievich said...

Also, if you do an Ngram search for "gays" vs. "homosexuals" (qv), the latter still ranks slightly higher. (Using the plural form "gays" restricts the search to the euphemistic sense of the word.)

Audacious Epigone said...


I wonder how shortening it to "homo" does.

Wm Jas,

Ha, I didn't use the hyphen because I thought it would cause some usages to be missed. I thought it still would've returned searches that included it. I should've checked that, thanks.

Anonymous said...

This is just guilt tripping which only works on a subset of White people. As a way of promoting diversity it is a self-destructive process as more diversity means less people to guilt trip.

I liked what the homosexuals did here in Sweden though. They took a clearly derogatory term, "bög" and used it themselves. Today that word is the most commonly used - and in no way offensive. That I can respect.

Audacious Epigone said...


In the US, that's what blacks did with the derogatory word "nigger" (or "nigga"), but while blacks use it amongst themselves, if non-blacks use it, it is considered severely hateful.

Dan said...

If I see two dudes showing public displays of affection, I just look straight at them point blank and wrinkle my nose like I just stepped in dog poo.

That is to me the most reasonable reaction. I mean, do you have any idea what they do? I was probably 14 when I found out and I am 35 now with a family and a mortgage and I am just as shocked as I was then!

Anonymous said...

I've always advocated for "same sex" marriage, based on the number of committed same sex couples I've known who'd like to be civilly married, but sex doesn't enter into it at all (mostly or entirely celibate). They want legal protections for each other and their offspring in a lifetime commitment situation, but that situation doesn't revolve around who's doing what in the bedroom...regardless of how the MSM conflate marriage and boning (etc.).

Over my long life (70 years) I also have known quite a few celibate "opposite sex" couples, usually together to raise high IQ white children after disastrous first marriages, or in two cases, children resulting from familial rapes.

Also, queers can already marry--my best friends are a gay man and a lesbian in a wonderful marriage (30 years now) with three outstanding kids, in their 20s and very much unlike the usual button thumbing slacker Millennials. Theses spouses simply get their nonreproductive jollies with vetted committed partners outside the marriage. Although they have been forced by social mores to define themselves as gay or lesbian because of this thing they sometimes enjoy doing, it's not the center of their lives, nor should it be. (A situation about which Michel Foucault wrote extensively.)

The real question is: what kind of people make the strongest families and ensure that high IQ white genes will be passed along? It used to be that couples would mate legally and get their nonreproductive/kinky urges met outside that bond, generally in secret or with large dollops of mendacity.

The same sex married people I know prefer the opposite: forced by the diversicrats to define themselves entirely in relation to certain occasional tastes, despite the fact that their existence revolves around raising intelligent, self-commanding white offspring, they would rather be honest about that *and* honest about wanting a "traditional" family structure. They didn't ask to be set at odds with civilization, or queerified. They are just doing the best they can, as they can.