 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / June 2010Niggard/Niggardly
I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? I'm not inclined to allow political agenda to change the nature of the English language. >I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any >more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? > >I'm not inclined to allow political agenda to change the nature of the >English language. Well, then, don't change. The words have been much-discussed in aue and aeu. Most people agree on two things: 1) the meanings of the words are not at all offensive, and, 2) some people don't understand the meaning of the words and are offended when they see/hear them. Those of us who eschew using them do so on the basis that there is no need to offend even the terminally stupid when there are other words that adequately work to describe the same thing.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any >> more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? >> I'm not inclined to allow political agenda to change the nature of the >> English language. > Well, then, don't change. The words have been much-discussed in aue > and aeu. Most people agree on two things: 1) the meanings of the > words are not at all offensive, and, 2) some people don't understand > the meaning of the words and are offended when they see/hear them. > Those of us who eschew using them do so on the basis that there is no > need to offend even the terminally stupid when there are other words > that adequately work to describe the same thing. I'm just a bit worried about being prosecuted for using the words. In this country, it's so easy to be prosecuted for a race crime that if I were to refer to a person of colour as a niggard I could expect to be brought up before the Magistrates. Yet, I don't want to lose such a old term from the English language. >>> I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any >>> more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >brought up before the Magistrates. Yet, I don't want to lose such a old >term from the English language. In my opinion, your priorities are wrong. I would think that your first priority would be to not offend someone even if that person would be offended out of ignorance. Being prosecuted for the offense would be 'way down on the list of reasons not to use the words. Words are not lost. They may be used less, but they remain as words. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > In my opinion, your priorities are wrong. I would think that your > first priority would be to not offend someone even if that person > would be offended out of ignorance. Being prosecuted for the offense > would be 'way down on the list of reasons not to use the words. I am inclined to disagree. It is not my duty or responsibility to engage in self-censorship for the purposes of catering to someone's ignorance or thin-skinned sensibilities. Such a person should be dismissed as a fool (or perhaps a nig nog, since I am engaging in reclaiming long-standing terms that are falling out of favour in the English language). >> In my opinion, your priorities are wrong. I would think that your >> first priority would be to not offend someone even if that person [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reclaiming long-standing terms that are falling out of favour in the > English language). You have to decide whether you are a missionary for retention of the good old things, in the face of a rising tide of easing the way of communication or a person tolerant of change. But to avoid problems in public discourse, you have to pick and choose many of the words you use. Tact, diplomacy and other terms are applied to this art of smoothing the way. Within your private circle of people, (you will know them well enough to judge their understanding of your vocabulary) you can get away with murder...or even saying 'pediatrician'. >> In my opinion, your priorities are wrong. I would think that your >> first priority would be to not offend someone even if that person [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >engage in self-censorship for the purposes of catering to someone's >ignorance or thin-skinned sensibilities. Of course it is. If we want to fit into society, we are obligated to self-censor in order not to needlessly offend. We self-censor when presented with a photograph of an ugly, red, squalling baby by a proud parent and say something neutral or untruthfully kind. We self-censor when our boss presents a ludicrous plan, when our wife asks if the dress makes her look fat, and when our young children present an unidentifiable scrawl and say it's picture of you, Daddy. We thank policemen for giving us a traffic ticket, say "That's OK" when the waitress brings us the wrong order, and move away quietly when some woman with over-powering perfume (or a man with a vile after shave lotion) stands next to us. We function in society because we are capable of self-censoring. We get through the day because other people self-censor and don't point out our own annoying characteristics. >Such a person should be >dismissed as a fool (or perhaps a nig nog, since I am engaging in >reclaiming long-standing terms that are falling out of favour in the >English language). A falling-out-of-favor with good reason. If it doesn't bother you when other people don't self-censor, then I'm sure you won't be offended when I tell you that I think you are insufferable boor. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I am inclined to disagree. It is not my duty or responsibility to >> engage in self-censorship for the purposes of catering to someone's >> ignorance or thin-skinned sensibilities. > Of course it is. If we want to fit into society, we are obligated to > self-censor in order not to needlessly offend. We self-censor when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dress makes her look fat, and when our young children present an > unidentifiable scrawl and say it's picture of you, Daddy. > We thank policemen for giving us a traffic ticket, say "That's OK" > when the waitress brings us the wrong order, and move away quietly > when some woman with over-powering perfume (or a man with a vile after > shave lotion) stands next to us. > We function in society because we are capable of self-censoring. We > get through the day because other people self-censor and don't point > out our own annoying characteristics. I tend towards absolute honesty. My manners are impeccable, and I am considered congenial, tactful and polite, but I am nevertheless wont to call a niggard a niggard without concerning myself about somebody else's lack of education or foolish Marxist beliefs. >> Such a person should be >> dismissed as a fool (or perhaps a nig nog, since I am engaging in >> reclaiming long-standing terms that are falling out of favour in the >> English language). > A falling-out-of-favor with good reason. How so? A nig nog means a foolish person and is not confined simply to people of colour. > If it doesn't bother you when other people don't self-censor, then I'm > sure you won't be offended when I tell you that I think you are > insufferable boor. I am not offended in the slightest. >I tend towards absolute honesty. My manners are impeccable, and I am >considered congenial, tactful and polite, but I am nevertheless wont to >call a niggard a niggard without concerning myself about somebody else's >lack of education or foolish Marxist beliefs. Marxist? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> I tend towards absolute honesty. My manners are impeccable, and I am >> considered congenial, tactful and polite, but I am nevertheless wont to >> call a niggard a niggard without concerning myself about somebody else's >> lack of education or foolish Marxist beliefs. > Marxist? Neo-Marxist. Changing the way that language is used is one of the methods used to control what people think or say. In this case, the intention is to invoke a sense of guilt and trepidation. If you are not familiar with Gramsci and his methodology, it would be worthwhile looking him up. >>> I tend towards absolute honesty. My manners are impeccable, and I am >>> considered congenial, tactful and polite, but I am nevertheless wont to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >methods used to control what people think or say. In this case, the >intention is to invoke a sense of guilt and trepidation. I should imagine that that is one of the aims of political correctness; by making people feel guilty about what they say, eventually they will feel guilty about even thinking 'bad thoughts'. >If you are not familiar with Gramsci and his methodology, it would be >worthwhile looking him up. Very interesting. