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.
Grammar Nazi Voltron is forming.
1 Like
Unfortunately mod hat going back on and … please try to be nicer.
1 Like
Aye aye, captain.
2 Likes
I don’t wish to offend anyone by using a word, so despite the lack of evidence that any females here find the word insulting I will try to restrict my use of it to the UK thread where people understand its contemporary meaning.
4 Likes
I mean, what a foreskin
1 Like
It astounds me how entrenched people get on topics like this. If you told me some word I used was offensive to lots of people, I’d just find another. It’s not like people don’t know other words. I get that you don’t like the idea of someone policing your language, but don’t you like less the idea of needlessly offending?
3 Likes
I’m not following every post, so I’m surprised if the claim has been something like: the vernacular ascension of c*** in the linguistic community of the UK does not have a problematic relationship with misogyny. It was never misogynistic in the first place? It may have been, but now it’s not?
I’m not digging in so you can persuade me. I’m in the ‘main reason we really shouldn’t use it on the forum is that it may genuinely offend some people’ camp, so I suppose I’m open to an account of how a seemingly obviously derogatory sexual term for a politically/socially oppressed group achieves linguistic escape velocity and ceases to have a problematic relationship with its history.
When Boris fucking Johnson does or says something particularly egregious even by his own standards, what do you suggest we call him if we want to let off steam in a post?
A bounder?
A cad?
A bully and a cry baby?