To the contrary, I think it's weak writing that can't come up with a different way of stating something.

Contrary all you like, you know exactly the kind of soft, watered down, timidly inoffensive, endlessly qualified language favored on the left that I'm talking about.

My point holds, I think. The bigger issue is that you cannot uproot words from their cultural history. erika's long running discussion of the issues around words like "disabled," "able-bodied," "lame," "crippled" indicates some of the problem. Trying to control the language is a way to try and control thinking (cf., Orwell) and people do resist and resent that attempt.

And it does create a kind of falsity. Wrapping lots of relentless positive uplift language around the "differently abled" doesn't build wheelchair ramps.

Back to the related discussion, I never use "gay" as a perjorative, but I might use it as a descriptor. (Waxed eyebrows on men, rhumba sleeves, jazz hands.)

"Cocksucker" is kind of an endearment at this point thanks to Deadwood.

I still use "lame." I didn't use to use "retarded" but now it's crept back into my vocabulary.

Language is such that "developmentally delayed" will convey the same thing eventually. Just as "special ed" started neutral and trended negative and gave us "riding the short bus."

People will always reach for the phrase that connotes, "You are incurably stupid."

I like it too...so I've softened my stance on it as The Ultimate Vulgarity/ Insult, though it's still hard to use. But I'm not that sensitive about language anymore(see tag) I guess it was five seasons of learning via The Wire, that "motherfucker" could also apply to a house or car as easily as a person...I couldn't be shocked every time. I don't say it that much, but it no longer has the freight it once had. For good or ill.ETA: People already/still say "sped", ftr.

Back to the related discussion, I never use "gay" as a perjorative, but I might use it as a descriptor. (Waxed eyebrows on men, rhumba sleeves, jazz hands.)

But if you use a term as a descriptor and someone says to you that they're offended by it, what would your reaction be? To explain to them why you think that using that term is important to the long-term health and vitality of language? Or would you say that your intent wasn't to offend and offer an apology?

To the contrary, I think it's weak writing that can't come up with a different way of stating something.

Contrary all you like, you know exactly the kind of soft, watered down, timidly inoffensive, endlessly qualified language favored on the left that I'm talking about.

It sounds to me like you're saying that it's not possible to re-word something, ever, without watering it down. And you know as well as I do that that is simply not true.

It's not a binary, with options being Bold Yet Described As Some As Offensive vs. Weak Ineffectual Mealy-Mouthed Pap. Implying that there are only 2 choices in writing is, again, WEAK.

And it does create a kind of falsity. Wrapping lots of relentless positive uplift language around the "differently abled" doesn't build wheelchair ramps.

If someone who was "differently abled" said to you that he/she was offended by your use of "lame," would you give them that spiel? t edit Or, what Jilli said.

"Cocksucker" is kind of an endearment at this point thanks to Deadwood.

Because the whole world watches Deadwood, right?

I've heard the same reasoning being given for "gay" and "lame." I have trouble finding fault with that parallel.

Yes, indeed, and I wish I had a better defense than "it doesn't mean that to me!". I don't use "gay" or "lame" as insulting adjectives, anyway, so it wouldn't apply to any situation I'd encounter in the real world, but the parallel is still there and is worth considering. (And here I am, considering it, but honestly, I'm not gonna stop referring to Glen Beck or myself the day before my period as crazy, and I'm more concerned with removing certain other words from my language.)

ILU2

I never use "gay" as a perjorative, but I might use it as a descriptor.

You know, still thinking about it, I don't do that either, unless I'm making a conscious choice to call something that. By which I mean, it doesn't come naturally to my lips. (Go on. Laugh.)

Wow, my language is lot more boring than I thought it was.

People will always reach for the phrase that connotes, "You are incurably stupid."

But there's just so much need for it!

If someone who was "differently abled" said to you that he/she was offended by your use of "lame," would you give them that spiel?

Hee... Is it a bad time to mention that I find 'differently-abled' rather patronising? (I know you were kidding!)

I don't use "cocksucker" other than with Deadwood fans. And my mom is still gonna trip when I meet Corwood and am all "Hey, Austin cocksucker...how are they hanging, bunk?" But mostly cause She Didn't Raise Me To Do That. But she kinda did, anyways. People do tell *me* not to use lame. But I can't find another word that fits as well, personally. And I've never met someone with a real disability who says "differently abled" only, like, the Ms. magazine editorial staff.

Hee... Is it a bad time to mention that I find 'differently-abled' rather patronising? (I know you were kidding!)

That's why I was using quotes around it. Not my phrase, definitely.

The bigger issue is that you cannot uproot words from their cultural history.

The cultural history of certain words (see: the "n" word) is a big part of WHY they are no longer acceptable.

Trying to control the language is a way to try and control thinking (cf., Orwell) and people do resist and resent that attempt.

Once again, I think you are overgeneralizing. There is ongoing debate about "lame" and such but we have acknowledged that in this discussion. I have yet to hear anything that remotely convinces me of a necessity to use "gypped," "niggardly," "rag head," etc.

No one (in this country) can actually control the language you use, Hec. Furthermore, no one is arguing for that.

That's why I was using quotes around it. Not my phrase, definitely.

Indeed. We have similar views on language, it seems.