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:09:34 +0100, White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote: This is a troll post. Look at the handle "WHITE Spirit. He's bringing up and old incident. I contend he knows exactly the story behind the whole "niggardly" controversy and is just sneaking racism through the back door > This is a troll post. > Look at the handle "WHITE Spirit. > He's bringing up and old incident. > I contend he knows exactly the story behind the whole "niggardly" > controversy and is just sneaking racism through the back door Don't be so ridiculous. >> This is a troll post. >> Look at the handle "WHITE Spirit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Don't be so ridiculous. You are so obvious it isn't funny. NOW GO AWAY. On 26 Jun 2010, Ray OHara wrote -snip- > NOW GO AWAY. Now, you know as well as I do, Ray, that trolls, boors, and white-power types won't go away as long as anyone continues to reply directly to them; it's the reason they post in the first place. Time to freeze him out completely, sez me. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > Now, you know as well as I do, Ray, that trolls, boors, and white-power types > won't go away as long as anyone continues to reply directly to them; it's > the reason they post in the first place. This is incredible. I have been posting here on occasion for quite some time yet because I express my concern about an issue of political correctness affecting language, I am accused of being a troll, a boor, a racist and now a white supremacist. I really don't think that I am the one who has a problem here. >> Now, you know as well as I do, Ray, that trolls, boors, and >> white-power types won't go away as long as anyone continues to reply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I really don't think that I am the one who has a problem here. Perhaps if you changed your nym to "Turps" no one would complain. SignatureRay UK > This is incredible. I have been posting here on occasion for quite some > time yet because I express my concern about an issue of political > correctness affecting language, I am accused of being a troll, a boor, a > racist and now a white supremacist. That's the politically correct way of saying that someone disagrees with you, especially if your own opinion is ... politically incorrect. >> This is incredible. I have been posting here on occasion for quite some >> time yet because I express my concern about an issue of political [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's the politically correct way of saying that someone disagrees with you, >especially if your own opinion is ... politically incorrect. Exactly. SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. > If we want to fit into society, we are obligated to > self-censor in order not to needlessly offend. Wouldn't cultivation of tolerance be a better way to fit in for everyone? Why should one person censor himself in order to accommodate another's intolerance? > We self-censor when > presented with a photograph of an ugly, red, squalling baby by a proud > parent and say something neutral or untruthfully kind. We self-censor > when our boss presents a ludicrous plan, when our wife asks if the > dress makes her look fat, and when our young children present an > unidentifiable scrawl and say it's picture of you, Daddy. Perhaps you do. I don't. > We function in society because we are capable of self-censoring. We can function in society without self-censorship. It depends on the company you keep. I find company that requires censorship to be tiresome. > I would think that your first priority would be to not offend > someone even if that person would be offended out of ignorance. Offense is always taken, never given. For this reason, there's not much point in trying to avoid offending people, because no matter what you do or don't do, you'll always offend someone. Stupid and uneducated people, in particularly, can be very easily offended by all sorts of things. > Words are not lost. They may be used less, but they remain as words. Political correctness gradually forces all the meaning out of all words, making them increasingly vague and useless, so as to avoid offending anyone. It is interesting to note that this bears an eerie resemblance to the goal and effects of Orwell's Newspeak. On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >>> I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any >>> more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > were to refer to a person of colour as a niggard I could expect to be > brought up before the Magistrates. And if you were to do that, you'd know precisely what word you were evoking, and your defence would be disingenuous in the extreme. (Let me guess: you wrote the David Willetts defence that "wants our advice" really meant "in need of our advice", didn't you?) > Yet, I don't want to lose such a old term from the English language. Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, bemused. One can either insist upon using them in the original sense -- and have to explain every time what is meant -- or find a synonym and be understood the first time around. It comes down to whether one's initial aim is to cause offence, or to be understood. Insisting upon using the word "niggard" falls squarely in the first camp. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> I'm just a bit worried about being prosecuted for using the words. In >> this country, it's so easy to be prosecuted for a race crime that if I >> were to refer to a person of colour as a niggard I could expect to be >> brought up before the Magistrates. > And if you were to do that, you'd know precisely what word you were > evoking, and your defence would be disingenuous in the extreme. What I find disingenuous are those who redefine language to support a political agenda. There is nothing offensive about the word 'niggard'. >> Yet, I don't want to lose such a old term from the English language. > Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original > sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, > bemused. One can either insist upon using them in the original sense -- > and have to explain every time what is meant -- or find a synonym and be > understood the first time around. > It comes down to whether one's initial aim is to cause offence, or to be > understood. Insisting upon using the word "niggard" falls squarely in the > first camp. This is not the case at all. I grew up using the word 'niggard' and now, all of a sudden, people are attempting to censor my speech or ascribe motives to me that never entered my mind simply for using a word that has been part of my vocabulary since my childhood. On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >> It comes down to whether one's initial aim is to cause offence, or to be >> understood. Insisting upon using the word "niggard" falls squarely in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ascribe motives to me that never entered my mind simply for using a word > that has been part of my vocabulary since my childhood. But now that you know that it causes offense to people who do not know its original meaning, it is impossible for you to "not know" that it causes offense to such people. And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly choose to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood the first time around without causing offense. It's entirely your choice, of course; I opt for being understood. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >>> It comes down to whether one's initial aim is to cause offence, or to be >>> understood. Insisting upon using the word "niggard" falls squarely in the >>> first camp. >> This is not the case at all. I grew up using the word 'niggard' and >> now, all of a sudden, people are attempting to censor my speech or >> ascribe motives to me that never entered my mind simply for using a word >> that has been part of my vocabulary since my childhood. > But now that you know that it causes offense to people who do not know its > original meaning, it is impossible for you to "not know" that it causes > offense to such people. I think it's more likely that some people choose to take offence in order to further a political agenda. > And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly choose > to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood the first > time around without causing offense. I disagree on the basis that my intention is not to cause offence and intention is the 'mens rea'. > It's entirely your choice, of course; I opt for being understood. I opt for preserving the language from unnecessary interference and political correctness. On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >> And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly >> choose to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood >> the first time around without causing offense. > > I disagree on the basis that my intention is not to cause offence and > intention is the 'mens rea'. The corollary of which is that you don't mind unintentionally causing offense. Who was it that said "A gentleman is never rude unintentionally"? By that measure you, sir, are self-evidently ill-bred and uncouth. