I don’t remember that, apart from zara who seems nonplussed by it and in fact has used it herself. Link?
This is an argument against the primacy of the personal intent of the user. I’m not trying to justify use of the word based on the personal intent of the user; I’m saying their use should be understood in terms of the linguistic community they inhabit. I’m assured that this is the Exact Same Argument that people use to justify using other slurs, but I’ve yet to be told what English-speaking country the guy who claimed ‘f–’ wasn’t homophobic came from.
And do you agree that the same is not true when I call Boris Johnson a ■■■■■
1 Like
Not really, no. Seems awfully similar.
1 Like
Then you’re just completely affirming my earlier charge that this is in part about regarding non-American senses of words as unreal or illegitimate.
2 Likes
Isn’t @skydiver8 the only American woman on this site? (Bro, but she’s really not here at all.)
She’s in the best position to say how American women feel about it. I can tell you it would piss off my wife.
2 Likes
@j8i3h289dn3x7 I know you posted without further comment, but I’m gonna go ahead and put you on cross here. Any comment to the above please?
OK, then what does it mean for Boris Johnson to be a ■■■■■ that both has nothing to do with sterotypically female attributes and that cannot be seamlessly replaced with another word?
I mean, people get accused of being racist all the time too on these forums. Often it is because people are engaging in behavior that affirms or supports racism, even if it’s unintentional. I’ve been guilty of it myself. The fact that it is done in an accusatory manner doesn’t make it untrue.
Whatever point you’re trying to make is not relevant to the discussion, and as I said, I’m not your teacher. You claimed that:
I then quickly used our shitty search feature to find a dozen examples that showed your claim was laughably and demonstrably false.
You then went down some other ridiculous rabbit hole.
It means for him to be unpleasant and maybe cruel. As for ‘seamlessly’, well, you’re going to show me a basket full of bastard and arsehole and fucker and dickhead and shithead and prick and swine and assure me fulsomely that there are no seams whatsoever. But there are.
And I don’t even use the word very much! I especially don’t use it very much here because the place is full of Americans! I object to that consideration being compulsory. I object to ‘not very often because people don’t like it’ becoming ‘never at all because it’s sexist, we Americanly assure you’.
2 Likes
The “ridiculous rabbit hole” is that a dozen in the numerator and all the posts in this forum in the denominator is “nobody”.
I like how you used “examples” there. Just to keep the door open and make sure everyone knows that those results are not exhaustive. Please, counsel, do provide the exhaustive results.
I stand by my “ridiculous” claim.
Sky is saying she’d prefer the word ■■■■ to be used at a woman than at a man, which is the opposite of how it tends to be used in the UK.
but it’s in doubt as to whether she finds it that offensive at all.
EDIT just seen fidget’s post where she says ■■■■■■ doesn’t bother her in the slightest.
So again - who are the people who are so offended by the use of this word?
shrug I guess I’ll switch to “no opinion”.
1 Like
And, reading that post, you continued to use it in the British Isles sense. Cool.
Campers are some real motherfuckers though so all is forgiven.
1 Like
And after reading sky’s post and posting it as a link you continue to mansplain why it should offend women. LOL
1 Like
If you keep reading after your quote she does a better job than I did of explaining why women would be offended by your usage.
I’m feeling the same about the (mis)use of the word “nonplussed”, which is even happening in this very thread!
1 Like
Notwithstanding the merits of any points made here or elsewhere, I agree with the contingent of posters who claim that @j8i3h289dn3x7 is a total dick, just by virtue of his posting style alone.