• 51 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

So came across this story http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/11/12/apple-dictionary-app-sudbury-teen-gay-defintion/

And it reminded me of a discussion that a few users were having regarding the use of the F word and how and why it's used in different ways and different contexts. Do you feel the f word could ever be used in a way that isn't infused with negativity against a homosexuals?

Do you think that people shouldn't use the word even if they are in good faith not using it in the context of negativity against the lgbt community?

In general do you feel that certain words should be retired from the vocabulary or do you feel that such actions are giving words more power then they should have? Are people too sensitive to certain words regardless of the intent behind the use? Or do users of certain words still carelessly and needlessly validly offend despite their intent

Discuss

#2 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

"Do you feel the f word could ever be used in a way that isn't infused with negativity against a homosexuals?"

Yes.

#3 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

What, you think that some people should not be asking for a cigarette by using that word? How about a bundle of sticks?

#4 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

That yes was a pretty valid response to the actual intended question.

#5 Edited by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

I wish that when I posted it took me to the actual updated thread instead of whatever it does now

#6 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

I wish that when I posted it took me to the actual updated thread instead of whatever it does now

Quote the person you are replying to. It ensures that you are replying to the proper person.

#7 Posted by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

@WhiteKnight77: Which also reminds me that I wish was able access the editor on a tablet. Can't do so, nor do I have a quote button. Which locks me out of linking and picture posting on a tablet since the tags are not valid here

#8 Edited by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

The bundle of sticks thing was used here as a way around that but the mods didn't seem to feel that there was a difference. Certain mods I guess. Though as a rule it seems like you can't say that as a work around. Actually saying bundle of sticks rather then the f word when wanting to use the f word.

#9 Posted by foxhound_fox (87373 posts) -

Almost every homosexual man I know refers to themselves as either the short or long form of the word, and do so to make light of it. I think it's only PC straight people who find it offensive.

I'll reiterate my point regarding "words" as offensive... it isn't the word that should matter, but the intent behind it.

#10 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

#11 Posted by Chutebox (36448 posts) -

@thegerg said:

"Do you feel the f word could ever be used in a way that isn't infused with negativity against a homosexuals?"

Yes.

#12 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

@WhiteKnight77: Which also reminds me that I wish was able access the editor on a tablet. Can't do so, nor do I have a quote button. Which locks me out of linking and picture posting on a tablet since the tags are not valid here

What ever you did to @ me is also a way to show who you are replying to Dave.

#13 Edited by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

The main issue with just using the @ is that people have multiple posts and usually the quote is needed to be clear about what it is that I am responding to. Since people may not remember what they said and when.

But anyway, my original post about wishing that I was taken to the updated thread wasn't about my concerns about responses that may be unclear about who they are intended for. Just that I hadn't realized that there were new posts during the time I responded to thegerg until I scrolled up after returning to the thread after posting. Forget that it doesn't take you to the actual updated thread at times so miss posts because I assumed that I had seen them already. Just a bit annoying.

#14 Posted by nait2k4 (79 posts) -

I think it depends how you use it, and who you use it with. As a word, it's similar to the "N" word - context makes a big difference.

The problem here is, you can only really take offence at something, you can't give it. Downside is, so many people actually make the effort to be offensive, so words just have to be written off.

My usual rule of thumb is, "If I ain't one, I don't use it". This applies nicely for the F word, the N word, the C word, and the M word (moist). - however, it cleverly leaves me open to use F'er, dick, and Old Bastard. I do look sideways at people that use MF'er, until I realise they may not use my rule.

#15 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@nait2k4 said:

I think it depends how you use it, and who you use it with. As a word, it's similar to the "N" word - context makes a big difference.

The problem here is, you can only really take offence at something, you can't give it. Downside is, so many people actually make the effort to be offensive, so words just have to be written off.

My usual rule of thumb is, "If I ain't one, I don't use it". This applies nicely for the F word, the N word, the C word, and the M word (moist). - however, it cleverly leaves me open to use F'er, dick, and Old Bastard. I do look sideways at people that use MF'er, until I realise they may not use my rule.

I find it interesting that you find yourself be a d word, or one of the f words, but not the other f word or the c word. These words can very often mean the same thing and be used interchangeably. Why use some but not the others?

#16 Edited by nait2k4 (79 posts) -

@thegerg This is going to be tricky just using letters :)

I am an F'er because I have F'ed. I can use dick, because I have one, I can't use C because I don't have one of them (at least not on me). I can't use the other F (the cigarette one) because I'm not homosexual so couldn't understand it, and for the same reason I can't use the N word.