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >>> And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly >>> choose to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood >>> the first time around without causing offense. >> I disagree on the basis that my intention is not to cause offence and >> intention is the 'mens rea'. > The corollary of which is that you don't mind unintentionally causing > offense. Apportioning blame for something that was unintentional is tantamount to a thought crime. Is this the way you would like to see society progress? > Who was it that said "A gentleman is never rude unintentionally"? By that > measure you, sir, are self-evidently ill-bred and uncouth. A rather useless tautology. Those who attempt to censor others due to a chip on their shoulder or for the purpose of political agitation tend to be uncouth in my experience, using both the current and the original definition of the word. > Who was it that said "A gentleman is never rude unintentionally"? A gentleman also never takes offense. > I think it's more likely that some people choose to take offence in > order to further a political agenda. Including people with screen names like "White Spirit"? >> I think it's more likely that some people choose to take offence in >> order to further a political agenda. > Including people with screen names like "White Spirit"? In the first instance, I have not taken offence at anything. In the second, what does my screen name have to do with anything? White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in news:i034hg$n4e$1 @news.eternal-september.org: >>> I think it's more likely that some people choose to take offence in >>> order to further a political agenda. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In the first instance, I have not taken offence at anything. In the > second, what does my screen name have to do with anything? It gives a clue - intentional or not - to the kind of person you are. Your views on race are well known in other groups. For example: "The amusing thing about people who support high levels of immigration is that, invariably, they never live in those areas with a large immigrant population. You can imagine their reactions to the suggestion that they should welcome them into their homes" And: "It's a disgusting state of affairs that the wishes of gobby Muslims are placed above the rights of the indigenous population by our increasingly politicised Police force." You also post links to the British National Party's site and you probably vote for them: they hold similar and equally repellent views to yours. By the way, when you say >> My manners are impeccable, and I am >> considered congenial, tactful and polite How does that square with your statement elsewhere, six weeks ago, that you don't care who you offend? Or with this: "I mean, sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm splitting c*** hairs here. I really f***ing apologise, you dried up piece of dog s*** that got rammed up a tramp's a***. F*** you."? For what it's worth, I've very seldom - in my 60 years - heard the word 'niggardly' used, and 'niggard' is even rarer. The topic is a particular favourite of people with racist views like yours, most of whom had never before heard the word, yet now rush to defend its use. I think from now on you should be regarded, by this group at least, as a troll. G. > White Spirit <wspirit@homechoice.co.uk> wrote in news:i034hg$n4e$1 > @news.eternal-september.org: [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > G. How anybody could have looked at the OP and not thought troll is beyond me. >> In the first instance, I have not taken offence at anything. In the >> second, what does my screen name have to do with anything? > It gives a clue - intentional or not - to the kind of person you are. What - by naming myself after a heavy metal band? Don't be so foolish. > Your views on race are well known in other groups. > For example: > "The amusing thing about people who support high levels of > immigration is that, invariably, they never live in those areas with a > large immigrant population. You can imagine their reactions to the > suggestion that they should welcome them into their homes" Pointing out the hypocrisy of left wing views hardly constitutes a commentary on race. > And: > "It's a disgusting state of affairs that > the wishes of gobby Muslims are placed above the rights of the > indigenous population by our increasingly politicised Police force." Look at the original context. No one in their right mind would say that it wasn't the case, unless of course you think that an extremist minority of political agitators should have the authority to instruct the Police to stop people from filming in public. > You also post links to the British National Party's site and you probably > vote for them: they hold similar and equally repellent views to yours. Actually, I have publicly discredited them and the people who vote for them many times and at length, as the record will attest. > By the way, when you say >>> My manners are impeccable, and I am >>> considered congenial, tactful and polite > How does that square with your statement elsewhere, six weeks ago, that > you don't care who you offend? It's all about context, old chap. > Or with this: > "I mean, sorry if I'm giving the impression that I'm splitting c*** hairs > here. I really f***ing apologise, you dried up piece of dog s*** that got > rammed up a tramp's a***. F*** you."? This has likewise been quoted completely out of context. If it were placed in context, the irony had been obvious. > For what it's worth, I've very seldom - in my 60 years - heard the word > 'niggardly' used, and 'niggard' is even rarer. Your personal experience is hardly the yardstick by which the usage should be compared. > The topic is a particular > favourite of people with racist views like yours, most of whom had never > before heard the word, yet now rush to defend its use. I have been using the word ever since I learned to read. I am not at all racist; the people I truly hold in disdain are those who allow political correctness to reign over common sense. > I think from now on you should be regarded, by this group at least, as a > troll. You are entitled to your opinion. > It gives a clue - intentional or not - to the kind of person you are. A drinker, perhaps? Or someone with strong metaphysical leanings? > I think from now on you should be regarded, by this group at least, as a > troll. Forced teaming. "This group" has no meaning, as it does not have a consciousness of its own. > I think it's more likely that some people choose to take offence in > order to further a political agenda. Yes. By claiming to be offended, people can attempt to force censorship of things they don't wish to hear. >On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >It's entirely your choice, of course; I opt for being understood. As someone who lives in proximity with other human beings I have to agree with all of that. But I sometimes wonder about the world we have created, that in order to be or appear to be civilised we have to pander to the stupid or ignorant. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England On 25 Jun 2010, Robin Bignall wrote >> On 25 Jun 2010, White Spirit wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > have created, that in order to be or appear to be civilised we have to > pander to the stupid or ignorant. Indeed -- it's not how one would set out to design a system of cultural values. But I figure that compared with yer actual, real-life available alternatives, allowing the uninformed their uninformed-ness isn't the worst model around. After all, I've already acknowledged that it's entirely the choice of "White Spirit"[1] to choose to be aggressively boorish (a trait which strikes me as a damn sight more stupid and ignorant than someone who says "I don't care what the word *means* -- it *sounds* offensive, so you shouldn't use it"). [1] I wonder if that's a "statement nym" -- or is it, rather, a "statement nym"? