And a fat one at that…uh oh, time to get this thread back on track!
I’m glad that the hostility appears to be subsiding, but it should be noted, in a different context, that the following statement is clearly incorrect:
Appeasement is absolutely an inflammatory word. I would not characterize it as intolerant, but it is clearly insulting, conveying, as it does, the notions of foolhardy and deliberate attempts to avoid necessary confrontation with overtones of either (or both) stupidity and cowardice.
One might find a way to use the verb appease in such a way that it was not considered an insult, (although that would be difficult), but there is no way that appeasement can be considered a neutral word. (Even if a sentence might be carefully constructed to avoid giving offense in the denotative value of the word, 60+ years of having the word hurled about as an epithet renders even the most judicious use irrelevant in regard to its connotations.)
Hmpht. More of your damned Vulcan logic, Tom.
:rolleyes: Yeah, because everyone knows there’s just TOO damn much politeness and civility in the world today.
“appeasement” is an epithet? That’s just ridiculous. You people can find offense in anything. Let’s check out some everyday usage of the word from CNN.
AOL offers refunds to appease angry customers
Congress has the power to appease both sides in the Elian Gonzalez case
Merger May Appease States 49, 50
I really want to get off of this idiotic tangent I inadvertantly started, but if you consider “appease” to be an insult… Hell, I don’t even know what to say to that. It’s so mind-boggling stupid.
That’s not even close to what I meant. Are you deliberately being this dense? It’s hard to tell when your post lacks the creativity or command of the English language to post much more than a rolleyes smilie. The things a crutch, don’t use it.
You must have missed the part where he said:
I would agree with him that “appease” and “appeasement” have completely different connotations, despite whether their denotations have similar roots.
To me, Esprix’s stand simply boils down to if you know calling someone a particular term would be offensive to that person, it is rude to intentionally keep doing so. Sounds like a reasonable policy to me.
JOhn.
My very first use of it, SHEESH! And no, I am NOT being deliberately dense, I’m looking back on your other posts to Expris and others.
You seem to be defending rudeness for rudeness’ sake. It wasn’t the word “appeasement” that cause people to take you to task it was the context of the post in which you said it, and the others preceeding it.
Gratuitous insults are one thing, but calling a fat person fat is quite another.
Fat people are fat. Some are hideously, horribly, disgustingly fat, others are only disturbingly so.
That is that. No hobbling around it will change the fact.
Fat people have big problems. Starting with their repulsive blubber, and continuing all the way into their lard-encrusted brains. Camryn Manheim, for example, is as delusional as any Alcoholic’s Anonymous Cult-member, only with twice the girth-fulness.
Some thoughts on swollen, human tubs of goo:
- They are not healthy.
- No, I’m sorry, your genes did NOT cause your circus-tent-like circumference.
- I’d rather not have to look at you. Please hide in your parents basement and receive your feedings hourly through an extra-wide slot in the door.
- If we could legally harvest the porcine pouches of filth hanging off of just ONE obese sub-human, we could run all the autos in Norway for three and a quarter years.
- Fuck you and your responses. I shall not peruse them.
- I’m fat.
PC Police-- have at it. You can entertain each other for DAYS with this post. And you’re probably just moronic enough to do so.
Analogies including the overweight and concentration camp survivors. Rampant and improper usage of the terms “hate speech” and “discrimination”. Use of the “intollerant” label, knowing full well the conotations that that implies, against debate opponents. The claim that the word “appeasement” is an epithet. Bullheaded misconstruction of my position as “defense of rudeness for rudeness sake”. Enough. Yes I am intollerant. I can not tolerate such ridiculous, self-centered idiocy.
For four pages I have tried to talk sense to you people. I have tried to convince you that not every turn of phrase was concocted by the Man to keep your particular group down. I have tried to convince you that there is not an -ist under every bed. I give up. I am too exasperated too continue. I have had enough of the bullheaded stupidity of the PC offenderatti. I am taking my metaphorical ball and going home.
If you feel the need to massage your own ego by taking potshots at me in my absence from this thread, go right ahead. I don’t offend as easily as you.
