Just over two weeks ago, and wow. Nobody can prepare you for how tired you’re going to be. It’s really rather incredible.
Do you NOT see the contradiction here?
I think the masses here have spoken as to what is reasonable.
Well that’s really all the difference is. We just have to decide on what the reasonable listener would think I meant. I think this thread demonstrates that the reasonable listener would realize that I was describing the boycotters as emotionally weak*. You seem to think that the reasonable listener would think I was calling them gay.
So we have to go back to the source (me) and determine the intent. I’ve already told you what the intent was.
As for the arguments regarding the word’s origins and dictionary definitions, I say “So what?” I don’t think the word assassin has anything to do with hashish users and I don’t think that vandal relates to 5th century Germans. They mean what others believe them to mean - a political killer and a destroyer of property, respectively.
I’ve told women to “man up”, “buck up”, and “grow a pair” too. They understood my meaning. Who cares if it’s origins are sexist?
*It was Little Nemo’s comment that prompted by response, but I wasn’t calling him/her a pansy. Just the offended shoppers.
I think it’s been well and truly established that A) The SDMB community is in almost no way reflective of the “real world” community and B) There’s a large “Silent Majority” on the boards who hold “normal” opinions but have given up (or don’t care enough about) arguing them, creating a situation where the “uncommon” viewpoint gets the most airtime and creates the illusion that the “uncommon” viewpoint is the “normal” one when, in reality, it isn’t.
As for the OP, when I read the other thread I was envisioning Chessic channelling an Army Sergeant-Major/Drill Instructor tasked with “hardening up” new recruits - from the context it was pretty clear (to me, at least) he was using “Pansy” in the context of “Hyper-sensitive Wuss”, not advocating that homosexuals should have the gay beaten out of them.
Whenever somebody says something like the above, they are always lying.
Well, masses. How about we use something like a dictionary. To tell us what would be a reasonable interpretation of what a fucking word means.
For instance, if every dictionary says that the word pansy means “effeminate or homosexual,” let’s just take it as a given that it is reasonable to read the word pansy and think, perhaps this is a reference to effeminacy or homosexuality. Because that is what that word means. And if somebody wants to say no, I totally used that word in a different way, let’s not pretend that makes it unreasonable to have heard the word and thought that it meant what the dictionary says it does.
How about that.
In response to the question
I would say, well, lots of people. Just not you. Which is sort of what I’m talking about here. Same as when my grandfather talks about being jewed out of a deal or makes monkey noises. He’s not racist, he assures me. Which is not to say that he is racist, or that you yourself are sexist or homophobic or what have you. It’s just that you’ve used the traditional weaponry of the sexist or the homophobe.
What kind of pansy are you? Don’t you tell your little woman that diaper changing and late night feedings and bed checks are her job, then roll over an go back to sleep?
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’”
Fine. From now on, every time I read the word “faggot” I’ll know that the user really means “bundle of sticks” because that meaning is in the dictionary. How could I be accused of intentionally misunderstanding if the meaning is in the dictionary?
Also, since origin is so important and the meaning of “faggot” as “bundle of sticks” predates all the others, that’s the meaning I’ll take. So you see, Fred Phelps isn’t railing against homosexuals, it’s that God hates cord wood. He’s burning it in Hell because nothing is better in a fire than a bundle of aged Pine. I know this is what Fred means, because it is the original definition and IT’S IN THE DICTIONARY!
I’m sorry, did you just call me a liar?
No, you’re right. That was a really good point.
Good work.
Aye, and we’ve answered the question of which is to be master here on these boards.
I don’t think you believe that codswallop about silent majorities. And I think you wrote not to assert its truth but instead to deliver some kind of burn to the people who disagreed with you.
Philosophically, on further reflection, I suppose I would join with Harry Frankfurt in calling it bullshit (because you are indifferent to the claim’s truth or falsehood) rather than a lie, since I doubt you investigated whether the claim was true or false because such an investigation would be quite beside the point of your asserting it.
That’s the way I take the word. Wimp. Maybe a wimp that tries to come off as not being a wimp, but a wimp nonetheless.
Actually, I do believe it, quite seriously. Why do you think I don’t?
Perhaps because it’s completely insupportable and undocumentable, and you have no way to know one way or another?
What evidence do you have for it? Indeed, given what you assert, what evidence could you possibly have for it?
I whole heartedly agree with Martini’s post above. I am one of those usually silent majority who don’t bother to engage against the prevailing viewpoints here. Because there are a high percentage of vocal posters, like Kimmy, who are perennially so full of shit that you get a series of statements like this:
It is amusing to read the many self-congratulatory dog-piles that are inflicted upon the unwary posters who forget this.
In what way does this description not apply equally to your own post #65?
Discretion and valor, buddy. Discretion and valor.