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > [1] I wonder if that's a "statement nym" -- or is it, rather, a "statement > nym"? It is neither. The fact that you feel the need to impugn my honour in this manner suggests that you have gone beyond political correctness. >On 25 Jun 2010, Robin Bignall wrote > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >alternatives, allowing the uninformed their uninformed-ness isn't the worst >model around. Well, quite. We have a meaning of the word "ignorant" in the north Midlands and maybe further north that is, roughly, "behaving as a boorish lout when you almost certainly know better". COD's meaning 2 -- discourteous -- doesn't quite catch it. I find it difficult to be civil to such people. SignatureRobin Bignall (BrE) Herts, England >>On 25 Jun 2010, Robin Bignall wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >-- discourteous -- doesn't quite catch it. I find it difficult to be >civil to such people. I'm familiar with that usage. This gets slightly closer to that meaning: http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/i.htm ignorant Adj. Not polite, disrespectful, rude. {Informal} SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >>On 25 Jun 2010, Robin Bignall wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >-- discourteous -- doesn't quite catch it. I find it difficult to be >civil to such people. Dublin Slang Dictionary and Phrase-book http://homepage.tinet.ie/~nobyrne/ij.htm Ignorant adj. Badly behaved, insensitive, uncouth SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) > Well, quite. We have a meaning of the word "ignorant" in the north > Midlands and maybe further north that is, roughly, "behaving as a > boorish lout when you almost certainly know better". COD's meaning 2 > -- discourteous -- doesn't quite catch it. I find it difficult to be > civil to such people. A rather self-righteous viewpoint. > But now that you know that it causes offense to people who do not know its > original meaning, it is impossible for you to "not know" that it causes > offense to such people. It is possible for such people to learn the true meaning of the word and cease taking offense, however. That would be more productive than gradually crippling the language to avoid offending an ever-increasing number of intolerant persons and groups. > And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly choose > to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood the first > time around without causing offense. Once again, offense is always taken, never given. On 26 Jun 2010, Mxsmanic wrote >> But now that you know that it causes offense to people who do not know >> its original meaning, it is impossible for you to "not know" that it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gradually crippling the language to avoid offending an ever-increasing > number of intolerant persons and groups. I simply wish to be understood without knowingly putting up obvious barriers to communication which then need to be dismantled. You may well differ, but I believe that is the civil and social course to take. >> And in light of that knowledge, opting to use the word is to knowingly >> choose to cause offense to such people rather than to being understood >> the first time around without causing offense. > > Once again, offense is always taken, never given. I disagree completely. At times it is given; at other times it is taken; and sometimes it is given and taken on the same occasion. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > I disagree completely. At times it is given; at other times it is taken; > and sometimes it is given and taken on the same occasion. Taking offense is always a deliberate choice, but giving offense is often uncontrollable. Therefore the solution is not to take offense. On 26 Jun 2010, Mxsmanic wrote >> I disagree completely. At times it is given; at other times it is >> taken; and sometimes it is given and taken on the same occasion. > > Taking offense is always a deliberate choice, but giving offense is > often uncontrollable. Often, yes; always, no. And when giving offense *is* controllable, it should not be given unless one intends to give it. > Therefore the solution is not to take offense. That's part of the solution; the other part is not to give it unless it is intended to be given. Knowingly giving offense and then saying "Well, that's the offended's problem" is dishonest: the fault in such cases lies with the offense-giver. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > And when giving offense *is* controllable, it should not be given unless one > intends to give it. For a person who never takes offense, it is extremely difficult to predict when others will take offense. Furthermore, it's hard to see why the burden of avoiding offense must fall on the person allegedly giving it, when he has no easy way of recognizing the act and may not be able to avoid it, whereas it is _always_ possible to avoid taking offense. Not giving offense requires two people; not taking it requires only one. > That's part of the solution; the other part is not to give it unless it is > intended to be given. > > Knowingly giving offense and then saying "Well, that's the offended's > problem" is dishonest: the fault in such cases lies with the offense-giver. So whenever anyone takes offense at anything, it's the fault of the person supposedly giving the offense? Some people take offense at a sunny day. On 26 Jun 2010, Mxsmanic wrote -snip- >> Knowingly giving offense and then saying "Well, that's the offended's >> problem" is dishonest: the fault in such cases lies with the >> offense-giver. > > So whenever anyone takes offense at anything, it's the fault of the > person supposedly giving the offense? Whenever anyone takes offense that has been *KNOWINGLY* given, the offense is indeed the responsibility (or fault) of the person who has *KNOWINGLY* given such offense. This discussion would be a whole lot easier if you'd take a look at the words that are being used: I don't just plonk random nine-letter adverbs into my sentences to make them a bit longer than they otherwise need to be. > Whenever anyone takes offense that has been *KNOWINGLY* given, the offense is > indeed the responsibility (or fault) of the person who has *KNOWINGLY* given > such offense. Why doesn't the alleged victim have a responsibility not to take offense? After all, it's a choice that anyone can make. On 26 Jun 2010, Mxsmanic wrote >> Whenever anyone takes offense that has been *KNOWINGLY* given, the >> offense is indeed the responsibility (or fault) of the person who has >> *KNOWINGLY* given such offense. > > Why doesn't the alleged victim have a responsibility not to take > offense? After all, it's a choice that anyone can make. Because the offense-giver is doing it *KNOWINGLY", and not taking responsibility for doing things that one knows are offensive is wrong. I'm very aware that many people share your views, and are very happy to excuse people who *knowingly* do something from carrying the responsibility of their knowledge of what they're doing. But there's no measurable difference between knowingly committing fraud, knowingly fiddling one's taxes, knowingly over-claiiing on one's Parliamentary allowances, and knowingly using language that will inevitably offend other people. It's quite central to what's wrong with life in our times: not taking responsibility for one's actions, when one is fully aware of what the outcome is bound to be. > But there's no measurable difference between knowingly committing fraud, > knowingly fiddling one's taxes, knowingly over-claiiing on one's > Parliamentary allowances, and knowingly using language that will inevitably > offend other people. The first three actions do unavoidable harm to others, but the last does not. There is no attitude that will prevent the consequences of fraud, but there is indeed an attitude that will prevent the consequences of something said in a deliberate attempt to offend. One need only choose not to take offense. > It's quite central to what's wrong with life in our times: not taking > responsibility for one's actions, when one is fully aware of what the outcome > is bound to be. Responsibility works both ways. You seem to think that someone trying to deliberately give offense must be held accountable, whereas someone deliberately choosing to take offense must not. Why the double standard? >> Whenever anyone takes offense that has been *KNOWINGLY* given, the >> offense is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Why doesn't the alleged victim have a responsibility not to take offense? > After all, it's a choice that anyone can make. Try this real world test, go tell your mother she is a skanky whore and you wish her dead. Is it her fault that she'll be offended or yours?. > Try this real world test, go tell your mother she is a skanky whore and you > wish her dead. > > Is it her fault that she'll be offended or yours? Hers. >> Try this real world test, go tell your mother she is a skanky whore and you >> wish her dead. >> >> Is it her fault that she'll be offended or yours? > >Hers. That's a convenient attitude to have. It allows you to say anything and accept no blame if you upset people. It's a denial of responsibility that most of can't allow ourselves to have. