[Callers] That g word

[Aahz Maruch via Callers]

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, sargondj at gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
>
> Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)

That's quoting, no different from watching an old movie.  (And watching
_Victor/Victoria_ is especially interesting in this regard.)  I meant
you, personally, using the word in conversation.  I'll bet you've pretty
much wiped it out of your everyday vocabulary.  The fact that you've
admitted it will be almost a year from now indicates that you understand
the point I'm making.  ;-)
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                        http://rule6.info/
                      <*>           <*>           <*>
"If you want a picture of the future of Usenet, imagine a foot stuck in
a human mouth -- forever."  --Avram Grumer