(07-17-2019 12:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 12:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 11:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Yes, that clearly denotes that I was more mad that you edited the remark to be a euphemism...

You do see where is said it is "not much of a better look," right? Had I been more mad about the edit, I would have said "that is a worse look." That is how words work, Tanq. How did you mix that up?

I'm not mad that you changed your comment, I think it was the right thing to do. I'm disappointed that you thought it fit to type that slur in the first place. And I'm also a bit disappointed that instead of removing the insult completely, you just changed it to a euphemism for retarded. I pretty much feel the same way about your word choice as I did when an Uber driver recently used "gay" to refer to someone cutting him off.

I'm not really mad about any of this, despite you thinking I am. This is an internet message board, after all.

My senior year in HS, I was talking with a girl in class when the teacher asked, "(OO), what are you and Karen being so gay about". The class erupted in laughter. Apparently the Teacher and I were the only ones who did not know the new meaning of gay.

I kind of miss the old days, when words meant what they were supposed to mean. As a kid, I enjoyed fairy tales. But my grandkids could not, as it is Un-PC to call them that.

So Lad, when you have kids, will you read them fairy tales? Will history talk about Gay Paree and the Gay 90's? Or will language be so restricted that those words will need permission from some Language Suitability Board?

I agree, Tanq should not have called you 'retard" or anything like that. You clearly have a high IQ. (I hope is OK to call you a genius). But sometimes, you get so obstinate in persisting in your wrongheadedness***, I can understand his frustration.

JMHO.

***Wrongheadedness was approved usage by the Language Suitability Board, a subdivision of the PC board. It is neither racial or sexual in nature, and has no religious component. We did not touch.

OO - What is your point? What are you trying to defend here?

Are you seriously suggesting that my Uber driver, who was clearly complaining about the person cutting them off, used the word "gay" in a way that meant happy?

You go on this diatribe about how certain words that have dual meanings are never OK (like fairy tales), which just isn't true. Gay is an OK word to use to describe when someone is happy or is homosexual. It's not really an OK word to use when describing someone's actions that annoy you.

Just trying to inject a little humor into this little slap fight over word usage.

I find it funny that Dems get all upset about word usage, then turn around call whatever conservative they hate at the moment (approved) names like deplorable or Nazi or bitter clinger.

Taje Nazi for example. A perfectly good word, but often misapplied. Kind of like how your cabbie misapplied 'gay". Never heard you get upset about it, though.

Do they send you a list of what words can used, when, and how? The Language Board, I mean?

One of the reasons I oppose the left is that I don't want to live in a restrictive society that monitors my every thought and word. You apparently think that would Utopia. So you are a disciple of Rightthink. Or at least, rightverbalize.

What are the current and past countries that monitor speech? The short list would include Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, China, and under President Harris, the USA.

Serious question. Did you leave him a tip? Another serious question. did you lecture him on his wrongthinking?

I think you may be acting deliberately clueless here, OO.

It's frustrating to see smart people throw their hands up in the air and act like figuring out which words are OK and which are not is completely befuddling.

I will grant you that there are extremists when it comes to PC-policing that can create confusion (It's not OK to call a black person "black"?).

But come on. There is some low-hanging fruit here which doesn't fall of the category of confusing. It isn't difficult to figure out that the use of the term "gay" in a pejorative sense is offensive. "Retard" and "short bus" as well.

But when you bounce around the issue and say that Trumps followers will lap up the comments, you meant nothing perjorative. Or smug. Or condescending. Got it.

Feel free to piss on my leg. Dont try and tell me its raining. And dont lecture about the impropriety of pissing on legs just a short time afterwards, my friend.

And least you aren't trying the pendantic bouncy house proffered from another the other day that went 'Well I said base, and distinctly did not include followers, and distinctly did not include supporters'. All the difference in light of the smug and condescending statement subject. All the difference.

--- kind of the same verbal bouncy house that went over so well with Hillary's "deplorables" comments. (well she only meant *half* of them).

This is like you all dont even listen to yourselves.