People in this very thread have written that the sight of this word and the hateful baggage it carries upsets them greatly. It drives people away from this board. And yet you seem to feel free to ignore their real feelings so you can use the word to attack politicians of all people. Can you not think of another word? Can you not think of other people? At this point in the discussion, using that word here on these boards is very Trumpian.
what rule? 
And others have said they see no issue with using it. Nor have I ignored anyones feelings, the use here is as a example, and has been used by both sides.
In fact, other than here, I have not used it, iirc.
I was suggesting a compromise.
If you dont like it, fine.
It really doesnt matter what we do or say here anyway.
Here is the original big debate.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529937&highlight=cunt
No.
And other members here also think it should be. Are you saying we don’t get a voice?
I don’t know what, if anything, the mods are going to do. But clearly we’re not going to be in agreement.
Politicians are people. Even when they’re corrupt, spineless, hypocritical, willfully ignorant, thieving, poltroons who don’t give a shit about their constituents and ought to be taken out with the garbage because they’re not fit to be made into compost. And even if they weren’t people, using a word as an insult is still using a word as an insult, even if what you’re insulting is your toothbrush.
If it were the ONLY word in our language that conveyed that specific meaning then maybe your attempt to reach a compromise would make sense. But there are many words and many phrases that convey the exact meaning without pissing people off.
I don’t call standing still and having others move towards your position a compromise. The proper term for that is capitulation.
What rule were you speaking of? The rule against using the c-word was rescinded some time ago. or didnt you know that?
Currently the rule is you can use it vs other posters in the Pit, and vs anyone else anywhere else. Unless the Mod in that forum thinks you are out of line for doing so, of course.
I was suggesting only politicians, anywhere. Isnt that a compromise on the current rules?
I give up, you win. :rolleyes:
A compromise is when both side agree to give a little. What are you willing to give for this rule adjustment to happen?
*What rule were you speaking of? The rule against using the c-word was rescinded some time ago. or didnt you know that?
Currently the rule is you can use it vs other posters in the Pit, and vs anyone else anywhere else. Unless the Mod in that forum thinks you are out of line for doing so, of course.
I was suggesting only politicians, anywhere. Isnt that a compromise on the current rules?*
You use the same arguments as southerners who didnt want to stop using the N word because they always had.
Why insult someone when they give in and concede?
Im not insulting you and if you have given in I didnt see it and I apologize.
**You quoted me. **:rolleyes:
This :rolleyes: led me to believe that you are not sincere. :rolleyes:
That “pussy” derogatory term is a contraction of pusillanimous, I’m not a native English speaker and I know that. But it serves to illustrate the point that offense is in the eye of the beholder and can be found in anything, specially when being offended is a tool for power and control.
Let’s be clear, controlling language is a means to control what people think, and controlling the thoughts of people is something I find offensive and I will remind people here that the pages of history run red with the blood of those oppressed over what they could say or think.
Personally, I never use insults like the ones being discussed here, I hardly ever swear even (and don’t think of that as a positive), but I don’t feel entitled to dictate how people express themselves, because, in part, the more freely people express themselves the easier it is to understand who they are and I rather deal with the negative aspects of someone’s personality in the open than having those obscured by a PC veneer.
As a matter of fact, some of the worst people I’ve came across are exceedingly careful about saying “the right thing” and using “the right words” to mask their toxic, real persona; like an angler fish, they attract prey with light before the monstrosity hiding behind swallows them.
Finally, I think it’s counterproductive to assign power to words, that sort of magical thinking and internalized victimhood leads to all sorts of problems.
Fake etymology, spread by misogynists (not calling *you *one) pushing back at the clear sexism of the actual derivation.
Too late to edit: … clear sexism and homophobia …
duplicate
No, it’s hyperbolic misrepresentation to characterize what we’re discussing as something like Orwellian thoughtcrime.
What we are discussing here is not censorship, it’s rules of etiquette. Rules of etiquette in a community are not about controlling thought, they are about facilitating cooperation and communication. All human social interactions are governed by rules of etiquette, which include both the way we act and the way we express our thoughts. The rules vary substantially with social context - a debate in parliament, having a meal with your family, teenagers getting stoned together, soldiers socializing during war, etc. Adherence to such rules indicates mutual respect among the people in the group, it fosters cooperation and communication, which is what humans are all about. Etiquette is not about inhibiting the free exchange of ideas among members of the group, it is not about censorship (although it is about appropriateness), and it certainly does not preclude criticizing your peers’ actions or their ideas. It signifies cooperative participation in the social structure - respect for your peers as people.
In real life, such rules are usually unwritten, but it’s easy to see why the social environment of the internet might require some rules of etiquette in a community to be made explicit.
On the contrary, it is magical thinking to suppose that words do not have immense power. And it is naive to suppose that having no rules of etiquette fosters the free exchange of ideas.