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > That's a convenient attitude to have. It allows you to say anything > and accept no blame if you upset people. There's no blame to accept. People choose to be offended, and I have no control over that. They need to take responsibility for their own hypersensitivity. > It's a denial of responsibility that most of can't allow ourselves to have. What "we" are you speaking for? >> Try this real world test, go tell your mother she is a skanky whore >> and you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hers. Because, of course, she has been accurately described, and is just a bit defensive. > Because, of course, she has been accurately described, and is just a > bit defensive. No, because it's up to her to not take offense. >>> I'm just a bit worried about being prosecuted for using the words. >>> In [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > ascribe motives to me that never entered my mind simply for using a > word that has been part of my vocabulary since my childhood. Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". I was confused when Li'l Black Sambo became suspect. And, as we have often discussed here, the bowdlerizing of "Eenie Meenie Minie Moe." And that funny name we used to apply to "Brazil nuts", or the name you got called for getting your cigarette butt too wet. > Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my > yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". I was > confused when Li'l Black Sambo became suspect. And, as we have often > discussed here, the bowdlerizing of "Eenie Meenie Minie Moe." And > that funny name we used to apply to "Brazil nuts", or the name you got > called for getting your cigarette butt too wet. This is a very poor analogy. You can't equate 'niggard' with words like 'nigger' or 'sambo'. 'Niggard' has never been intended to refer to a Negro and has never been a term used to denigrate (can I say that word?) someone because of their colour. >> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". I was [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Negro and has never been a term used to denigrate (can I say that word?) > someone because of their colour. Racist troll , begone with you you blackguard. > Racist troll , begone with you you blackguard. Grow up, you foolish man. >> Racist troll , begone with you you blackguard. > > Grow up, you foolish man. You are the juvenile troll who by bringing up an old incident is trying to inject racism and controversy in an otherwise non=political group. And your attempt is very obvious and clumsy. > You are the juvenile troll who by bringing up an old incident is trying to > inject racism and controversy On the contrary; I'm bringing up something that has just recently infected these shores. > in an otherwise non=political group. Do you deny that politics affects language? >> You are the juvenile troll who by bringing up an old incident is trying >> to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you deny that politics affects language? Lots of things affect language your post wasn't about that. >> Do you deny that politics affects language? > Lots of things affect language your post wasn't about that. That was precisely what my post was about, and it is quite clear from the content. Everything else has been an invention on your part. >> You are the juvenile troll who by bringing up an old incident is trying to >> inject racism and controversy > >On the contrary; I'm bringing up something that has just recently >infected these shores. Exactly. SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. > Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my > yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". What did it mean? >> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". > >What did it mean? Something similar to "fly in the ointment". My understanding of the phrase (in BrE) is similar to this: http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/7/messages/107.html .... A second reference agrees with the time period when this expression "appeared." ".nigger in the woodpile, a catch or hitch in a situation, a flaw, dates from 1852." From "I Hear America Talking" by Stuart Berg Flexner (Von Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, 1976). The Longman Dictionary of English Idioms (BrE) says: the/a nigger in the woodpile something or someone unexpected or hidden that spoils plans, causes trouble, etc: "he was a very good pilot at one time, but the nigger in the woodpile was that he drank too much when he was not on duty; he finally lost his job because of that". <The phrase refers to the difficulty of seeing someone with a dark skin who is hiding in a dark place http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fly-in-the-ointment.html A fly in the ointment A small but irritating flaw that spoils the whole thing. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.english.usage) >> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". > > What did it mean? Sorry, I was gone for the weekend. I respect the research Peter does, but wonder if it could be that the meaning, which I suppose I deduced from reading over the years, might also refer to the "nasty surprise" ("fly in the ointment" is a pretty good translation) that householders found when they went out in the night to investigate some noise, whatever their dogs were barking at, or what the sheriff's dogs were raising a ruckus over. I associate the term with runaway slaves in the pre-Civil War era in the US, in other words. But I can't verify that. Some old movies or books, perhaps, in which an innocent farmer is charged with harboring runaways, who are found while seeking shelter, having gone astray along the "underground railroad". But I may be wrong. >>> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >>> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > who are found while seeking shelter, having gone astray along the > "underground railroad". But I may be wrong. It means the person so accused has a black ancestor. >>>> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in >>>> my [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It means the person so accused has a black ancestor. Well, that's another explanation of the source. I can accept it as a metaphor. But does it not imply that the person's mother was promiscuous? Or give any reason why there is the woodpile reference? At least my explanation and Peter's cited reference explain a bit. >>>>> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >>>>> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Or give any reason why there is the woodpile reference? > At least my explanation and Peter's cited reference explain a bit. Where it came from I haven't a clue. Sayings need not make sense such as "Blood is thicker than water"{which I do know the origin of} but people know what is meant. A "nigger in the woodpile" has never meant in my experience one has a promiscuos mother. The "woodpile" referenced is the familiy ancestry. >>>>>> Oh how I grieve the loss of picturesque terms that I learned in my >>>>>> yoof. One of my favorites was "nigger in the woodpile". [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > The "woodpile" referenced is the familiy ancestry. My understanding the phrase is very similar to Ray's. It's a statement that there's something in the person's background. Not necessarily that there was a black ancestor, or that the mother was promiscuous, but something. The "nigger in the woodpile" is something hidden. