The show sucks. And I mean no offense to anyone here.
In the 60’s boxing commentators used to say " he’s on queer street" if a boxer got punched real hard and was in danger of going down ( no not that kind of down!).
Ain’t that an amazing bit of info for ya?
I don’t htink it does make sense, LaurAnge: niggardly is a very awkward word for describing someone’s usage of language. “Niggardly” means “grudgingly mean about spending or granting.” Do you “spend” word usage? Do you “grant” word usage? And is he talking about “spending” individual words, about vocabulary (as I thought he might be trying to get at) or is he talking about using more words at a given time to explain himself (as you seem to think he’s trying to get at)?
Either Ender doesn’t know what the word means; or, more likely, he’s showing what a brilliant politically-incorrect iconoclastic thinker he is by saying (tee hee!) “niggardly” in a conversation about politically charged words. He may even think it’s a clever new joke.
I humbly disagree.
Daniel
This is funny in a thread about overreaction to word use 
Daniel, I repeat, I think that, yes, you CAN be sparing (subsitute that for niggardly if it’s giving you such problems) in word usage, and being stingy in word usage (ie, being terse, non-verbose OR using non-explanatory words etc.) DOES lead to misunderstanding.
Wait, what exactly is the difference between using more words and, uh… using more words?
So, not only was Ender funny, he was indeed correct as well.
Your right-- I should have. I bothered to ask first, but was confrontational in doing so. I should have toned it down a bit.
Unwashed brain- try to recognize that there is a damn good reason for “hypersensitivity surrounding the word’s secondary implications” if those “implications” are even “secondardy” in this day and age. BTW- I don’t buy King Friday’s explanation-- as “so queer” = “so gay” in my book, and “by queer, I mean that that show just has so much phony enthusiasm, it just makes my skin crawl sometimes”. I guess reasonable minds could subjectively differ on this one.
Uh huh, right. The evils of “political correctness” “hypersensitivity”
“Some people are not happy unless they think someone is offending them” no way in infer political orientation there.
Entirely your words and thoughts, not mine. Please don’t put words (or thoughts) in my mouth which I did not utter. Try the “making my skin crawl” point as being the thing which caught my eye.
Unfortunately King Friday’s posts are subject to interpretation. That of course requires subjective analysis, like the kind you engaged in extensively. So asking me it be “more objective” is ironic, at best.
However- while I was annoyed at your pointless little “word police” remark, I should not have used both barrels on you for it. I still disagree in form and substance with your original post and it’s progeny, but I should not have ripped into you for one drive-by-ish comment alone. I used a sledgehammer where a jewlers pick would have done. Sorry.
Off for my patrol!
DanielWithrow, I used the word niggardly for two reasons.
-
Niggardly is often confused with nigger, which leads people to be offended with no cause. Here one definition of queer was substituted for another leading people to also become offended for no cause. While the analogy isn’t as precise as I would like (niggardly and nigger are two seperate words whereas queer is but one), it does serve its purpose.
-
Niggardly is used appropriately. If those who were offended in the OT weren’t so stingy in how they used words, they would see that queer (as in unusual or strange) is an entirely acceptable word in that context. By denying someone the use of a word merely because some definitions of it are inappropriate at some points in time, we all lose so much of what makes the English language beautiful. Don’t be niggardly with the English language.
Apology accepted. 
OK - as an example I proffer The Religious Right, something I’m familiar with as a resident of the Bible Belt. The three traits you listed above are equally ascribable to that group as they are to some groups on the left side of the fence. Granted, the Religious Right’s definition of political correctness probably differs from yours, but an assumption that humanity is in agreement about what is Politically Correct is rather absurd.
In any case, my statements about your post were not reflective of my political stance, just as being pro-choice does not indicate that a person has a left-wing agenda.
Trust me, telling me this is unnecessary. In fact, on my website is the following, which I wrote:
I was simply imploring you to be more conscious of your own subjectivity. To step out of your reality tunnel and try to see things from others’ points of view. To try to think more objectively by recognizing how your own beliefs and values color your perceptions.
DanielWithrow, I used the word niggardly for two reasons.
-
Niggardly is often confused with nigger, which leads people to be offended with no cause. Here one definition of queer was substituted for another leading people to also become offended for no cause. While the analogy isn’t as precise as I would like (niggardly and nigger are two seperate words whereas queer is but one), it does serve its purpose.
-
Niggardly is used appropriately. If those who were offended in the OT weren’t so stingy in how they used words, they would see that queer (as in unusual or strange) is an entirely acceptable word in that context. By denying someone the use of a word merely because some definitions of it are inappropriate at some points in time, we all lose so much of what makes the English language beautiful. Don’t be niggardly with the English language.