Now I am reminded of that Southpark episode where everyone except Mr Garrison gets bleeped for using the F word. And I realise I sound like a dick.

#17 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@nait2k4 said:

@thegerg This is going to be tricky just using letters :)

I am an F'er because I have F'ed. I can use dick, because I have one, I can't use C because I don't have one of them (at least not on me). I can't use the other F (the cigarette one) because I'm not homosexual so couldn't understand it, and for the same reason I can't use the N word.

Now I am reminded of that Southpark episode where everyone except Mr Garrison gets bleeped for using the F word. And I realise I sound like a dick.

Interesting. How do you determine which definitions of those words to use when applying them to yourself?

#18 Edited by nait2k4 (79 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@nait2k4 said:

@thegerg This is going to be tricky just using letters :)

I am an F'er because I have F'ed. I can use dick, because I have one, I can't use C because I don't have one of them (at least not on me). I can't use the other F (the cigarette one) because I'm not homosexual so couldn't understand it, and for the same reason I can't use the N word.

Now I am reminded of that Southpark episode where everyone except Mr Garrison gets bleeped for using the F word. And I realise I sound like a dick.

Interesting. How do you determine which definitions of those words to use when applying them to yourself?

Hm, good question, I guess its contextual and based on my intent.

#19 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@nait2k4 said:

@thegerg said:

@nait2k4 said:

@thegerg This is going to be tricky just using letters :)

I am an F'er because I have F'ed. I can use dick, because I have one, I can't use C because I don't have one of them (at least not on me). I can't use the other F (the cigarette one) because I'm not homosexual so couldn't understand it, and for the same reason I can't use the N word.

Now I am reminded of that Southpark episode where everyone except Mr Garrison gets bleeped for using the F word. And I realise I sound like a dick.

Interesting. How do you determine which definitions of those words to use when applying them to yourself?

Hm, good question, I guess its contextual and based on my intent.

I ask because, again, these words can very often mean the same thing and be used interchangeably.

#20 Posted by nait2k4 (79 posts) -

@thegerg "I ask because, again, these words can very often mean the same thing and be used interchangeably."

I think that comes back to what TC asked, "Do you feel the f word could ever be used in a way that isn't infused with negativity against a homosexuals?"

The negativity comes from context and intent, but the final interpretation of the words use is most often down to the people hearing it. My own personal view is, because of this, some words may never again be able to make their way back into regular non-offensive language - at least without a very long period of time passing.

Which is sad, because as a poor NZ student who smoked I was often a big fan of bumming fags, and now it just doesn't feel respectful.

#21 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@nait2k4: I only ask because I find language, in general, to be very interesting.

#22 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5271 posts) -

This is what I think:

#23 Edited by indzman (16950 posts) -

F is better than using the N word. N word is more insulting, deragotory :)

#24 Posted by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

I find the F word to be very expressive of my discontent and repulsiveness of someone's behavior so unless I purposely find a gay man and yell at him f** I'm not dropping the word any time soon.

And commenting on the story, she was "stunned" boo hoo. First world shit like that pisses me off. So much boredom, attention whoring and entitlement.

#25 Posted by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

This is what I think:

This is a man who definitely loves his F word and would die defending his right to use it whenever the occasion calls for it lol

#26 Edited by lamprey263 (22823 posts) -

in some countries they use fags to mean cigarettes

i.e. "some married British men enjoy a nice fag in their mouth from time to time despite their wives' disapproval"

not sure how common it is though, but when I read some Irvine Welsh novels it was used quite often

but I don't see in cultures where they use "fag" for "cigarettes" that it's offensive, they tend to have other words for homosexuals that we Americans don't ever use

#27 Edited by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

I'm at a bit of a loss here TC considering the article you linked is about the word gay. Are you referring to the word fuck or fag? Because fuck can most certainly be used in an incredibly versatile manner, fag on the other hand can possibly mean a cigarette (I think that's a term from England, but I don't quite remember) or in a really old fashion sense a bundle of sticks. Honestly though I'm fairly certain that nobody uses that term for a bundle of sticks anymore.

I'm personally not really for the idea of simply dropping a word from language just because it's used in a negative fashion (we would be dropping all sorts or words if we did that and rainbows would shoot out our butts). If language changes and the word is phased out (kind of like biting your thumb lost all meaning) then so be natural progression, but you really can't force such a thing tbh.

