Haven’t you ever seen that episode of Friends where Joey doesn’t understand air quotes? I think this is reflective of most people’s understanding of air quotes (i.e. mostly derisive):
Haven’t seen that one, no. I think I’ve probably only seen five or ten episodes total of that show. But, okay: as of 2002 a plotline shows one character being unfamiliar (in any context) with air quotes and that means…what, exactly?
You did read my OP, right? It didn’t say “I was talking with someone who used air quotes and I didn’t understand that they were being sarcastic”, because that happened exactly never. It was not a thing that happened. (Point is: I do pay attention to pop culture and am aware of trends. But I don’t feel I need to constantly retool my *own *usage to fit the latest fad.)
I really wasn’t suggesting that what happened in the clip happened to you. I guess my argument would be that as of 2002, people were sufficiently aware that air quotes were used mainly to connote derision for there to be a joke about it on the most popular show on American television.
I would further argue that the number of people going by “Dick” is several orders of magnitude larger than number of people using air quotes neutrally.
I would contest you on that one, but unless there’s a billionaire reading this who wants to undertake a massive, carefully controlled social science research project to study the matter, it’s not really a settle-able point.
Aren’t all those rich guys named “Dick”? But actually I think it is a very interesting point you’ve raised about our kind of double-consciousness about the name Dick. I would very interested to see where the age dropoff is for usage. I find our unspoken acceptance of this retroactively embarrassing nickname even more interesting than air quotes, which I have never seen used neutrally, or more likely, don’t remember seeing used neutrally.
I agree that it’s an interesting topic of its own. Particularly given that it isn’t a name guys were totally stuck with. They could have switched to “Richard” at any time as a transitional thing, then later to “Rick” or “Rich” if they liked. But instead, very famous politicians like Gephardt and Cheney chugged right along, as did celebrities like Clark and Cavett.
Clearly, you understand the common usage, so that’s not a fair criticism, but I’m still pretty sure you’ve invented your own meaning for the gesture here, as you are (heh) literally the only person I’ve ever heard of using it in this way.
And yes, I was around for the '80s as well.
I don’t think any of those posts establish that. 10 isn’t presenting evidence that air quotes have had a different meaning, just questioning why it wouldn’t have been obvious from context what your non-standard usage meant. 11 offers a suggestion for why an older meaning for air quotes might have been changed, but does not offer evidence that such a change existed in the first place. 34 (or rather, I suppose, the joke its referring to in post 6) seems to be about using the gesture in the way you do, but it’s not clear, as the joke isn’t terribly good, and none of the explanations offered for it really work as a punchline. 48 is a clear cut case of someone else using it the way you use it, but only to the entertainment of the audience, who apparently were only familiar with the sarcastic usage, which rather works against your point that this is an at all recognized usage of the gesture.
Although in fairness, this does mean that you are no longer literally the only person I’ve heard of using the gesture in this manner.
Please tell me the horse isn’t really named “Lightening”.
FWIW, I know a couple “Dicks” my age or younger (40). And a guy who goes by “BJ,” as well, despite the secondary meaning.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Miller, than are heard of in your experience. See “saltines, buttered” (even if you had heard of this, many of us had not despite it being a non-rare thing).
“We know if quotation marks are marking stance from the larger context” strongly suggests that this is a judgment, a delineation, that is made regularly and not just theoretically in a one-off if someone happened to run into me.
Not “evidence”, but testimony that the person writing it did not view them as having always “literally always” held the ironic/mocking sense commonly used today. (And, again, I would be curious to hear if you really think Farley there is using them in the same modern way that was clearly established by the time of the Friends episode in 2002: I think it is evidence of a transitional stage, a “missing link” if you will.)
Saying it’s not good is kind of circular reasoning, as it surely seems less good if you start with the a priori belief that “air quotes don’t mean that”.* Do you really not think any of the explanations work as a punchline? He’s copied someone else’s sermons since he can’t write good ones himself. I thought it was a decent joke, and quite clear.
Not at all. Again: see “saltines, buttered”. All this shows is that one person didn’t recognize the speaker’s usage. If one person’s reaction was enough to deny something being an “at all recognized usage”, then yours would be enough to end the argument. For that matter, I’d have already been set straight before I wrote my OP, which referred to two other people’s reactions as well.
My wife, who is a Millennial, is frequently unfamiliar with idioms I use, which seem to have faded in ubiquity (one example that comes to mind, though there are many: “on the lam”). I’m intrigued by these kinds of linguistic shifts, so I often ask her to run them by her friends on Facebook as well (from different regions of the country, that she may know from high school, college, or grad school). When they too are unfamiliar with them, I can safely assume the phrase is on the way out. But that however doesn’t mean I feel I should purge my speech of all such idioms! To the contrary, I think her generation should probably be a little more assiduous in familiarizing themselves with the argot of preceding generations. “Kids today”, feh. 
That surprises me, but again: “saltines, buttered”, “more things than dreamt of in heaven and earth”, etc.
*This discussion has made me hyperconscious of the way I use quotes in writing as well. If a use like this one, where I’m just paraphrasing something Miller said, is now only interpreted as a “scare quote”, then I’m at a loss and I have no idea how I would be expected to present a sentence like that (or, for that matter, how I should be presenting the phrase “scare quote”). I sprinkle quotes through a lot of my writing, used in the way I learned in the '80s and which earned me high academic marks in the '80s and '90s; and I think it’s too late for this old dog to learn new tricks in that respect.
Maybe this horse is known for lightening the mood of all the children that come see it? 
I’m certainly with you on that. Of course, now I’m whenever I’m at a diner that typically has saltines, I know I’m going to be seeing it…
I’m not saying the fact that I’m unfamiliar with this usage means that it doesn’t exist. By the same measure, the fact that it was familiar to you growing up doesn’t mean that it’s at all known to anyone outside of your home town. But if your usage were at all common, it should be relatively easy to find other examples of people using it this way. So far, it’s just you and the guy at the symposium.
Oh right, my “home town”, down in the holler. Never mind that I was raised in a major college town (Chapel Hill) with transplants from all over; or that my parents were born and raised in Denver and NYC; that their parents included a Native American (technically half, but born and raised on the “rez”), a civil engineer who traveled the world for USAID, a New York real estate tycoon, and an actress who starred in silent films and Broadway productions including a Pulitzer Prize winning play, who also travelled the world in touring acting companies, and was once engaged to Charlie Chaplin.
The 'round and 'round argument gets tiresome, but I would honestly like to pick some of your brains (what are, to me, your strange, strange brains–but which I concede nevertheless seem to represent the norm). Just now I was typing up a section of a podcast (the Slate Culture Gabfest, if you care) for an update on a Facebook post. This was a discussion of “the dress”* (the one that is actually black and blue, but which many people see as white and gold).
Moving on, here’s the content of part of what I transcribed; it was my choice to use quotation marks in the place I did, and this is also a place where I would use air quotes if saying something like this:
Would you read that, and think that “old, good Internet” was being held up for scorn? If so, how would you suggest marking off that phrase in written form? It’s not even a category of quote usage that I was consciously aware of, since it’s not even really supposed to be a direct quote of anything or anyone. It’s a kind of emphasis, but not the kind referred to early in this thread that does look wrong. This looks so very right to me (it’s kind of like “the dress” itself in that way, that I don’t think I can see these the way others seem to), and it is I think close to what Farley was parodying in his bit. Maybe the quotes are there because by putting X in quotes, it means something like “what some might call X”? Yeah, I think that’s it.
*Does it seem strange to use quotes the way I did just there: “the dress”? If so, how else would you set those two words off?
Yes. Or at least distancing yourself from it and stating, via your air quotes, that it might not be true.
To quote something you sort of adhere to, but still want to make clear is a quote, you’d just pause and change your tone of voice.
Writing is different, because you can’t use tone of voice in writing, so quote marks are what do it.
You are answering “Yes” to which question?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you were from some backwater, or anything. Every region has its own regionalism. Sometimes they get out into the wider culture, sometimes they don’t. I thought perhaps this usage might have been common where you grew up, but not something that made it out much beyond that area of the country. I didn’t mean to imply any value judgement about that area.
It’s okay. Being a racist isn’t a crime yet. More or less.
No, I wouldn’t say scorn, just based on that excerpt. I’d say it’s the author’s way of indicating a discrete concept with which he doesn’t necessarily agree, or doesn’t agree with in all circumstances. “What some might call X,” as you put it. If someone were reading that passage aloud, and used air quotes there, I think they’d be adequately communicating their intent.