Understanding that apologies have been made and accepted and we’re all feeling groovy about each other ( ) . . .
** from elf6c**
and
I disagree that the intent is clearly derogatory vs. strange. . .
[sub]elf6c, you said other “reasonable minds could subjectively differ on this one” - I’m taking a crack at it for the hell of it.[/sub]
“strange”, and it’s synonyms “odd”, “weird”, etc, aren’t mutually exclusive from the word “disturbing” (what I get from “makes my skin crawl” in King’s reply-post).
In the original (gay=lame) arguments, the case is made that “gay” acquires it’s derogatory venom through stereotyping of homosexuals, so when used as an insult, it carries homophobic overtones.
However, even in it’s non-slang form, queer is a word that can already potentially carry negative overtones: after all, sometimes things are disturbing because they are weird. So the line is harder to draw: is someone using the word in a negative sense because strange (in case x) = bad? or because weird = homosexual = bad?
Unlike “gay”, a positive word co-opted and given a negative slang, the word was not necessarily positive to begin with. Nor is it /necessarily/ negative, either. And if it is used either positively or negatively, it can acquire it’s power without reliance on an equation to homosexuality, because it’s synonyms are neither objectively good or bad.
By contrast, how can “gay” mean something bad without first being passed through a “gay=homo=bad” equation
Okay. Reason #1 is the one that annoys me: it’s the “gotcha!” meaning of the word, and I get the impression it’s the main reason you used the word.
Reason #2 is false. Using words stingily could mean one of two things, as near as I can tell: you could be laconic, or you could be low-vocabularied.
I don’t see that laconic speech enters into the debate at all; the only relevant way you could be “niggardly” with word usage in this case would be to use a smaller vocabulary. And if everyone used a doubleplusunbig vocabulary, there’d be FEWER opportunities for misunderstanding, not more. “Niggardly” word usage, in this sense, alleviates rather than exacerbates the problem.
You restate your argument as, “If only people weren’t so stingy in how they used words, they would see that is an acceptable word in this case.” Again, that sentence doesn’t work.
This second reason, however, is not what irks me: I only brought it up before you admitted that you used the word “niggardly” because of the “tee hee!” factor. Using the word in this sense doesn’t, I think, help anyone.
Daniel
I used niggardly for two reasons, not just one. I would never have used it for the “tee hee! factor” had I not also believed it to be an appropriate usage.
But this whole debate got started specifically because of shock value of words. Queer means strange, not homosexual. Or, rather, not JUST homosexual. If people automatically assume queer means homosexual then writers have lost the ability to use queer for what it’s intended.
If I am unable to use the word niggardly because some may get offended at what it sounds like then English has again lost a word.
If we are stingy with our word usage, if we are stingy with our definitions, then we all lose out. There’s my main point. Yes I phrased it in a joking fashion which I and (hopefully) others found humorous, but my point is serious: you cannot stop others from using a word because you’re offended at what it is not.
But that was a nice 1984 reference.
Daniel, do you remember that whole fiasco with some governor or other having used the word “niggardly”, and it was misunderstood, and he ended up resigning from office? See how it might be funny to use that word in this discussion?
Ender made a joke.
At my college, the Senate just voted to create a “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Queer and Questioning Student Resource Center.”
The legislation was sponsored by Chris Chadwick, who, I gather from people around campus, is gay. It passed under the provision that the word “queer” be replaced with a more PC term.
This is over Chris’s objection, though, because:
“Queer is an all inclusive term encompassing all sexual identities but I will compromise because some prefer more P.C. terms,” Chadwick said. “However, queer is a perfectly politically correct term.”
Of course, later on in the article some people are quoted as being glad they are removing the term Queer from the title.
This thread is so gay.
Lemme get this right - people do actually still use ‘queer’ to indicate/refer to something other than homosexuality? Funny, I thought that other usage has become fairly archaic in everyday language, which is why the choice of that specific term stood out for me. Colour my butt corrected.
Ha-bloody-ha, Bryan 
Yes, “queer” meaning anything but gay is sooooooo… 1950’s.
I’m personally with Enderw24 on this. Removing words may reduce the chances for misunderstanding, but unless you’re really confused about who invented doubleplussing and why, you know that’s a bad idea. I don’t want the English language dumbed down to the point that synonyms don’t exist… I want choices and ambiguity and the requirement of examining context and of intelligence in order to figure out what someone is writing.
I think most people on this board feel the same way. Just because I have a low post count doesn’t mean I don’t recognize that the level of discourse (heck, even just the level of punctuation) is better here than anywhere else. I think if there’s one board you shouldn’t have to lower your expectations of your audience, it’s here.