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I grew up using the word 'niggard' and > now, all of a sudden, people are attempting to censor my speech or > ascribe motives to me that never entered my mind simply for using a > word > that has been part of my vocabulary since my childhood. I have known the word for I-don't-know-how-long. Decades. I have never had a reason to use it in speech or writing. It's an obsolete, unnecessary word. Anyone who uses it in ordinary speech is probably just showing off his vocabulary or deliberately seeking controversy. SignatureJohn Varela > Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original > sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, > bemused. One can either insist upon using them in the original sense -- > and have to explain every time what is meant -- or find a synonym and be > understood the first time around. The problem is that there often isn't a synonym, so you might have to substitute a paragraph for a single word. As the general level of literacy declines, you must say more and more with a smaller and smaller vocabulary to be understood, and yet you are still less understood than you might have been in times past, when educated people has some reasonable mastery of their native languages. > It comes down to whether one's initial aim is to cause offence, or to be > understood. Insisting upon using the word "niggard" falls squarely in the > first camp. To you, perhaps. I don't take offense upon encountering it. >> Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original >> sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >in times past, when educated people has some reasonable mastery of their >native languages. The discussion has been about "niggard" and "niggardly". Consider the sentence "Because of his employer's niggardly attitude, John made sure he attached receipts to his expense account". If you can't re-write that sentence with a single word to replace "niggardly", it is your level of literacy that is in question. In fact, the sentence loses emphasis, but not meaning, if the word is omitted and not replaced. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > The discussion has been about "niggard" and "niggardly". Consider the > sentence "Because of his employer's niggardly attitude, John made sure > he attached receipts to his expense account". If you can't re-write > that sentence with a single word to replace "niggardly", it is your > level of literacy that is in question. In fact, the sentence loses > emphasis, but not meaning, if the word is omitted and not replaced. So why does the word "niggardly" exist, if it has one or more perfect synonyms? >> The discussion has been about "niggard" and "niggardly". Consider the >> sentence "Because of his employer's niggardly attitude, John made sure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >So why does the word "niggardly" exist, if it has one or more perfect >synonyms? Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used in place of other words. In doing so, he didn't eliminate any words. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used > in place of other words. No, he came up with a collection of words with similar (but not identical) meanings. If all of them meant the same thing, you would only need one. >> Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used >> in place of other words. > >No, he came up with a collection of words with similar (but not identical) >meanings. If all of them meant the same thing, you would only need one. I repeat...he came up with a fat volume of words that can be used in place of other words. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used >> in place of other words. > > No, he came up with a collection of words with similar (but not identical) > meanings. If all of them meant the same thing, you would only need one. Exactly. I don't know what agenda all the people that denigrate the word "niggardly" have, but it is a useful and precise word. Obword: http://www.slate.com/id/2154854/ The author is conservative, and therefore dumb, as he himself concedes in the article, :) but the article's point is very valid. We should not allow political correctness to take over, and taboo words just because ignoramuses might be offended by them. SignatureYou'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. -- Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. On 27 Jun 2010, Patok wrote >>> Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used >>> in place of other words. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Exactly. I don't know what agenda all the people that denigrate the > word "niggardly" have, but it is a useful and precise word. What specific nuance and precision does "niggardly" possess that "stingy" does not? They're as close to being perfect synonyms as you're likely to find in English. > On 27 Jun 2010, Patok wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > They're as close to being perfect synonyms as you're likely to find in > English. Out of interest is first bit of niggardly pronounced like ni as in "night" or as in "knee"? On 27 Jun 2010, aquachimp wrote >> On 27 Jun 2010, Patok wrote >>> Exactly. I don't know what agenda all the people that denigrate the >>> word "niggardly" have, but it is a useful and precise word. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Out of interest is first bit of niggardly pronounced like ni as in > "night" or as in "knee"? The first way; that's where the completely erroneous idea -- but now sufficiently embedded that many of us are content to consider the word unusable -- comes from that it's somehow related to "nigger". But I'd still like to know what specific nuance and precision "niggardly" possesses that "stingy" does not. That seems to me to be central to the argument in some quarters that the loss of the word impoverishes the language. > On 27 Jun 2010, aquachimp wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > argument in some quarters that the loss of the word impoverishes the > language. None that I can think of. Indeed, it's like using an old, obsolete word. > Out of interest is first bit of niggardly pronounced like ni as in > "night" or as in "knee"? It rhymes with "nigger," which is one reason why uneducated people object to it so (those who can read might also object to its spelling, too close for their comfort to the "N-word"). > > Out of interest is first bit of niggardly pronounced like ni as in > > "night" or as in "knee"? > > It rhymes with "nigger," which is one reason why uneducated people object to > it so (those who can read might also object to its spelling, too close for > their comfort to the "N-word"). You saying it rhymes with "bigger" too? Or is it more like "biker". As for objecting to it due to what you describe as sounding like nigger.. surely awareness of such social subelties would define one as being more educated then someone who is supposedly otherwise ignorantly uninformed. Apart from that, I'm as yet not entirely decide on whether to classify racism as a preventable disease or an equivilant form of ignorance, but as both denote uneducatedness, if you still think those who object to niggard are uneducated, then yes, one might agree that we are all ignorant, it's just that some of us are less ignorant than others. > You saying it rhymes with "bigger" too? Yes. I didn't give "bigger" as an example because it is extremely offensive to many people, and has been universally replaced by "larger" among right-thinking individuals. > As for objecting to it due to what you describe as sounding like > nigger.. surely awareness of such social subelties would define one > as being more educated then someone who is supposedly otherwise > ignorantly uninformed. Pandering to ignorance and stupidity is not subtlety, social or otherwise. It is more likely to be manipulation among intelligent persons, and ignorance among less intelligent persons. Education helps, but unfortunately education can follow any one of many different paths. "You've got to be carefully taught." Academic institutions are often cesspools of political correctness and intolerance of the worst kind. I'm reminded of this apocryphal story, supposedly from Taco Bell: "As director of communications, I was asked to prepare a memo reviewing our company's training programs and materials. In the body of the memo one of the sentences mentioned the "pedagogical approach" used by one of the training manuals. The day after I routed the memo to the executive committee, I was called into the HR Director's office, and was told that the executive VP wanted me out of the building by lunch. When I asked why, I was told that she wouldn't stand for "perverts" (pedophiles?) working in her company. Finally he showed me her copy of the memo, with her demand that I be fired, with the word "pedagogical" circled in red. The HR Manager was fairly reasonable, and once he looked the word up in his dictionary and made a copy of the definition to send to my boss, he told me not to worry. He would take care of it. Two days later a memo to the entire staff came out, directing us that no words which could not be found in the local Sunday newspaper could be used in company memos. A month later, I resigned. In accordance with company policy, I created my resignation letter by pasting words together from the Sunday paper." > Apart from that, I'm as yet not entirely decide on whether to classify > racism as a preventable disease or an equivilant form of ignorance, > but as both denote uneducatedness if you still think those who object > to niggard are uneducated, then yes, one might agree that we are all > ignorant, it's just that some of us are less ignorant than others. Thank you for illustrating my point. > > You saying it rhymes with "bigger" too? > > Yes. I didn't give "bigger" as an example because it is extremely offensive to > many people, and has been universally replaced by "larger" among > right-thinking individuals. Nig, Big, Rig all rhyme. "Lar" wouldn't fit. Come to think of it, Nyg (when pronounced like the Ni in Nigel) wouldn't work either. And it's my understanding that it is the nyg sound that niggard begins wit. So saying the word wouldn't really sound like nigger at all. The second half doesn't really count, regardless as to whether one is right/left- thinking or kind of wishy washy liberal minded. You can find many a word to rhyme with "...ard" > > As for objecting to it due to what you describe as sounding like > > nigger.. surely awareness of such social subtleties would define one > > as being more educated then someone who is supposedly otherwise > > ignorantly uninformed. > > Pandering to ignorance and stupidity is not subtlety, social or otherwise. Ignorance and stupidity being hall marks of racism, so what's your point? "Niggardly" could well be a form of pandering because it easily be construed to mean applied thus; "when maximus got himself all violently worked up he was just niggardly (like a nigga)." There, there are 2 forms of ignorance on display. The first being ignorance of the meaning of the word and the second being symptomatic of racism. On the basis of the probability that you can fully educate some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, indiscriminate attempts to re-use an already fairly obsolete term would lead to pandering to ignorance and stupidity. >It > is more likely to be manipulation among intelligent persons, and ignorance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are often cesspools of political correctness and intolerance of the worst > kind. And politics, so your point there is somewhat redundant. > I'm reminded of this apocryphal story, supposedly from Taco Bell: <snipped tedious story.> The error of mobs hounding paediatricians instead of paedos would have been a better example > > Apart from that, I'm as yet not entirely decide on whether to classify > > racism as a preventable disease or an equivalent form of ignorance, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thank you for illustrating my point. Your welcome, though I seem to have missed the bit where you had indicated, that racists are merely more ignorant that others. > "Niggardly" could well be a form of pandering because it easily be > construed to mean applied thus; "when maximus got himself all > violently worked up he was just niggardly (like a nigga)." What is a nigga? > There, there are 2 forms of ignorance on display. The first being > ignorance of the meaning of the word and the second being symptomatic > of racism. I think there is only a single form of projection on display. > On the basis of the probability that you can fully educate some of the > people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, > indiscriminate attempts to re-use an already fairly obsolete term > would lead to pandering to ignorance and stupidity. There's nothing obsolete about niggardly. It is just as common as most of its near-synonyms. > The error of mobs hounding paediatricians instead of paedos would have > been a better example Either example suffices to illustrate the point. > Your welcome, though I seem to have missed the bit where you had > indicated, that racists are merely more ignorant that others. Racists are not especially ignorant. There are lots of ignorant people in the world, and most of them are not racists. > What specific nuance and precision does "niggardly" possess that "stingy" > does not? A niggard parts with money, but only very reluctantly and with much explicit or implicit protest. A stingy person simply does not part with money at all. > They're as close to being perfect synonyms as you're likely to find in > English. I'm surprised that you're able to reach this conclusion given the number of words in the English language. How many other words have you been able to exclude from your vocabulary on the same basis? >> What specific nuance and precision does "niggardly" possess that "stingy" >> does not? > >A niggard parts with money, but only very reluctantly and with much explicit >or implicit protest. A stingy person simply does not part with money at all. That's nonsense. Tell me that "stingy" is incorrectly used in this sentence: "My uncle was so stingy that he even bought his underwear at Goodwill". Obviously, the uncle spent money. >> They're as close to being perfect synonyms as you're likely to find in >> English. > >I'm surprised that you're able to reach this conclusion given the number of >words in the English language. How many other words have you been able to >exclude from your vocabulary on the same basis? SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > That's nonsense. Tell me that "stingy" is incorrectly used in this > sentence: "My uncle was so stingy that he even bought his underwear > at Goodwill". Obviously, the uncle spent money. But not at the better shops. It's a fine line, but not one that I'm willing to erase merely to accommodate the stupidity and intolerance of others. I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without it. On 27 Jun 2010, Mxsmanic wrote >> That's nonsense. Tell me that "stingy" is incorrectly used in this >> sentence: "My uncle was so stingy that he even bought his underwear [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without it. You flatter yourself. What "your people" have learned is to be proud of your own stupidity. It's a common and recognisable marker of stupid people. > You flatter yourself. What is flattering about being impatient? > What "your people" have learned is to be proud of your own stupidity. Which "people" do you have in mind, given that you already seem to know something about them? >> You flatter yourself. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which "people" do you have in mind, given that you already seem to > know something about them? ["I'm impatient with stupidity; my people have learned to live without it."] You have anticipated my question to you. Who are these happy people? Your countrymen? Your family? Your entourage? Your staff? PLu? Others (please specify)? Please choose as many of the above as fit the definition. > You have anticipated my question to you. Who are these happy people? > Your countrymen? Your family? Your entourage? Your staff? PLu? > Others (please specify)? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/ >> You have anticipated my question to you. Who are these happy >> people? Your countrymen? Your family? Your entourage? Your >> staff? PLu? Others (please specify)? > > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043456/ Of course. To err is human, Klaatu barada nikto. >>> Peter Mark Roget came up with a fat volume of words that can be used >>> in place of other words. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > political correctness to take over, and taboo words just because > ignoramuses might be offended by them. The whole article and thread are about an incident where a white employee looking at a sparse budget commented on the niggardly amount of money they were getting and a black employee not knowing the word, or maybe mishearing it raised quite the fuss. David Howard incident On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Howard tendered his resignation, and Williams accepted it.[1] However, after pressure from the gay community (of which Howard was a member) an internal review into the matter was brought about, and the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead, insisting that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. "I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That's naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can't afford to be colorblind. They don't have to think about race every day. An African American does."[1] It has been speculated that this incident inspired Philip Roth's novel The Human Stain.