22 Jan
2016
22 Jan
'16
9:20 p.m.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, sargondj(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
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
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)
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.