[Callers] That g word

[via Callers]

Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)

> On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
>> 
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread
>> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem
>> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to
>> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist
>> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to
>> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate
>> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word,
>> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context)
>> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to
>> support: its current use *is* relevant.
> 
> Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar
> to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute.
> Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
> bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
> -- 
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                        http://rule6.info/
>                      <*>           <*>           <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net