#28 Edited by dave123321 (33628 posts) -

@Serraph105: the article reminded me of the debate, so gave a link to give some context. The debate is actually more in line with the given definition that the article discusses for the word gay and wheter or not that should be an acceptable use of the F word. As in can you use the F word as a way to call out an exceedingly obtuse person without it being inherently homophobic. A special kind of idiot. The bundle of sticks and other uses are less of a thing that is actually debated and more just used for some further points.

#29 Posted by GamerForca (7073 posts) -

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

This is nothing but an urban legend. I did a graduate paper on the origins of words that evolved to have pejorative meanings toward homosexuals. There's no connection between "wood used to burn witches at the stake" and the pejorative form of the f word.

#30 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

This is nothing but an urban legend. I did a graduate paper on the origins of words that evolved to have pejorative meanings toward homosexuals. There's no connection between "wood used to burn witches at the stake" and the pejorative form of the f word.

I'm curious to know your findings.

#31 Edited by Horgen (110016 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

@WhiteKnight77: Which also reminds me that I wish was able access the editor on a tablet. Can't do so, nor do I have a quote button. Which locks me out of linking and picture posting on a tablet since the tags are not valid here

I haven't tried it myself, but with the old forums, I had to turn off the editor to be able to post. Downside was that I had to know some simple html/BBC code to get links and images to work.

Edit: Sorry for going off topic TC :(

#32 Posted by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

Why? Is there still anyone out there specially in the western world who's chasing homosexuals trying to get them to the woods to burn them? Or is being a member of the LGBT community has become an "ethnic" or "racial" thing now? In the sense that this LGBT community has always been an organized and identifiable body of people that retained some kind of unique and labeling distinctive attribution(s) throughout the ages. So when called a f@g, a homosexual man would remember his ancestors and the persecution they had to go through.

Also I'd like to know when persecution of homosexuals was a real thing of a large scale and magnitude. I'm really asking.

#33 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos said:

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

Why? Is there still anyone out there specially in the western world who's chasing homosexuals trying to get them to the woods to burn them? Or is being a member of the LGBT community has become an "ethnic" or "racial" thing now? In the sense that this LGBT community has always been an organized and identifiable body of people that retained some kind of unique and labeling distinctive attribution(s) throughout the ages. So when called a f@g, a homosexual man would remember his ancestors and the persecution they had to go through.

Also I'd like to know when persecution of homosexuals was a real thing of a large scale and magnitude. I'm really asking.

Persecution of homosexuals has been a real thing of large scale and magnitude ever since Christianity caught on. It still is. It's illegal to be gay or spread "gay propaganda" in Russia. In Uganda, homosexuals can be legally killed. It's punishable by death in countries with Sharia Law. Gay sex was considered a crime against nature in the United States up until the seventies, and crimes against nature are punishable by up to twenty years in federal prison. Sodomy laws weren't banned in the U.S. until Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, and attacks against gays and lesbians wasn't considered a hate crime until Matthew Shepard was violently killed for being gay and his story caught national attention. The Stonewall riots happened because police raided the Stonewall inn and arrested people for being gay or wearing the "wrong" gender's clothes (they would have them strip down and show them their genitals without a warrant), a common occurrence up until that point. Gay people weren't allowed to adopt children at all in Florida until just 2010 because there are still people spreading the idea that gays are all child molesters who can't control their urges. I can go on for a long time.

#34 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

@dave123321 said:

@WhiteKnight77: Which also reminds me that I wish was able access the editor on a tablet. Can't do so, nor do I have a quote button. Which locks me out of linking and picture posting on a tablet since the tags are not valid here

I haven't tried it myself, but with the old forums, I had to turn off the editor to be able to post. Downside was that I had to know some simple html/BBC code to get links and images to work.

Edit: Sorry for going off topic TC :(

Except that this forum does not let us use BB code sadly.

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos said:

The term originates from the wood used to burn witches and homosexuals at the stake back when that was a thing. Calling someone of the LGBT community that word has a far greater connotation than most people using it are even aware, and that is what I find most offensive about it.

Why? Is there still anyone out there specially in the western world who's chasing homosexuals trying to get them to the woods to burn them? Or is being a member of the LGBT community has become an "ethnic" or "racial" thing now? In the sense that this LGBT community has always been an organized and identifiable body of people that retained some kind of unique and labeling distinctive attribution(s) throughout the ages. So when called a f@g, a homosexual man would remember his ancestors and the persecution they had to go through.

