99
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Nakoichi@hexbear.net to c/main

Also here is the head mod defending a transphobe/chaser https://hexbear.net/comment/3762972

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

AKTHUALLY there are non-insulting uses, e.g. to "retard" something or saying something is a "retardant" (like a fire retardant). Yes, those are the same "retard" because if I understand correctly, that's where the word originated from.

I also want to point out the circular logic you have going on. It's a slur because it's considered one, so it's only use is as a slur, as a result, it only gets used as a slur, so it's considered a slur, so it only ever gets used as one.

To be clear, that's not disregarding what you said, but I wanted to point out a flaw in that logic.

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 year ago

Sure, there are related non slur words, but those aren't applied to people. "To retard" is a verb, not an adjective or noun. "retardent" is an adjective, but describes the action of soemething, not a quality. Using the noun or past tense adjective is the slur.

And language doesn't have logic. Like, its pretty weird to suggest it does. Why is fuck a curse? Because its a curse. Why do we call blue things blue? Becabse they are blue. Language and logic rarely intersect (except in lojban). Language is determined by usage, and the usage of that word as a noun is as a slur.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, there are related non slur words, but those aren't applied to people. "To retard" is a verb, not an adjective or noun. "retardent" is an adjective, but describes the action of soemething, not a quality. Using the noun or past tense adjective is the slur.

You're right, that's why I started with "AKTHUALLY". I knew I was being pedantic and wanted to signal that. Nevertheless, I find it interesting that the two uses of the word share the same origin.

And language doesn't have logic.

I can dream okay? Things make so much more sense when people follow logic. "Fuck" shouldn't be considered a curse because it isn't cursing anyone.

Profanity?

Sure I guess.

A curse?

No, dumbass (not you, I'm referring to an imaginary individual), it's not cursing anyone you fucko.

Why is blue, "blue"?

Because it had to be called something.

I know that you were looking for examples of language being illogical, but I wanna point out that while "fuck" is a good example, "blue" not so much. "Blue" is consistent with the internal logic of English (it's a name given to an otherwise unnamed color), but "fuck" being defined as a curse word isn't consistent with English's internal logic.

To curse something is to invoke some kind of metaphysical or supernatural power against someone as a form of punishment^1. Last I checked, there isn't a god, demon, angel, or other religious entity called, "fuck", "fucko", "fuckhead" or any other variation, and as such, it shouldn't be considered a curse word. Nor can "fuck" be considered a form of curse by itself. "Get fucked" could be considered a curse, but "fuck" by itself shouldn't be viewed as a curse.

Could it be considered profane? Sure, I guess, but I feel like that'd be watering down the definition of profane/profanity. However, you are correct it pointing out that it doesn't follow logic to label it a curse word.

In the future, an alternative to "blue" might be to point out read, read, red. Read and read are pronounced differently, but spelled the same. Read and red are pronounced the same, but spelled differently.


^1 there's an alternate definition for "curse" which goes:

"a coarse or blasphemous word or phrase used to express anger or other strong emotion."

However, that's extremely broad, as blaspheme refers to

"the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk."

And profane?

"relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious."

...right.

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Interestingly, colors don't have to have distinct names. There are languages without a distinct color name for blue. English didn't have a distinct word for pink until the 17th century, when the word was borrowed from the name of a flower, or a distinct word for orange until 14th century when it was borrowed from the fruit. Even the word blue didn't enter english until 13th century (from french), although old english had a word for at least related hues.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

I didn't know that, that's pretty interesting! Still, I mean, it doesn't technically go against any rules for the color blue to be called "blue" afaik.

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, its more a "thats just how it is" sort of thing

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago

Also, I think the coarse part of that definition is doing the work when it comes to fuck. And what is a coarse word? I'll know it when I see it.

[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I tend to think of a coarse word as something that feels coarse when it's spoken, like jerk or shrine; words that have a "ch", "sh", "zh" or similar sound. Fuck doesn't fit the bill though.

Edit: Oh, a good example from a previous reply I made, is "actually". "Actually" feels coarse to me, but then again, I tend to pronounce actually like "acschually", where the T makes a "sch" sound.

[-] uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think, in the definition, its more a social comentary. Coarse language comes from coarse people

this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
99 points (100.0% liked)

Blahaj Lemmy Meta

2322 readers
2 users here now

Blåhaj Lemmy is a Lemmy instance attached to blahaj.zone. This is a group for questions or discussions relevant to either instance.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS