FYI, not to be anal (heh), but it is technically not a “Google bomb”.
But santorum now does mean that, just like computer now means a machine and not a person who does math. In a few years people will probably note the irony of someone who has the same name as that substance opposing gay marriage
No, not really. You can define the word any way you want for your personal use. If you want googlability, though, you have to get a few thousand people to link to your post, presumably because they found it interesting and notable, and to get others to quote your definition (and get thousands of people to link to them).
To be honest, though, I figure your antics in this thread may end up leading to an unflattering definition of “jtgain”, though it’s unlikely to catch on because it’s not a term that flows easily.
How do you think words gain new meanings? Do you think there there’s some council somewhere that allows or denies new meanings?
If people start using it, then that word now has that meaning. It’s not a “lie”.
When people discover the alternative, made-up meaning of “santorum”, all it’s going to do is make them think “Gay sex is even more disgusting than I’d imagined.” Way to go there, Savage.
I think that’s extremely unlikely: I doubt the term is ever really going to gain a life of its own outside of mocking Rick Santorum and become something people say on a regular basis. And not to put too fine a point on it, but the guy thinks anal sex is wrong regardless of who is doing it - it’s not just a gay marriage thing.
What if I said quisling was defined as a traitor? Is that a lie? If not, when did it stop being a lie spread by the WWII British press and become a true statement? Or has quisling always meant traitor, since the beginning of time, and people just became aware of the fact in 1940?
Anyhoo, I think your letting your mind get blown by people playing with definitions by thinking about it more then its worth. Word definitions are fluid, and people are just having fun with that fact at Santorum’s expense. You may not think its particularly funny, which is fine. But you seem really fixated on it being somehow invalid. Its just a prank, “legitimacy” doesn’t really enter into it. Or at least, it legitimate if people find it funny, and in this case they obviously do.
If you want to try and do the same thing to Obama, go nuts. But I doubt you’ll get far since that specific prank isn’t likely to funny enough to catch on more then once. But I’m sure there are plenty of rightwing versions of Dan Savage who are more then capable of coming up with new and funny ways of making fun of politicians they don’t like.
hee, hee
I’m pretty sure santorum isn’t a feature unique to gay sex.
“And I imagined it a lot!”
No, but people aren’t going to pause and consider that particular technicality.
Seems to me bellyaching about it won’t help - if the “santorum” thing offends thee, do something about it, namely start adding links to Santorum’s official website every time you post, in as many places as possible.
Example: Santorum
There. I’ve just offset the Google effect by 0.0001%. See how easy that was? Now all I need is a million more people to do the same. Volunteers?
Have at it. I don’t think you will find it nearly as satisfying as we find the Santorum google bomb.
jtgain: Consider this scenario. A second term senator from a swing state makes bigoted remarks which he refuses to retract. A no-name sexual advice columnist responds by making his name synonymous with the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. Google bombing is a fairly new thing at the time, so he does that. Successfully.
Funny stuff. Doing the same for a Republican Presidential candidate in 2012? Not so much. But the damage is done, as it were. I wouldn’t worry too much though: Former Senator Santorum is basically a reality show contestant anyway. He is running to burnish his resume among the rubber chicken crowd and wingnut welfare sponsors: he has done nothing to widen his appeal and was never remotely electable. Save your tears for something important.
Don’t do that.
I agree with Measure. Because then it might make Google associate Santorum with a politician, instead of associating Santorum with the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.
Well, when you’re talking about the froth, at least don’t capitalize the word. It’s not a proper noun.
It’s not really a proper anything, truth be told.
I know what you mean, and I agree with you, in a sideways sort of way. Santorum has said enough miserably intolerant things that any insults should reflect his actual flaws and mis-deeds rather than this silly attack.
Santorum compares gays to child molestors and people who rape dogs, and accuses them of conspiring to destroy America, on a daily basis. Do you believe THAT is what passes for political discourse? The entire point of bringing his name down to the level of his views is to point out the absurdity of the fact that this modern day Ku Klux Klan leader is considered a person whose views must be taken seriously for some reason.
Indeed: for a legitimate insult, you must find an snark-vein on a distant mountain and carve a treacherous path through the rock to where the vitriol runs pure. You must then harness the vitriol and refine it through a process entirely too complex to describe here until you’ve got an insult.
What do you mean you can’t make up an insult? Where do you think insults come from? I genuinely have no idea what you’re thinking.
No, it’s not. It’s what passes for a sex columnist poking some puerile, but pretty funny, fun at a bigot. Not everything must follow Robert’s Rules of Order.
As opposed to what, looking meanings up in God’s Divine Dictionary? You betray a woeful misunderstanding of how human languages work. Words don’t have an objective meaning: rather, communication works to the extent that your intended audience understands your intended message with your intended connotation. When someone calls Obama Kenyan, they’re deliberately deceiving the audience by attempting to convince them of a false fact. When people assign the letters “santorum” to describe something icky, there’s no false fact at play.
Yeah, right. I know he invented the Internet, but there’s no way he invented mathematical procedures.