22 Jan
2016
22 Jan
'16
4:50 p.m.
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.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Martha,
Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, would you say more
than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of dancers associate
"gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering people?
Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
Ron
On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via
Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered impolite but only
depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for example. Lots of men proudly use that
as their name, but it’s also a really offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts,
yet we use it without any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note
the use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years, unhappy
with he/him for that term and that just sort of started happening). If our word actually
came down from Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem
even more reason to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from
the pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
Martha
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via
Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion. I still have several unanswered
questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have claimed the word and deemed it
offensive and feel it should not be used, in any context, in any language. More about why
she herself uses the word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use
of a capital G. To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the ethnicity, while
gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 when Cecil Sharp
wrote them down. Two of the three dances in the 1909 book originated in the 1500s, one
ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. We do not know if they originally used the terms
gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a
celtic language) - gaze or glance.
So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved. But if you feel that a group
can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there are a lot of other words you
should stop using as well.
Janet
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via
Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or
"Gentlemen," because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of
being told we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
"Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and
"Women" really did refer to what was between our legs, and made it more
uncomfortable to switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any
more.
Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
"Ravens" and "Larks" now.
This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing associations with
words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the
generic pronoun where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society
dominated by the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He"
and "Him" generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and
seventies counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as
the generic pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There are
now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone, like
we use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we think about
things.
So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
"Gypsy." Is it derogatory? To some, not all. Is that reason enough to change?
Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and "Left
Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as colorful, but it
is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels said someone had come up with
"Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some of us are
vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a substitute that might work
better. Seems about right.
Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our language and word
choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not. As callers, we are in the public
eye--granted a small pond of the public--but our words do go out there and cause others to
think, too.
What's in a word? A lot.
~erik hoffman
oakland, ca
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
22 Jan
22 Jan
5:01 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
Sargon,
You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means.
it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it.
In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly
may
describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human
contexts nowadays.
When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide
the proper use of that word is... that group of people.
...
As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for
changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing
for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the
same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements.
Ron Blechner
On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM, <sargondj(a)gmail.com> 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.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Martha,
Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
people?
Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
Ron
On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As mentioned, there are many words we use that
are even considered
impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
Martha
On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion. I still have several
unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
any context, in any language. More about why she herself uses the word
later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
capital G. To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
when Cecil Sharp wrote them down. Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. We do
not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
language) - gaze or glance.
So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved. But if you
feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
Janet
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
What's in a word? As this list points out, it
gets confusing.
Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or
"Gentlemen,"
because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
"Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and
"Women" really did
refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any
more.
Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
"Ravens" and "Larks" now.
This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing
associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the
generic pronoun
where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by
the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and
"Him"
generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and seventies
counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the
generic
pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There
are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone,
like we
use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we
think about things.
So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
"Gypsy." Is it derogatory? To some, not all. Is that reason enough to
change? Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and
"Left Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as
colorful, but it is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels
said someone had come up with "Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some
of us are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a
substitute that might work better. Seems about right.
Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our
language and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not.
As callers, we are in the public eye--granted a small pond of the
public--but our words do go out there and cause others to think, too.
What's in a word? A lot.
~erik hoffman
oakland, ca
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
5:08 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body parts that people
use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not for use in polite society. And
yet, many of those words are perfectly acceptable words if you say them in a different
context - when talking to your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch
of others that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant. We
don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent meanings just
because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargondj(a)gmail.com
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.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
> Martha,
>
> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago, would you say
more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+ of dancers associate
"gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering people?
>
> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>
> Ron
>
> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers"
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
wrote:
> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered impolite but only
depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for example. Lots of men proudly use that
as their name, but it’s also a really offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts,
yet we use it without any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note
the use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for years, unhappy
with he/him for that term and that just sort of started happening). If our word actually
came down from Welsh, and has no relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem
even more reason to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from
the pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
> Martha
>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
wrote:
>>
>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion. I still have several
unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have claimed the word
and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in any context, in any language.
More about why she herself uses the word later. One thing I asked her was about her
insistence on the use of a capital G. To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer
to the ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>
>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909 when
Cecil Sharp wrote them down. Two of the three dances in the 1909 book originated in the
1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. We do not know if they originally used
the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we do know that gip, at least, has another meaning
in Welsh (a celtic language) - gaze or glance.
>>
>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved. But if you feel that
a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there are a lot of other words
you should stop using as well.
>>
>> Janet
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
wrote:
>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>
>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or
"Gentlemen," because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of
being told we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>
>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
"Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and
"Women" really did refer to what was between our legs, and made it more
uncomfortable to switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any
more.
>>
>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
"Ravens" and "Larks" now.
>>
>> This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing associations
with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
>>
>> Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been
the generic pronoun where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society
dominated by the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He"
and "Him" generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and
seventies counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as
the generic pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There are
now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone, like
we use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
>>
>> But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we think
about things.
>>
>> So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
"Gypsy." Is it derogatory? To some, not all. Is that reason enough to change?
Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and "Left
Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as colorful, but it
is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels said someone had come up with
"Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
>>
>> So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
>>
>> Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some of us
are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a substitute that might
work better. Seems about right.
>>
>> Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our language
and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not. As callers, we are in
the public eye--granted a small pond of the public--but our words do go out there and
cause others to think, too.
>>
>> What's in a word? A lot.
>>
>> ~erik hoffman
>> oakland, ca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
5:12 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
relevant.
I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.
And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot
of words for body
parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargondj(a)gmail.com 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.
On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Martha,
Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
people?
Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
Ron
On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
As mentioned, there are many words we use that
are even considered
impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
Martha
On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion. I still have several
unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani have
claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be used, in
any context, in any language. More about why she herself uses the word
later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
capital G. To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
when Cecil Sharp wrote them down. Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland. We do
not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
language) - gaze or glance.
So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved. But if you
feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
Janet
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
What's in a word? As this list points out, it
gets confusing.
Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or
"Gentlemen,"
because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
"Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and
"Women" really did
refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any
more.
Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
"Ravens" and "Larks" now.
This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing
associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the
generic pronoun
where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by
the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and
"Him"
generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and seventies
counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the
generic
pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There
are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone,
like we
use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we
think about things.
So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
"Gypsy." Is it derogatory? To some, not all. Is that reason enough to
change? Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and
"Left Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as
colorful, but it is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels
said someone had come up with "Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some
of us are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a
substitute that might work better. Seems about right.
Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our
language and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not.
As callers, we are in the public eye--granted a small pond of the
public--but our words do go out there and cause others to think, too.
What's in a word? A lot.
~erik hoffman
oakland, ca
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
5:34 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
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
5:45 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers
<callers(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
5:49 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of time
spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have
something better to do?
On Friday, January 22, 2016, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
wrote:
Honestly, it will be next December when I sing
Christmas carols again :-)
http://rule6.info/
--
--------------------
Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lindsay(a)tsmworks.com
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via
Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>> 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 <*>
<*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
23 Jan
23 Jan
2:20 a.m.
New subject: [Callers] That g word
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.
3256
days inactive
3257
days old
import1@lists2.sharedweight.net
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Aahz Maruch via Callers -
Lindsay Morris via Callers
-
Martha Wild via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers
-
via Callers