Also I'd like to know when persecution of homosexuals was a real thing of a large scale and magnitude. I'm really asking.

Google brings this article up when searching for persecution of gays in the US: U.S. not doing enough to end persecution of homosexuals. Persecution of Homosexuals in the Third Reich really happened too though the Third Reich persecuted many including intellectuals (Russia did this too) as well as others.

Russia right now is persecuting gays and have threatened the arrest of gay athletes at the Olympics that are coming up next year though they have since backed off that.

#35 Edited by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

@Makhaidos: @WhiteKnight77: I know that gays have been persecuted in modern history that's not what I'm asking about. I can't seem to put it right, but in which historic eras or ages was persecution of homosexuals systematic and an issue of strong public opinion and at the top of governmental policies? You know as in hordes of people sweeping the country for homosexuals to burn them on sticks much like the burning of witches and heretics.

#36 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos: @WhiteKnight77: I know that gays have been persecuted in modern history that's not what I'm asking about. I can't seem to put it right, but in which historic eras or ages was persecution of homosexuals systematic and an issue of strong public opinion and at the top of governmental policies? You know as in hordes of people sweeping the country for homosexuals to burn them on sticks much like the burning of witches and heretics.

Right now, in Russia and Uganda and countries with Sharia Law.

#37 Edited by GazaAli (22492 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos: @WhiteKnight77: I know that gays have been persecuted in modern history that's not what I'm asking about. I can't seem to put it right, but in which historic eras or ages was persecution of homosexuals systematic and an issue of strong public opinion and at the top of governmental policies? You know as in hordes of people sweeping the country for homosexuals to burn them on sticks much like the burning of witches and heretics.

Right now, in Russia and Uganda and countries with Sharia Law.

For your information, there are no countries with Sharia law, other than KSA and maybe Afghanistan where its more of a social thing there. Most Islamic countries have their constitutions and justice system influenced to, at the best, moderate degree by Sharia law, and most of these laws never get actually implemented. I know of homosexuals here in Gaza and in the West Bank. They may not be accepted socially but no one is going after them either.

And that still didn't answer my question.

#38 Edited by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

@Serraph105:

In the Lord of the Rings the use the "other f word" to refer to the sticks or log. I think it's in the chapter about the Prancing Pony, where someone says something about throwing a you-know-what into the fire.

But then again Barliman Butterbur also says something about not letting any black man in his inn (though I think "black men" referred to the wraiths having black robes, not to their skin which is invisible).

#39 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (7723 posts) -

Sure I think it can. Language and words evolve.

#40 Edited by nait2k4 (79 posts) -

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos said:

@GazaAli said:

@Makhaidos: @WhiteKnight77: I know that gays have been persecuted in modern history that's not what I'm asking about. I can't seem to put it right, but in which historic eras or ages was persecution of homosexuals systematic and an issue of strong public opinion and at the top of governmental policies? You know as in hordes of people sweeping the country for homosexuals to burn them on sticks much like the burning of witches and heretics.

Right now, in Russia and Uganda and countries with Sharia Law.

For your information, there are no countries with Sharia law, other than KSA and maybe Afghanistan where its more of a social thing there. Most Islamic countries have their constitutions and justice system influenced to, at the best, moderate degree by Sharia law, and most of these laws never get actually implemented. I know of homosexuals here in Gaza and in the West Bank. They may not be accepted socially but no one is going after them either.

And that still didn't answer my question.

I don't recall any period of time either, however - other than some really weird historical perspectives, I can't think of an actual time when it was done for witches. The closest is the pogroms against Jewish people (especially in Russia, think the Odessa & Warsaw pogroms for example).

However, just because we don't have the extreme version of anti-homosexual violence to look at doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Iran (since the 70s at least) has executed around 4000 people accused of homosexuality, in 2004 at least 150 people in Brazil were murdered for being homosexual, at least 3 people in the US and 2 in Canada have had reduced murder sentences due to using a Gay Panic Defense (he was gay, and I was all like, Shit - he wants to bum me!).

And so on and so on. Agreed, the hyperbole adds nothing to the debate, but the hyperbole doesn't mean the reality isn't real :)

#41 Posted by whipassmt (13960 posts) -

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed. Also not having "hate crimes" laws does not make a group persecuted per se, even today many groups are not covered by "hate crimes" laws, but it would still be illegal to kill them.

