On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, [email protected] wrote: > On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote: >>> >>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread >>> ignorance of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem >>> with the verb "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to >>> exonerate a word despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist >>> etymology (e.g., niggardly). That a word falsely gets attributed to >>> a category in which it doesn't belong is irrelevant. If two separate >>> meanings/derivations converge to an identically spelled modern word, >>> I don't believe the innocent word (when used in its original context) >>> deserves to be written off. Let us truly abide by what you claim to >>> support: its current use *is* relevant. >> >> Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly similar >> to "happy" or "joyful", but for which there is no direct substitute. >> Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are >> bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel. > > Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)
That's quoting, no different from watching an old movie. (And watching _Victor/Victoria_ is especially interesting in this regard.) I meant you, personally, using the word in conversation. I'll bet you've pretty much wiped it out of your everyday vocabulary. The fact that you've admitted it will be almost a year from now indicates that you understand the point I'm making. ;-) -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> "If you want a picture of the future of Usenet, imagine a foot stuck in a human mouth -- forever." --Avram Grumer