[ This is where the article author and White Spirit are trying to lead the discuission. heading. >> The discussion has been about "niggard" and "niggardly". Consider the >> sentence "Because of his employer's niggardly attitude, John made sure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So why does the word "niggardly" exist, if it has one or more perfect > synonyms? Parsimonious. So what's the bottom line here? It seems to be the consensus in this group that it is now politically *incorrect* to use the word "niggardly" because it can be misinterpreted by ignorant people as being racist. Is that correct? If so, is there a master list somewhere of words that may be misinterpreted by ignorant people? Is the list update frequently? I want to be politically correct and avoid offending ignorant people. SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. > If so, is there a master list somewhere of words that may be > misinterpreted by ignorant people? Is the list update frequently? Yes. There are multiple publishers, but they all use the word "dictionary" to describe their product. > I want to be politically correct and avoid offending ignorant people. It's impossible to be completely politically correct. Anything done to avoid offending one person is guaranteed to offend some other person. You have to pick the groups you want to please and ignore the others, and hope that the groups you've chosen don't have conflicting standards of political correctness. For example, while "nigger" is considered highly incorrect for white people to use, black people (in the U.S., at least) frequently use the word to refer to each other. That they would use a word that they hold in such contempt to refer to each other says much about their attitudes towards themselves and their peers. I note that Jews do not call each other "kikes" or by any other terms they find offensive in conversation, and the fact that many blacks do this is very revealing. >For example, while "nigger" is considered highly incorrect for white people to >use, black people (in the U.S., at least) frequently use the word to refer to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >find offensive in conversation, and the fact that many blacks do this is very >revealing. That's a very interesting observation and point. Well stated. I wonder if there are any "blacks" in this NG. I would be curious about their opinion. SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. >> If so, is there a master list somewhere of words that may be >> misinterpreted by ignorant people? Is the list update frequently? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > terms they find offensive in conversation, and the fact that many > blacks do this is very revealing. Actually ... my roommate one year, a Jew whose parents were from Poland, once told me that "kike" was a word used by the longer-established German Jewish immigrants to refer to his relatives when they first arrived in North America. As for using it of themselves: a Jewish-Canadian film-maker named Jamie Kastner has made a documentary called _Kike Like Me_. (I've seen it shown on television a couple of times, and the second time it was called "Jew Like Me". Presumably someone objected.) It's worth seeing, although the end is disturbing. He travelled around Europe presenting himself to people as a Jew and filming their reactions. The last part of the film is his visit to Auschwitz. He got as far as a portrait gallery of the murdered at the crematorium, and left without completing the tour; and I was ready to leave too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efIF4WSXc_I > So what's the bottom line here? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Is that correct? No. It's an archaic word thar gained noteriety because of one incident. In my experience those who play the "politically correct" card are upset that they can't be ignorant and get a free pass over it. >> So what's the bottom line here? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No. >It's an archaic word thar gained noteriety because of one incident. So it's ok to use "niggardly" with the understanding of course that some people who are ignorant of it's true meaning might be offended? SignatureWork is the curse of the drinking class. > So it's ok to use "niggardly" with the understanding of course that > some people who are ignorant of it's true meaning might be offended? It's okay to use "niggardly," period. > It's an archaic word thar gained noteriety because of one incident. There's nothing archaic about it. The fact that a word isn't often used doesn't make it obsolete or archaic. (Indeed, "archaic" would be considered "archaic" by some.) > >> Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original > >> sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida niggardly attitude tight fistedness There, saved you 2 characters (-: On Jun 27, 9:21 am, aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Words change their meanings and become difficult to use in their original > > >> sense all the time -- disinterested, awful, gay, moot, fulsome, terrific, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > stinginess > There, saved you 2 characters (-: Oh hell, why not ; stinginess, .. saves a whole word really. > Oh hell, why not ; > stinginess, .. saves a whole word really. "It's better" saves two words over "saves a whole word really." Why use five words when you can use three? > niggardly attitude > tight fistedness > > There, saved you 2 characters (-: "Fistedness" and "tight" are both obvious allusions to sexual perversion, and are therefore offensive. Find some other synonym. > > niggardly attitude > > tight fistedness [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Fistedness" and "tight" are both obvious allusions to sexual perversion, and > are therefore offensive. Find some other synonym. Referring to them as "sexual perversions" might be offensive to participants. > Referring to them as "sexual perversions" might be offensive to > participants. Participants? > > Referring to them as "sexual perversions" might be offensive to > > participants. > > Participants? Those engaged with sexual perversions which warrent such allusions., >> niggardly attitude >> tight fistedness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and > are therefore offensive. Find some other synonym. Just because that is what you have for sex doesn't mean it's everybodies version. Your posts are very similar in tone to WS's, similar enough to raise suspicions of sock-puppetry. > Just because that is what you have for sex doesn't mean it's everybodies > version. I haven't said anything about my own sexual preferences. But if I'm offended by the expression, isn't everyone in the world obligated to stop using it so that I'm not longer offended? That seems to be what people are arguing here. If someone is offended by "niggardly," then the world must stop using it. So dosn't the same apply to "tight-fistedness"? If not, why not? >> Just because that is what you have for sex doesn't mean it's everybodies >> version. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > So > dosn't the same apply to "tight-fistedness"? If not, why not? Can you show me it niggardly has been banned? > Can you show me it niggardly has been banned? Can you show me where I used the word "ban"? >> Can you show me it niggardly has been banned? > > Can you show me where I used the word "ban"? Where you said "then the world must stop using it". Can you say "disingenuous"? Ray has a point: I've seen you posting in AEU/UE, occasionally, for quite a long time, and I don't think you're a troll, but there are trollish riffs in your postings in this thread. > I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any > more. Your informant is ten years behind the times. Next he'll be telling you not to say "picnic." ¬R >I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any >more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? > > I'm not inclined to allow political agenda to change the nature of the > English language. I would contend you are making a troll post.I base that on the subject and your handle. I'm sure you damn well know the whole "niggardly" controversy and are sneaking bigotry in through the back door. > I was told that it is not 'politically correct' to use these words any > more. How has such a ridiculous state of affairs come about? It's mainly a problem in the United States, where most people are only barely literate. Among the people most likely to find this word offensive, about two thirds are functionally illiterate and living in a subculture that condones the use of violence to resolve disagreements. > I'm not inclined to allow political agenda to change the nature of the > English language. Then don't. There's nothing wrong with insisting on good English. You'll just receive a lot of heat from people who are stupid, including physical violence in some cases. I rarely have occasion to use the word, except when speaking of my employer, but I don't hesitate to use it if it best does the job. On Jun 27, 1:29 pm, Mxsmanic <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote: > aquachimp writes: > > Oh hell, why not ; [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why use five words when you can use three? Ah, but then the slight comical link between "stinginess" and the saving of "a whole word" would be lost and therefore "it's better" would not actually be, er, better. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.