As far as the Russian law I do not know to much about it, but I don't think they arrest anyone for "being" homosexual. Anti-Sodomy laws ban sodomy, they do not ban "homosexuality", they punish an act not an identity (indeed I think the concept of "homosexuality" as an orientation is a relatively recent one, with the term "homosexual" originated only a couple centuries ago).

#42 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

#43 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

#44 Edited by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

They used the gay panic defense in their trial and their girlfriends testified that they pretended to be gay to get his trust. Seems pretty clear-cut to me--and the rest of the country, considering that Wyoming and subsequently the federal government passed a wide frame of hate crimes legislation over the next ten years named after Shepard and other victims of hate crimes.

Arguments to the contrary stem from sensationalized and inaccurate media reports made as late as 2004; reports that were denounced by the police commander in charge at the time of the murder.

#45 Edited by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@Makhaidos said:

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

They used the gay panic defense in their trial and their girlfriends testified that they pretended to be gay to get his trust. Seems pretty clear-cut to me--and the rest of the country, considering that Wyoming and subsequently the federal government passed a wide frame of hate crimes legislation over the next ten years named after Shepard and other victims of hate crimes.

Arguments to the contrary stem from sensationalized and inaccurate media reports made as late as 2004; reports that were denounced by the police commander in charge at the time of the murder.

OK, I was simply commenting on the fact that the ensuing legislation has is not why he was murdered. Your post is very poorly worded.

#46 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

They used the gay panic defense in their trial and their girlfriends testified that they pretended to be gay to get his trust. Seems pretty clear-cut to me--and the rest of the country, considering that Wyoming and subsequently the federal government passed a wide frame of hate crimes legislation over the next ten years named after Shepard and other victims of hate crimes.

Arguments to the contrary stem from sensationalized and inaccurate media reports made as late as 2004; reports that were denounced by the police commander in charge at the time of the murder.

OK, I was simply commenting on the fact that the ensuing legislation has is not why he was murdered. Your post is was very poorly worded.

Yes, well, far be it from me to decline judgment from one expert such as yourself.

#47 Posted by Serraph105 (27747 posts) -

@Serraph105:

In the Lord of the Rings the use the "other f word" to refer to the sticks or log. I think it's in the chapter about the Prancing Pony, where someone says something about throwing a you-know-what into the fire.

But then again Barliman Butterbur also says something about not letting any black man in his inn (though I think "black men" referred to the wraiths having black robes, not to their skin which is invisible).

lol that is actually where I first learned about that particular definition for the word when I was quite young.

#48 Posted by thegerg (14684 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

They used the gay panic defense in their trial and their girlfriends testified that they pretended to be gay to get his trust. Seems pretty clear-cut to me--and the rest of the country, considering that Wyoming and subsequently the federal government passed a wide frame of hate crimes legislation over the next ten years named after Shepard and other victims of hate crimes.

Arguments to the contrary stem from sensationalized and inaccurate media reports made as late as 2004; reports that were denounced by the police commander in charge at the time of the murder.

OK, I was simply commenting on the fact that the ensuing legislation has is not why he was murdered. Your post is was very poorly worded.

Yes, well, far be it from me to decline judgment from one expert such as yourself.

Excuse my typo. My point is simply that the legislation you mentioned in the conversation about why he was murdered is not why he was murdered.

#49 Posted by Makhaidos (1613 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@thegerg said:

@Makhaidos said:

@whipassmt said:

@Makhaidos:

Actually it's not known for sure why Shepard was killed.

You're kidding, right? His death only led to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

I understand what you're trying to get at, but he wasn't killed for that reason.

They used the gay panic defense in their trial and their girlfriends testified that they pretended to be gay to get his trust. Seems pretty clear-cut to me--and the rest of the country, considering that Wyoming and subsequently the federal government passed a wide frame of hate crimes legislation over the next ten years named after Shepard and other victims of hate crimes.

Arguments to the contrary stem from sensationalized and inaccurate media reports made as late as 2004; reports that were denounced by the police commander in charge at the time of the murder.

OK, I was simply commenting on the fact that the ensuing legislation has is not why he was murdered. Your post is was very poorly worded.

Yes, well, far be it from me to decline judgment from one expert such as yourself.

Excuse my typo. My point is simply that the legislation you mentioned in the conversation about why he was murdered is not why he was murdered.

Typos. There were two.