If you were to say, “This thread is gay!” and I told you it was offensive for you to take the name of my community and use it to mean “stupid,” would you continue to use the word “gay” as an insult? 'Cause you really sound like you would.
Esprix
Well, aside from getting so upset when your hurling of an epithet is pointed out to you that you run out to collect citations that it is not, but cite the wrong word in your defense, then repeat your (misplaced) denial. 
Oh, and intolerant only has one L.
That’s a funny way to lead off a post chock-full of gratuitous insults.
This one is an interesting one to me. There are quite a few words which I think have an umistakably homophobic cast to them, and that therefore a polite person not wishing to convey homophobic sentiments would generally refrain from using them.
Most of those words have alternate, no-homophobic synonyms, so not using them isn’t any particular hardship.
In the case of “gay,” as adjective, I am not so sure. The word has many meanings that are quite disparate and wholly dependant on context, i.e.
“I feel happy and gay.”
“I think she’s wearing a gay deciever” (albeit dated)
“My friend Esprix is a gay man”
“The gay elves live in yonder wood” (not sure why elves are gay without being homosexual, but I’m not arguing with Tolkien)
and finally, and most common today:
“What, are you thinking? Are you gay?”
“While Homestar Runner is amusing, that game is way too gay for my tastes.”
IMO, only the second to last is an objectionable usage. I know the final usage is also sometimes a cause for consternation, but I don’t think it should be because it is not meant as a slur against gay people, and there is not really a useful synonym that accurately conveys the same nuance of meaning.
I suppose I could say the “Homestar Runner is silly and frivolous far beyond the point of amusement and into the realm of sickening sacharinity” but that’s a mouthful and not everybody posesses my unique turn of phrase.
If I say “Homestar Runner is gay,” it seems to me that everybody will understand my exact meaning, succinctly.
I don’t generally use the word in this fashion anymore, because I understand that it does (wrongly in my opinion) give offense, but, on the other hand, I kind of reserve the right to, if you know what I mean, if my usage serves clarity and context.
Thoughts?
The Homestar Runner example is particularly egregious because it is using the term “gay” as a synonym for “bad”. It is not by accident that that word is chosen. Being gay (homosexual) is considered bad by those that use that term in that manner, at least originally. By attaching that label to something, it becomes bad in the same way being homosexual is bad. Gay did not come to mean bad independently of the usage of gay as homosexual. You cite historic uses of gay as “happy” and “lively”. So, logically, gay as bad doesn’t come from those meanings. It comes from the homosexual use of the term.
Homebrew:
I think you are mistaken. It’s not a simple synonym for “bad.”
i.e. “I won’t eat this fish. It’s bad”
“I won’t eat this fish. It’s gay.”
The latter, while vaguely amusing, is incoherent.
In fact, the use of “gay” as frivolous and silly is something that’s been around for a lot longer than the use of the term to describe homosexuals.
Homebrew:
It would be only if they were using the term in the connotation of placing or relating to an implied value concerning sexual preference.
Since “gay” has a common and acepted usage going back at least a couple of centuries as meaning overly silly or frivolous, I believe you are mistaken to automatically construe a slander against homosexuality.
There are occasions when it is there, but I think we have to take our cues from context, and not create slander or offensive intent when none is actually there.
“Gay” as deprecation in the usage I’ve employed is etymologically independant of the usage of “gay” as synonym for homosexuality.
Then why has the usage of gay as deprecation only arisen since gay became synonymous with homosexual, which is far more commonly used now than “happy”? Did you use “Gay” as a negative term as a child?
You’re wrong. Both sense derive from the Middle French “gai” which meant “licentious” and was used to refer to prostitutes. This meaning wss passed into English and because of the camp proclvities of old-style homosexuals, began to be used of gay men in the last century.
In any event, your objection makes no sense. Take the word “colored”–by itself it is not an offensive word and can be used harmlessly in most contexts, “The rose window at Chartres Cathedral is magnificently colored.” At the same time, there are uses that are gross, “I just wish the coloreds would stay out of our schools.” Does the harmless connotation of the former render irrelevant objections to the latter?
Scylla, we can have this belabored etymological discussion yet again, but the result will be the same - using “gay” as a negative adjective is offensive to many members of the gay community. It seems self-evident to me.
Esprix